Featured WAS THERE A FEMALE NT APOSTLE?

Either of those is fine. What I don't think anyone can make the verse mean is that they were well-known apostles.

 

Never, but that seems to be what some here want it to mean.

 

I have a question if there was a woman Apostle as some claim on here wouldn't she be disqualified as one according to the book of Timothy, I believe written by Paul... Don't Apostles teach?

I Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The following verses explain why she was disqualified... Brother Glen

2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

 

Uh oh!

Calvin's commentary regarding Junia and Andronicus:

"In the third place, he calls them Apostles: he uses not this word in its proper and common meaning, but extends it wider, even to all those who not only teach in one Church, but also spend their labor in promulgating the gospel everywhere. He then, in a general way, calls those in this place Apostles, who planted Churches by carrying here and there the doctrine of salvation; for elsewhere he confines this title to that first order which Christ at the beginning established, when he appointed the twelve disciples. It would have been otherwise strange, that this dignity should be only ascribed to them, and to a few others. But as they had embraced the gospel by faith before Paul, he hesitates not to set them on this account before himself."

 

I appreciate the focus of the answers here. When this topic was brought up before I recall there being a lot of red herrings thrown around....granted, the scope of that discussion was broader and about the role of women in the church period and not just this bit of scripture.

 

Yes, apostolos means "sent one," and that is how the 12 got their title. Notice that in the Gospels when they received that title, it was simply because they were sent out by Christ: Matt. 10:1-2, Mark 6:30, Luke 6:13. They were not given special authority over believers at that time. Paul carefully describes the apostleship in Eph. 4:11-12 as an office, just like pastor and the others, for teaching service for Christ in the church.

As for James not being an apostle from Gal. 1:19, how in the world do you get that? I say that the ei mh construction clearly shows that Paul meant to refer to James as an apostle.

Again, how do you deal with Barnabas being called an apostle? You haven't discussed that.

Where in the NT do you get that there could not be more apostles? It's just not there.

I agree completely. And I do not say that anyone but God can call apostles. That is never in Scripture. Just so, a missionary in 2016 must be called by God.

Not true. It is quite easy to discern who is a false apostle (2 Cor. 11:13). All we have to do is ask, are these present day "apostles" winning folks to Christ (1 Cor. 9:2) and planting churches like the apostle Paul did in is ministry?

Would you care to prove this assertion?

 

Many scholars and missiologists refer to two kinds of apostles: primary ones, the 12 appointed by Christ, who will judge the 12 tribes and have their names in the foundation of the New Jerusalem, and secondary apostles who are nevertheless missionaries.

"But many scholars on both sides of this issue are guilty of accepting too readily a key supposition in this line of reasoning: that 'apostle' here refers to an authoritative leadership position such as that held by the 'Twelve' and by Paul. In fact, Paul often uses the title 'apostle' in a 'looser' sense: sometimes simply to denote a 'messenger' or emissary; and sometimes to denote a 'commissioned missionary.' When Paul uses the word in the former sense, he makes clear the source and purpose of the 'emissary's' commission. So ''apostle' here probably means 'travelling missionary'" (The Epistle to the Romans, by Douglas Moo, note on Rom. 16:7, pp. 923-924).

"The pair are further described as 'outstanding among the apostles.' We cannot well reduce the word 'apostle' to 'messenger' in this instance, however suitable it may be in Philippians 2:25, and it goes without saying that Andronicus and Junias do not belong in the circle of the Twelve. What is left is the recognition that occasionally the word is use somewhat broadly to include leaders in Christian work (cf. 1 Thess. 2:7)" (Romans, by Everett F. Harrison, p. 164, in The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol. 10, ed. Frank Gaebelein).

 

Here is what some leading missiologists say about the term "apostle" (there are others):

1. J. Herbert Kane, The Making of a Missionary (pp. 13-24; he speaks of the importance of a call in the rest of the chapter). "To whom should the term 'missionary' be applied? Obviously today's missionary is not in the same class with the twelve apostles, who must forever remain in a class by themselves (Lk 22:30; Re 21:14). They do, however, have much in common with the 'second-string' apostles who were sent out by the various churches on teaching and preaching missions to all parts of the Roman Empire" (p. 14).

“The word missionary comes from the Latin word mitto, which means ‘to send.’ It is the equivalent of the Greek word apostello, which also means ‘to send.’ The root meaning of the two words is identical” (Ibid, p. 13).

2. G. Christian Weiss, The Heart of Missionary Theology: "Paul stated that not only was he ordained a preacher, he was also an apostle. Paul knew that he was an apostle (see Acts 22:21; I Tim. 1:1). A missionary is, in a sense, an apostle. The word 'missionary' is the exact Latin equivalent for the Greek word 'apostle.' Both words have the same meaning--'one who has been sent.' Jesus said to His disciples after His resurrection, 'As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you' (John 20:21)" (pp. 66-67).

3. Robert Hall Glover—“The very name of the book (of Acts) is in keeping with this through. The word ‘apostle’ (from the Greek apostello—‘I send’) is a synonym for ‘missionary’ (from the Latin mitto—‘I send’). An apostle, or missionary, is a ‘sent-one,’ and so the book might just as accurately have been called ‘The Doings of the Missionaries’” (The Bible Basis of Missions, by Robert Hall Glover, p. 26. Chicago: Moody Press, 1946).

4. George Peters in Bib. Sac., Oct-Dec. 1965, "Let the Missionary Be a Missionary." "After a careful examination of the Biblical data James Hastings in his Dictionary of the Apostolic Church comes to the following conclusion: 'The cumulative effect of the facts and probabilities stated above is very strong—so strong that we are justified in affirming that in the New Testament there are persons other than the Twelve and St. Paul who were called apostles, and in conjecturing that they were rather numerous. All who seemed to be called by Christ or the Spirit to do missionary work would be thought worthy of the title, especially such as had been in personal contact with the Master.' This conclusion is substantiated by the usage of the word apostle for itinerant ministers in the subapostolic age."

 

"There were only 12 apostles."

"The New Testament was written by the apostles."

"Females can't be apostles."



At least that is what I heard preached for decades!

Sort of like hearing that all women need to be silent in church, yet the largest group of people that made up a choir was the women.

 

This is a worthy line of inquiry. Let's see where we end up, so here's my technical view of the whole thing.

The key phrase here is: οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις

As Wallace and Burer point out in their article (Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-Examination of Rom 16.7 NTS, 47 pgs 76-91...available online for free btw) the issue comes down to whether or not ἐπίσημοι should be considered a noun or adjectival.

Dr Wallace, who contributed to this NTS (New Testament Studies) article, is a scholar par excellence and I have personally benefited from his work and ministry. However, I disagree with him on this. My disagreement is, of course tempered, but there are also plenty of other significant NT scholars who disagree with him on this issue. In evangelical circles both Darrell Bock and Craig Keener come to mind, but others abound. This issue isn't cut and dry, so you'll generally find someone promoting any one of a number of views.

Junia as a name is Latin and not Greek. Since Romans is written to the churches in Rome this likely points to someone who lived in the city and was an early believer in Jesus. The name, Junia, in Latin is almost certainly female and Paul (or his amanuensis, Tertius) simply imported the name into Greek and transliterated the Latin. So there is little challenge to think that Junias would have been a male name, most NT scholars don't believe that is the case either.

The challenge, as BDAG (the premier Greek lexicon) points out, is that as ἐπίσημοι is used in language contemporary to the 1st century, it would seem that Junia is identified as an apostle not that she is known to the apostles (but not one herself.) Of the examples that BDAG presents, the evidence seems to point to the idea that Junia is both an apostle herself and well known among the group of apostles for her work. Now, what is interesting is that in replying to several objections, Michael Burer (the co-author) sent a reply to Adrian Warnock that notes several other sources of the use of this term where the rendering is more in line with his and Wallace's view. Ultimately, though, I am unconvinced of their position given the amount of scholarship on the other side. Burer and Wallace assume a conclusion not based on contemporary evidence in Hellenistic Greek. Burer and Wallace end up admitting that Lucian's usage of the term (perhaps the closest contemporary usage) agrees with the view that Junia is an apostle, their argument seems, to me, to fail.

Finally, in their article, Burer and Wallace appeal to Louw and Nida's lexicon to support their argument, but do so without noting the other inflections that the lexicon provides for this term which are voiced in contradistinction to the point they have made.

So your choices are:
1. Junia is a female and an apostle
2. Junia is a female and is well known to the apostles, but is not an apostle
3. Junias is a male and an apostle
4. Junias is a male and is well known to the apostle, but is not an apostle
5. Andronicus and Junia are married and a husband and wife team ministering to the apostles
6. Andronicus and Junia are married and are both commissioned apostles
7. Andronicus is an apostle and Junia, his wife, aids him in his ministry

The HCSB uses the translation: They are noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles. This is a challenging translation to accept as "in the eyes" is not close to what Paul is saying here. Most other major translations choose to use some combination of well known to the apostles, well known among the apostle, or of note among the apostles.

In the end, since I don't believe the apostles exercised authority over external congregations or over the whole of Christendom, there is no NT evidence of any of this, the office of apostle is better likened to that of a missionary or early church planter. The basic qualifications for an apostle are enumerated in Acts 1 and Junia could certainly have met these qualifications. Even if you don't believe women can preach in assemblies or churches (which I do) or that women can be elders, deacons or pastors, there is nothing wrong with a woman being an apostle, or an apostolic couple, who is going and starting new communities in the early apostolic era.

I also don't buy the argument that there were different kinds of apostles in the NT era. Big "A" Apostles being the original 11/12ish, and little "a" apostles like Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and Apollos to name some others. Why would there be such differentiation among the office at an early stage is unclear. Given the backdrop of emerging Christianity in this time, particularly at the writing of Romans which is 55-57, this seems harder to make an argument for and, as I believe, not a tenable one. Other examples of female leadership in local churches persists in the early documents of the Church until around the fourth or fifth century when a patriarchal system seems to come more in view.

So, Junia is, imho, a female apostle in the early church who is, perhaps, united with her husband in ministry of starting local churches in Rome.

 

My son (office two doors down) just got the latest JETS, and lo and behold, there is an article by Michael Burer on this very passage. You can read it online at: http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/58/58-4/JETS_58-4_731-755_Burer.pdf.

Burer wrote the article with Wallace in 2001, and this one is a response to critiques of that article.

 

I am wise enough not to get into an argument with you over Greek. I will quote from William Hendriksen whom I suppose to be an authority. This is from his commentary on Galatians:

'Does this mean that after all, Paul had seen two apostles, namely, Peter, who, being one of the twelve, was an apostle in the plenary sense of that term, and james, an apostle in a more general sense? Though from the point of view of grammar this possibility must be allowed, yet from the aspect of logic the alternative explanation would appear more reasonable, namely, "In addition to Cephas, the only apostle whom I saw in Jerusalem, I also saw one other person of special importance, James, the Lord's brother." This does not mean that Paul had seen no other believers in Jerusalem; only that he saw no other .......Christian leaders.'

He is called an apostle the same way some others are referred to; they are 'sent ones,' but not apostles in the fullest 'plenary' sense.

Rev. 21:14. 'Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.' I take it from this that there could no more be a plethora of apostles than an indefinite number of the tribes of Israel. Moreover, if there was no limit on apostles why were Andronicus and Junia appointed in Acts 1, along with Joseph called Barsabbas as well as Matthias? My own theory, which I can by no means prove is that the apostles erred when they replaced Judas Iscariot. It was for God to replace him, which He did when He appointed Paul.

 

Thanks for responding. Actually, this whole post is very close to the point I've been trying to make, or at least the position I take.

1. There are 12 special apostles who will judge Israel and have their names in the foundation of the New Jerusalem.

2. There is a secondary class of apostles in the NT who, carrying the title "apostle," still do not attain to the 12. The function of the 2nd group is similar to that of the first 12--evangelism and church-planting, especially cross-culturally--but they do not correspond to the 12 tribes in the way the 12 do. As you put it, they are not "apostles in the plenary sense." They are simply missionaries.

I'll give just a brief comment on who replaced Judas. First of all, if it was Paul, then why was Matthias "numbered with the twelve" in Acts 1:26? This word "numbered" is used of Judas in Acts 1:17 (cognate Greek words), so it seems logical that they were numbered in the same way, i.e., Matthias replaced Judas.

Secondly, if Paul replaced Judas, doesn't that make Barnabas out of place? Acts 14:14 does not distinguish between the two of them as apostles, it just says they are. If they are apostles in two different senses of the word, it seems like the text would say so.

 

Thanks for your reply, JoJ. I think we are in substantial agreement

Matthias certainly was numbered with the twelve by men, but I wonder if he was so numbered by God. This was pre-Pentecost and I wonder if the disciples should have been making decisions like that. We never hear of Matthias again, so we don't know whether he fulfilled an apostolic role or not. It's just a hunch I have.

Once again, the Biblical data is lacking, so I'm just giving my opinion, but I think Paul and Barnabus are lumped together here as missionary apostles just because they were together. Barnabus is never mentioned elsewhere as an apostle, which is a sign that we need to be careful how we describe his apostolic role.

There is a sense in which this really doesn't matter. Paul and Barnabus have been in glory for almost 2,000 years, so we don't need to worry about them. What worries me is church leaders today calling themselves apostles which can cause ordinary church members to give them a respect they do not necessarily merit- like a sort of mini-Pope. One such self-styled 'apostle' has ended quite badly within the last few years. Personally, I would run a mile from any church where the minister was called an Apostle.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

That would be my main concern.

I appreciate the points you are making, but "Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1).

You may well be right. I shall be sure to check it out when I get there.

 

CJ Mahaney?