Was Junia a Female Apostle?

[Jim Chabot]

First, that is not the "sense that [I] indicate." The sense that I indicate is that the apostleship of the individual in question was not debated. The gender most certainly was, but "tradition is that there were no female apostles" is not an accurate claim, as the gender of Junia was regularly debated, while the individual's apostleship was not. It was you who initially stated that you would rather debate apostleship than gender. I'm simply pointing out that until very recently, apostleship was practically settled, and those seeking to unsettle it do not have the linguistic advantage of their predecessors.

If you'd like to shift the debate to whether Junia was male or female, I think you'll find me much more receptive. I will gladly and heartily disagree, but at least you have a stronger leg to stand on when it comes to that side of things.

I heard you correctly the first time. Your claim that the aposleship was a settled matter does not carry the merit that you would like to portray. When there is an issue that is divided such as this one, it is quite common for one side to lets say, pick their fight. One point of the debate is conceded early on, so that the other point may be vigorously defended. The fact that the individual apostleship's were not debated does not necessarily indicate that this was settled, not at all.

The fact is that neither the underlying greek nor the resulting english give us clarity here, the issue is not settled. To allow tradition to speak to the question, it should be clear. In this case tradition is not clear, not even close.

And yes I would think that you would be much more receptive to debate whether Junia was male or female. I mean why not, you are in much better shape there. Junias apparently is not an actual name but rather a possible nickname for Junianas. Also Junia is connected to Andronicus with the word "and" I would suspect that a word search could provide some guidance to whether this was common for Paul when he referred to a husband and wife.

On the other hand maybe not, for although Junias does not show up in greek anywhere, it has been found in latin literature, and remember Paul was writing to the Romans here, perhaps limiting the search to greek texts is not in keeping with intellectual honesty? Also it should be noted that the only thing determinative as to which name was actually contemplated by Paul is an accent mank, these accent marks were not present until the ninth century, thus they reflect opinion rather than fact. And if we are to lean on the tradition that this person was possibly an apostle (although not really, since we know the names of the twelve) then we must conclude that this person is male as tradition dictates, for there is simply not enough evidence to break ranks here.

So is the issue of gender settled, no I don't think that it is. However I am on your side, I think that Junia was in fact female. Not an apostle.

And please remember that this debate has nothing to do with female ordination in my mind, none whatsoever. I have that question settled, the CotN has it settled as well and we have been able to peacefully co-exist. So lets debate this for fun, there isn't anything at stake here, I'm not trying to gore anyone's ox. On the other hand lets not declare any cows to be sacred, if you get my drift.

[Ryan Scott]

Other people gave some very good reasons. The thread started out of a discussion about women in ministry to which I don't think the whole argument is dependent on just this one minor point.

But beyond that, can't we just talk about something because it is interesting????????? Why does there have to be something at stake in order to justify having a conversation about this?

This was sort of my point. If our belief in women in ministry stems from this sort of argument, we're on shaky ground to begin with. To me its almost insulting to women leaders when we end up debating over "whether Paul did it or not."

That being said, if you find this interesting, go at it. Don't let me stop you. I just was really grasping for why people cared so much about it.

[Randy Wise]

Here is a link on the subject:

http://www.carm.org/junia

[James Diggs]

This was sort of my point. If our belief in women in ministry stems from this sort of argument, we're on shaky ground to begin with. To me its almost insulting to women leaders when we end up debating over "whether Paul did it or not."

That being said, if you find this interesting, go at it. Don't let me stop you. I just was really grasping for why people cared so much about it.

Yea, I don't think it is a critical factor in the discussion about women in ministry- but honestly and interesting one that I was curious about for it's own sake. I was not really even aware of this before this conversation so it was nice to hear more form those who looked into it on both sides.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Ha! Your a funny guy Dennis. I am shocked, appalled, mortified and singularly dismayed that you would find fault in such language. Why not so very long ago you displayed similar thoughts yourself directed towards Dale and Myself.

I have no desire to take this any further. But this is simply not true. I have an archive of all my posts, and I challenge you to find anywhere I have ever used such language ("supposed scholars" "contrive this" "utter contempt" "vain fabrication") to you, Dale, or anyone else here. I have used the term "dishonest" in certain contexts where people's positions were misrepresented. This is a good example of such an instance.

Perhaps at some point, there could be some consideration of how the positions of people with whom you disagree are presented. Beginning with a flame and condescending language and then "moderating" it does not lend itself to much credibility.

I suppose that I could have reacted in a much better manner and with Ben's help I have moderated my thoughts somewhat.

Moderation is good. It's better as a first response.

So how about you give us a better example to go by.

I think this is called passing the buck. And I think it has been there all along, if one is looking for it.

That aside I appreciate your input on the greek. My reading has brought me to the same conclusion.

OK. So what's the problem?

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dale Cozby]

OK....back to the original thought....
Paul's cousins, probably married went to Rome to spread the gospel. There along with Paul they got thrown in jail. So they were doing the work of an apostle( one who is sent) I honestly don't think we should get too hung up here on Title but see that the work was being accomplished.
I doubt seriously if it was a big deal to those in chains, until such things crept into the church during the creation of the institutional system, we all love and hate today.

I pastor a church today along with my wife and my friends. By the book I am the "ordained elder" the chairman of the board of the 501c3, etc but in actuality I am one of many leaders who can rightfully be called the "elders" of the local church.
I can easily see this as a reference to the commonality of Junia as wife/cousin and co-worker in the ministry with her family.
We can call her an "apostle" (one who was sent), in as much as when I was ordained, my wife knelt with me and the elders gathered around and laid hands on both of us, she was part and parcel of the whole thing, even if she didn't do the study, or the get the nice Certificate of Ordination. For 18 years she has been by my side in ministry, serving mostly as Children's pastor, leading kids in worship, in Sunday school, in special kids' choir and plays and the like. Is she not also rightfully called pastor?
Is not a missionary and their spouse both missionaries?

"Apostle" can mean many things, title, gift, even rightfully a verb.

[Jim Chabot]

OK. So what's the problem?

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

No problem. Just venting a bit, I'm good now.

I was glad to see that you had reached the same conclusion. I will freely admit that I have no idea regarding the nuances of the original languages, therefore I must avail myself of those who do. Although you and I have come to very different conclusions on some things, I respect your knowledge of language. I haven't thus far been witness to an occasion where you have seemed to twist language to suit your theology, I appreciate your honesty and expertise in that regard.

[Shea Zellweger]

Here is a link on the subject:

http://www.carm.org/junia

Which includes the following quote:

So let's just assume for a bit that Junia was a woman apostle in full authority. We don't accept that position but let's just work with it for a moment. Would that mean that it is okay for women to be pastors and elders since Junia would have been exercising that authority over men in the church? First, even if that were the case, the office of apostle is finished and Junia's case would only apply in the early church and not today. Second, we see apostles and elders mentioned together in Acts 15:2-6. An apostle is not an elder and the requirements for eldership include being male. No such requirement for apostleship is made. So, even if Junia were a female apostle in the early church, it does not mean that women today are qualified to be pastors and elders.

The remainder of the article basically establishes every possible meaning (though the authors make it clear which one they accept), and the above basically says that even if Junia were a female apostle, it is irrelevant. IMHO, that's not a scholarly approach whatsoever, but rather the attempted bolstering of a previously held opinion.

[Jim Chabot]

Which includes the following quote:


The remainder of the article basically establishes every possible meaning (though the authors make it clear which one they accept), and the above basically says that even if Junia were a female apostle, it is irrelevant. IMHO, that's not a scholarly approach whatsoever, but rather the attempted bolstering of a previously held opinion.

I agree with you for the most part here. It appears to me to be an attempt to protect a position, using the cover all bases method. The opposite method would be the eggs in one basket approach, i,e, as long as we can say that she is male we need no other argument. Both are political solutions, neither reflects a search for truth. Funny thing is that aside, both are still possibly correct.

Disclaimer; I don't hold to either position. I believe that the evidence although inconclusive points to her being a notable person, in the eyes of the apostles. Hopefully later I can escape the heat for a bit longer, gather my thoughts an d back up that claim.

[Shea Zellweger]

I agree with you for the most part here. It appears to me to be an attempt to protect a position, using the cover all bases method. The opposite method would be the eggs in one basket approach, i,e, as long as we can say that she is male we need no other argument. Both are political solutions, neither reflects a search for truth. Funny thing is that aside, both are still possibly correct.

Agreed. Although I'll continue to hold that chronological distance has obfuscated a previously well-understood passage, I'll not deny that it's possible either of those positions are accurate. But if their position IS accurate, they have only fallen on the right answer by happenstance, not by sound reasoning. It reminds me of this comic (be sure to read the ALT text)

Disclaimer; I don't hold to either position. I believe that the evidence although inconclusive points to her being a notable person, in the eyes of the apostles. Hopefully later I can escape the heat for a bit longer, gather my thoughts an d back up that claim.

This is where I struggle with your reasoning. If you view the evidence as being inconclusive, then you cannot say in the same breath (or keystroke sequence) that the evidence points to her being a notable person. It would be more accurate to say that you feel that the evidence is inconclusive, but personally believe that she was a notable person. I still feel the witness of church tradition points to apostleship, and accept that witness as evidence.

[Steve Reece]

Genesis 1 establishes equality between man and woman and that any inequality is a result of sin. Thus the restoring of equality between man and woman is a natural consequence of our relationship to God through Jesus Christ. To insist on the subversion of women to men in recognizing apostles, ordaining women, or in marriage is to insist on perpetuating the result of sin from the first man and woman rather than recognizing the redemptive power of God. Is Junia a woman's name? I believe so, based on what little I know of Greek. I do not understand some Christians' need to oppress women.

[Benjamin Burch]

Genesis 1 establishes equality between man and woman and that any inequality is a result of sin. Thus the restoring of equality between man and woman is a natural consequence of our relationship to God through Jesus Christ. To insist on the subversion of women to men in recognizing apostles, ordaining women, or in marriage is to insist on perpetuating the result of sin from the first man and woman rather than recognizing the redemptive power of God. Is Junia a woman's name? I believe so, based on what little I know of Greek. I do not understand some Christians' need to oppress women.

You are a liberal dude in Theology! hahaha.

[Jim Chabot]

You are a liberal dude in Theology! hahaha.

Good catch! Are you up early, or are you up late?

[Shea Zellweger]

Good catch! Are you up early, or are you up late?

he's up late. I'm up early.

[Jim Chabot]

A quick word search for the word "apostle" and "apostles" reveals this:

The word "apostle" in the singular is found 19 times, each time it is a declaration naming someone as an apostle. Paul names himself 16 times, Peter names himself twice, and the writer of the Hebrews names Jesus as an apostle, unique in the sense that he is the apostle sent by God the Father.

The word "apostles" occurs 60 times. In many cases it is relatively clear that the 12 are the focus, in others it is less clear, yet always there is the sense that a cohesive group is referred to. Rarely is this word used in any other fashion. My suggestion is that we are looking at "the twelve" as the subject here. I would suggest that there appears to be a case for the inclusion of no one else in this group.

There are three anomalies to this;

The first being the case of Barnabas. The first mention occurs in Acts 4:36 where is appears that the name Barnabas was given by the apostles to him, he was not numbered with them. Next we see Barnabus bringing Saul to the apostles in Acts 9:27, again he is not numbered with them. The anomaly is in Acts 14:14 where it appears he is referred to as being an apostle. I'll admit that I'm not sure how to deal with this. He was not an apostle of Jesus not withstanding.

The second one is a little easier. This occurs in 1 Thes. where Paul makes reference that they could have rightly been a burden, but had not been. If we go back to the beginning we see that he addresses the letter from himself, Silvanus and Timothy. I don't think that we can rightly assume this reference to include Silvanus and Timothy under the title "apostle" as clearly Timothy was Paul's charge rather than his contemporary. I think that it would be fair to treat this as Paul's assertion of his right to burden a congregation, his entourage would of course be a part of this burden. He makes this assertion more than once as he did support himself, while making sure to to explain that this was his option, while his right was to be supported.

The third anomaly is in the case of Andronicus and Junia as read in Romans 16:7. Here it is not clear in either the english nor the greek if these two are included with the apostles, or if they are known to them. Since there is no other mention to corroborate, we must assume. I would maintain that the body of evidence overwhelmingly supports twelve apostles. Each time the term is used it refers to a cohesive group. As we read through, we find that initially the term was used to describe those whom Jesus selected personally. There is no indication anywhere in the New Testament to suggest that there are others not selected by Jesus, excepting in the possible case of Barnabas. I must also mention Matthias, although I believe that he was never an apostle, rather a product of human nature getting carried away with itself.

Another nagging little problem comes to mind. As we read the Romans passage we see that Paul is commending the individuals that he lists. In the case of Andronicus and Junia he gives a double commendation. First he says that they are of note among the apostles, then he follows with the observation that they were in Christ before him. I would suggest that this flows naturally if we read that they are well known to the apostles, and that they also became Christians before Paul did. If we choose the alternate reading it becomes awkward. If we choose to read that they are notable apostles, and also that they became Christians before Paul, something is amiss. This is similar to saying that Ronald Reagan stands out among the Presidents, and he also entered politics before I did.

Just something to think about. I think that the assumptions required to elevate Andronicus and Junia to the apostleship are far greater than reason would allow. Not to mention the resulting difficulties that we must deal with should we be of the determination to make this extraordinary leap.

More later, must work.

[Jim Chabot]

Genesis 1 establishes equality between man and woman and that any inequality is a result of sin. Thus the restoring of equality between man and woman is a natural consequence of our relationship to God through Jesus Christ. To insist on the subversion of women to men in recognizing apostles, ordaining women, or in marriage is to insist on perpetuating the result of sin from the first man and woman rather than recognizing the redemptive power of God. Is Junia a woman's name? I believe so, based on what little I know of Greek. I do not understand some Christians' need to oppress women.

Have you read the thread? Doesn't appear that way. I haven't seen much if any disagreement regarding Junia's gender. How about if we change the discussion to reflect Andronicus admission to the apostleship, it really doesn't change this discussion.

That said what I don't understand is some Christian's need to consider anything that could possibly pose even the slightest implication toward women as some sort of oppression. I'm not taking a shot back at you Steve, this form of bigotry is very common in popular Christianity.

[Shea Zellweger]

A quick word search for the word "apostle" and "apostles" reveals this:

The word "apostle" in the singular is found 19 times, each time it is a declaration naming someone as an apostle. Paul names himself 16 times, Peter names himself twice, and the writer of the Hebrews names Jesus as an apostle, unique in the sense that he is the apostle sent by God the Father.

The word "apostles" occurs 60 times. In many cases it is relatively clear that the 12 are the focus, in others it is less clear, yet always there is the sense that a cohesive group is referred to. Rarely is this word used in any other fashion. My suggestion is that we are looking at "the twelve" as the subject here. I would suggest that there appears to be a case for the inclusion of no one else in this group.

I'm guessing you did your word search in the English, rather than the Greek? Actually, a Greek word search would have given you more "ammo," as the word "apostle" is used any time somebody is sent by another person. There are also false apostles, and "messengers" who would have been called apostolos.

There are three anomalies to this;

The first being the case of Barnabas. The first mention occurs in Acts 4:36 where is appears that the name Barnabas was given by the apostles to him, he was not numbered with them. Next we see Barnabus bringing Saul to the apostles in Acts 9:27, again he is not numbered with them. The anomaly is in Acts 14:14 where it appears he is referred to as being an apostle. I'll admit that I'm not sure how to deal with this. He was not an apostle of Jesus not withstanding.

I believe he was. This begins to establish the difference in our understandings of Apostle. If you're preemptively claiming that only "the Twelve" were apostles, then of course there were no others, but I would contend that at no time is Paul made an "official" part of "the Twelve," so you have already made an exemption for him, apparently on the basis of the biblical witness. I don't oppose you on this point, but the fact that you've already made one exception, based on that person's own claim (Paul is the only person who calls Paul an Apostle), then it would stand to reason that you would also accept his claims concerning others who might be apostles.

The second one is a little easier. This occurs in 1 Thes. where Paul makes reference that they could have rightly been a burden, but had not been. If we go back to the beginning we see that he addresses the letter from himself, Silvanus and Timothy. I don't think that we can rightly assume this reference to include Silvanus and Timothy under the title "apostle" as clearly Timothy was Paul's charge rather than his contemporary. I think that it would be fair to treat this as Paul's assertion of his right to burden a congregation, his entourage would of course be a part of this burden. He makes this assertion more than once as he did support himself, while making sure to to explain that this was his option, while his right was to be supported.

Again, I consider Timothy an apostle. He had a special charge and mission from God, and was sent out (apostoloi) to do that mission. An apostle is one sent and given authority by God. Paul most definitely was, and I contend that both Barnabas and Timothy were as well.

The third anomaly is in the case of Andronicus and Junia as read in Romans 16:7. Here it is not clear in either the english nor the greek if these two are included with the apostles, or if they are known to them. Since there is no other mention to corroborate, we must assume. I would maintain that the body of evidence overwhelmingly supports twelve apostles. Each time the term is used it refers to a cohesive group. As we read through, we find that initially the term was used to describe those whom Jesus selected personally. There is no indication anywhere in the New Testament to suggest that there are others not selected by Jesus, excepting in the possible case of Barnabas. I must also mention Matthias, although I believe that he was never an apostle, rather a product of human nature getting carried away with itself.

The term was expanded as time went on, any way you want to look at it. Paul is generally considered an apostle, and James and Jude are often numbered with them as well. Were there originally twelve? Well, yes, but one of those was Judas Iscariot. Anyone added to that number is an increase on the original twelve, and effectively renders the "only twelve" argument rather irrelevant. The Eleven/Twelve may have been the highest and most authoritative of the apostles, but they were not the only ones sent by God. In fact, they were not the only ones who
-were commissioned by Christ
-saw the resurrected Christ
-were with Christ from (close to) the beginning of his ministry.
Even by those rather stringent criteria, there are still at least 60 others who would be classified as apostles. When the Lukan author wants to refer specifically to the Twelve, he says so consistently enough that it's equally logical to assume that when he does not explicitly state "the Twelve" in a given passage, it's because he's not referring only to them.

Another nagging little problem comes to mind. As we read the Romans passage we see that Paul is commending the individuals that he lists. In the case of Andronicus and Junia he gives a double commendation. First he says that they are of note among the apostles, then he follows with the observation that they were in Christ before him. I would suggest that this flows naturally if we read that they are well known to the apostles, and that they also became Christians before Paul did. If we choose the alternate reading it becomes awkward. If we choose to read that they are notable apostles, and also that they became Christians before Paul, something is amiss. This is similar to saying that Ronald Reagan stands out among the Presidents, and he also entered politics before I did.

That's really not a relevant analogy whatsoever. There were, if we accept the biblical account, thousands of people who were in Christ before Paul, and yet he was chosen to a higher position than them at the very point of his conversion. Apostleship was not dependent on how long a person was "in Christ," and so Paul made note of that in addition to their apostleship. It's not awkward at all that one apostle would point to the faith of another apostle, or to point out that the other apostle was in Christ before him/her, unless you take a strict Eleven/Twelve approach to apostleship, in which case Paul becomes a problem as I have established before.

Just something to think about. I think that the assumptions required to elevate Andronicus and Junia to the apostleship are far greater than reason would allow. Not to mention the resulting difficulties that we must deal with should we be of the determination to make this extraordinary leap.

There are no assumptions, elevations, or leaps necessary. All it requires is a reading of the text which has the overwhelming support from the entire history of Christian tradition. Junia being a woman might take some assumptions (though I don't see much in the way of dispute there), but Junia and Andronicus being apostles requires only that we trust the witness of those who have gone before us.

[Sarah Smith]

I have no clue regarding Junia.

I am learning much reading this thread.

But can we keep the old tired "unless you support the ordination of women you are oppressing them" idea out of the discussion?

Those that oppose it do so on Biblical grounds. Those that support it do so on Biblical grounds.

Teach me the Biblical grounds for each viewpoint, please.

Or else we are going to have to liberate men and let them wear pantyhose and spike heels. Or maybe in the interest of consciousness raising DEMAND they wear them on the job.

Man o man, I can just see my pastor now.........

[Shea Zellweger]

I have no clue regarding Junia.

I am learning much reading this thread.

But can we keep the old tired "unless you support the ordination of women you are oppressing them" idea out of the discussion?

Those that oppose it do so on Biblical grounds. Those that support it do so on Biblical grounds.

Teach me the Biblical grounds for each viewpoint, please.

Or else we are going to have to liberate men and let them wear pantyhose and spike heels. Or maybe in the interest of consciousness raising DEMAND they wear them on the job.

Man o man, I can just see my pastor now.........

Are you suggesting men should not wear pantyhose and spike heels? Well, this changes everything!

However, I don't think the view that not ordaining women could be considered oppression is "old and tired." Eph 4:11-12 says "It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up." Acts 2:17 (Quoting Joel 2:28) says regarding pentecost "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams."

So, if God says women (daughters) would be prophets, and prophets carry the authority of speaking with God's voice, then for us to not recognize the ordination of women is to limit the scope of God's work. I demonstrated here how Paul's statement "I never allow..." is unique from any other command he gives, and does not have to be viewed as one. If we want to claim Scripture does not have contradictions, then I think the one verse that runs against the tone of the rest of Scripture and has an alternative interpretation is probably the one that is being taken out of context. If, on the other hand, we want to acknowledge that there are in fact contradictions in Scripture, then we have to choose which verse to accept as more authoritative, meaning that those who choose the Timothy verse are choosing the one which allows them to oppress women (and yes, this includes many women who choose to oppress other women).

[Jon Bemis]

Or else we are going to have to liberate men and let them wear pantyhose and spike heels. Or maybe in the interest of consciousness raising DEMAND they wear them on the job.

Please! No liberation for me!!!

[Hans Deventer]

Teach me the Biblical grounds for each viewpoint, please.

It's very simple. It has to do with the answer to a few questions.

• Is what Paul wrote in a few places regarding women a cultural adaptation from the principle in Galatians 3:28 - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" in order not to create a stumbling block for some in those days?
• Does the fact that Christ asked women to bring the greatest message of all time to his male disciples have any meaning?
• Are some of God's rules in the Scriptures because of the hardness of our hearts, and not as meant from the beginning? (Matthew 19:8)

Those questions cannot be decided by listing Scriptures verses alone, they have to be decided by you and they will not determine WHAT you read, but HOW your read.

Or else we are going to have to liberate men and let them wear pantyhose and spike heels. Or maybe in the interest of consciousness raising DEMAND they wear them on the job.

Man o man, I can just see my pastor now.........

I have no idea what you mean. Some men wear kilts, you have a problem with that?

[Todd Erickson]

A man is always wrong if he hits a woman with his car.

Men shouldn't be driving in the kitchen.

:P

[Jim Chabot]

Let me elaborate a little on "the twelve".

I am making no exception here. Jesus called twelve, one lost his office and then Jesus personally replaced him. 12-1+1=12

As I consider Paul's office, his claim is not at issue, nor is it determinative. Rather it can be demonstrated that he was called personally by Jesus to that office. The Lord made himself clear to Ananias saying "he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" I would maintain that no one else holds the authority to make such an appointment. We also find further evidence of the intentionality of twelve in the opening chapter of Acts.

Peter correctly decreed that Judas office had been forfeit, and that another would take his place. I believe that Peter and the rest were incorrect to think that they had the authority to make this replacement. This passage does show an understanding that there were to be twelve, then eleven, and then twelve again. The number twelve would be maintained.

You mention some criteria i assume for qualification. You mention that they were not the only ones commissioned by Christ, yet they are the only ones commissioned as apostles. Yes he did send out seventy, they were not apostles, yes they were sent "apostellō" they were not given the title of "apostle". I should also add that my search in english yielded very similar results, a few variants nothing significant. I did see where it would be fairly easy for one to play with the greek unless the context is to be observed. Such as in the case of Titus, where the word "apostolos" is used with the modifier "ekklēsia" indicating that he was a messenger of te churches rather than an "apostle". Paul refers to Epaphroditus in similar fashion in Phillipians.

You mention those who had seen the resurrected Christ, I don't see where that would be a necessary qualifier. I agree that all twelve including Paul had seen the resurrected Christ. I don't see that it would have disqualified Thomas if he had missed out.

Finally you mention those who had been with them from near the beginning. This is the qualification instituted by the disciples lacking authority when they proposed Barnabas and Matthias. Jesus ignored them when he chose Paul, I think that constitutes his veto of that particular qualification. I can understand how this sort of thing could and would permeate church tradition as the church has steadfastly sought authority from the beginning. I believe that this is a good place to look at tradition with a jaundiced eye.

To get back to the subject at hand. I would maintain that Paul is indeed the twelfth apostle. I would maintain that there is sufficient evidence to show that he was vigilant in his defense of this commission and that he would not knowingly support another's claim to this title, outside of the eleven.

I'm curious as to where you glean your information regarding Timothy. I'm finding that his commission came from Paul. And I'm not readily finding his sending out where the word "apostoloi" is used.

[Shea Zellweger]

Let me elaborate a little on "the twelve".

I am making no exception here. Jesus called twelve, one lost his office and then Jesus personally replaced him. 12-1+1=12

As I consider Paul's office, his claim is not at issue, nor is it determinative. Rather it can be demonstrated that he was called personally by Jesus to that office. The Lord made himself clear to Ananias saying "he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" I would maintain that no one else holds the authority to make such an appointment. We also find further evidence of the intentionality of twelve in the opening chapter of Acts.

Peter correctly decreed that Judas office had been forfeit, and that another would take his place. I believe that Peter and the rest were incorrect to think that they had the authority to make this replacement. This passage does show an understanding that there were to be twelve, then eleven, and then twelve again. The number twelve would be maintained.

You mention some criteria i assume for qualification. You mention that they were not the only ones commissioned by Christ, yet they are the only ones commissioned as apostles. Yes he did send out seventy, they were not apostles, yes they were sent "apostellō" they were not given the title of "apostle". I should also add that my search in english yielded very similar results, a few variants nothing significant. I did see where it would be fairly easy for one to play with the greek unless the context is to be observed. Such as in the case of Titus, where the word "apostolos" is used with the modifier "ekklēsia" indicating that he was a messenger of te churches rather than an "apostle". Paul refers to Epaphroditus in similar fashion in Phillipians.

You mention those who had seen the resurrected Christ, I don't see where that would be a necessary qualifier. I agree that all twelve including Paul had seen the resurrected Christ. I don't see that it would have disqualified Thomas if he had missed out.

Finally you mention those who had been with them from near the beginning. This is the qualification instituted by the disciples lacking authority when they proposed Barnabas and Matthias. Jesus ignored them when he chose Paul, I think that constitutes his veto of that particular qualification. I can understand how this sort of thing could and would permeate church tradition as the church has steadfastly sought authority from the beginning. I believe that this is a good place to look at tradition with a jaundiced eye.

To get back to the subject at hand. I would maintain that Paul is indeed the twelfth apostle. I would maintain that there is sufficient evidence to show that he was vigilant in his defense of this commission and that he would not knowingly support another's claim to this title, outside of the eleven.

I'm curious as to where you glean your information regarding Timothy. I'm finding that his commission came from Paul. And I'm not readily finding his sending out where the word "apostoloi" is used.

Jim,
You're making a distinction that is not offered in Scripture, but is rather made by translators. The word "Apostolos," and its many forms (including Apostoloi and Apostellw) all mean the same thing. To distinguish one form of Apostle from another is not an uncommon thing to do, but the language itself doesn't support it. I don't mind distinguishing "The Twelve," whether you include Paul or not, and referring to them as "The Twelve Apostles," but the Twelve are not the only ones in Scripture who are called apostles, and unless we're choosing to use a definition of apostle foreign to the text, we need to recognize that an apostle is one who is sent, and an apostle of Christ is one who is sent by Christ. Luke acknowledges Barnabas as an apostle in Acts 11, so I consider him to be one. Paul also acknowledges James as an apostle, along with the rest of the Lord's brothers. In 1 Thess 2, Paul says "As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you," with the "we" referring to himelf, Silas, and Timothy. One could also make an argument for Sosthenes, but that's less clear. So in all, at least 5 people (The lord's brothers are at least 2, Silas, Timothy, and Barnabas) are identified as apostles outside of the 12. Given Jesus' statement to Peter/the Twelve about binding and loosing and all authority under heaven, I'm inclined to accept Matthias as an apostle as well, but again, that one's a little fuzzy. Regardless, I am pretty sure that the only way to say there were Twelve and only Twelve Apostles is to play games with the text and the language that I'm not comfortable playing- essentially, you define apostles to include that there were only twelve so that you can say there were no more than twelve apostles. Although your conclusion is in step with your definition, I don't believe it's in step with the Scriptures, either in Greek or in English.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim,
You're making a distinction that is not offered in Scripture, but is rather made by translators. The word "Apostolos," and its many forms (including Apostoloi and Apostellw) all mean the same thing. To distinguish one form of Apostle from another is not an uncommon thing to do, but the language itself doesn't support it. I don't mind distinguishing "The Twelve," whether you include Paul or not, and referring to them as "The Twelve Apostles," but the Twelve are not the only ones in Scripture who are called apostles, and unless we're choosing to use a definition of apostle foreign to the text, we need to recognize that an apostle is one who is sent, and an apostle of Christ is one who is sent by Christ. Luke acknowledges Barnabas as an apostle in Acts 11, so I consider him to be one. Paul also acknowledges James as an apostle, along with the rest of the Lord's brothers. In 1 Thess 2, Paul says "As apostles of Christ we could have been a burden to you," with the "we" referring to himelf, Silas, and Timothy. One could also make an argument for Sosthenes, but that's less clear. So in all, at least 5 people (The lord's brothers are at least 2, Silas, Timothy, and Barnabas) are identified as apostles outside of the 12. Given Jesus' statement to Peter/the Twelve about binding and loosing and all authority under heaven, I'm inclined to accept Matthias as an apostle as well, but again, that one's a little fuzzy. Regardless, I am pretty sure that the only way to say there were Twelve and only Twelve Apostles is to play games with the text and the language that I'm not comfortable playing- essentially, you define apostles to include that there were only twelve so that you can say there were no more than twelve apostles. Although your conclusion is in step with your definition, I don't believe it's in step with the Scriptures, either in Greek or in English.

On the contrary, the distinction that I have made in the examples I offered were gleaned by context. I make no claim to differentiate between the variants on the root word. You proposed expanding the search in this manner, I did expand the search and I have indicated that the results do not really help our discussion a whole lot. I offered the examples of Titus and Epaphroditus as examples showing how this search method without a careful examination of the context could easily lead on to a conclusion that isn't there. Sent, sent, sent, it doesn't mean a whole lot, could even be a letter sent i the mail. Sent by Christ, now we have some meaning and the number is twelve.

Again could you please send along the references to which you made the claims relative to Timothy in a previous post. I must be looking in the wrong places because I can't find it.

We are starting to cover some ground already traversed but ok. You are correct that Luke quite possibly refers to Barnabas as an apostle, he does not do so until the fourteenth chapter. The word used in chapter eleven is as a verb not a noun. Hence my point regarding context. Interesting that he is the one losing out to Matthias back in chapter one.

I have made reference to the passage in 1 Thess. as well. Yes Paul, Timothy and Silas could have imposed by right, that doesn't mean that Timothy and Silas alone had that right as well. Step back and look at context, then take a few more steps back and look at the narrative. Paul makes sure to claim the right of burden even though he does not use it, this is his point. I don't think that one can scoop up the names of his entourage and elevate them to his office with this statement.

Jesus statement regarding binding and loosing, could very well have led the apostles to believe that they had the authority to select Matthias, no problem there. But when Jesus came back and made the appointment in person, I think that just maybe we could assume that the apostles had acted in haste and outside of their authority.

Yes there are other references. In Paul's case it can be demonstrated that Paul had this title of apostle in the foreground of his thoughts, he is careful to establish his authority up front and in so much of his correspondence. His reference to someone as some sort of a lesser apostle is unlikely, he was acutely aware of the meaning and authority of his office. Perhaps over time the meaning of the title changed, I would suggest that it did not change for Paul, it carried immense meaning for him. The chiefest of sinners, now elevated to the highest earthly authority by God himself, this word had meaning to this man.

And lets not forget that God has not forgotten how many apostles, nor has he diluted the term. The names of the twelve "Apostles of the Lamb" will be listed on the twelve foundations of that great city. Can you see Junia on the list?

[Shea Zellweger]

On the contrary, the distinction that I have made in the examples I offered were gleaned by context. I make no claim to differentiate between the variants on the root word. You proposed expanding the search in this manner, I did expand the search and I have indicated that the results do not really help our discussion a whole lot. I offered the examples of Titus and Epaphroditus as examples showing how this search method without a careful examination of the context could easily lead on to a conclusion that isn't there. Sent, sent, sent, it doesn't mean a whole lot, could even be a letter sent i the mail. Sent by Christ, now we have some meaning and the number is twelve.

Sent by Christ- all present at the ascension received the great commission, so they were sent by Christ.

Again could you please send along the references to which you made the claims relative to Timothy in a previous post. I must be looking in the wrong places because I can't find it.

Timothy is sent by Paul in 1 Cor 4:17, and Paul later sends him one of the pastoral letters. He was sent to do the work of Christ. IMHO, one who is sent to do the work of Christ, and who had a personal encounter with the risen Christ, can be considered an apostle. I said Timothy "He had a special charge and mission from God," which he clearly did, and that he was "sent out to do that mission." I have used the requirement of a personal encounter with the Risen Christ because otherwise we may as well classify everyone who is called of God as an apostle, and although the bare meaning of the word would support that, it would also render this discussion moot. Also, my later reference to the thessalonians passage is where I believe Timothy is indeed labeled an apostle. If I used the wrong case of the word, I apologize.

We are starting to cover some ground already traversed but ok. You are correct that Luke quite possibly refers to Barnabas as an apostle, he does not do so until the fourteenth chapter. The word used in chapter eleven is as a verb not a noun. Hence my point regarding context. Interesting that he is the one losing out to Matthias back in chapter one.

Interesting, yes, but not particularly relevant. Barnabas' charge appears to have come later, which would be why Luke's language concerning him changes at that point in the narrative.

I have made reference to the passage in 1 Thess. as well. Yes Paul, Timothy and Silas could have imposed by right, that doesn't mean that Timothy and Silas alone had that right as well. Step back and look at context, then take a few more steps back and look at the narrative. Paul makes sure to claim the right of burden even though he does not use it, this is his point. I don't think that one can scoop up the names of his entourage and elevate them to his office with this statement.

And I think one can. Yes, his point is regarding the burden, and yet, he does not use the "I" language that is generally present when he speaks regarding his rights as an apostle. In 1 Cor 9, for example, Paul talks about his rights as an apostle in the singular, despite that the epistle itself was written with the assistance of Sosthenes.

Jesus statement regarding binding and loosing, could very well have led the apostles to believe that they had the authority to select Matthias, no problem there. But when Jesus came back and made the appointment in person, I think that just maybe we could assume that the apostles had acted in haste and outside of their authority.

You can make that assumption, but it stems from your conclusion that Paul was the twelfth and final apostle, which is something of a reflexive point.

Yes there are other references. In Paul's case it can be demonstrated that Paul had this title of apostle in the foreground of his thoughts, he is careful to establish his authority up front and in so much of his correspondence. His reference to someone as some sort of a lesser apostle is unlikely, he was acutely aware of the meaning and authority of his office. Perhaps over time the meaning of the title changed, I would suggest that it did not change for Paul, it carried immense meaning for him. The chiefest of sinners, now elevated to the highest earthly authority by God himself, this word had meaning to this man.

If it did indeed carry the meaning for him that you suggest, then he was apparently careless in his speech in 1 Thess, as well as in Romans.

And lets not forget that God has not forgotten how many apostles, nor has he diluted the term. The names of the twelve "Apostles of the Lamb" will be listed on the twelve foundations of that great city. Can you see Junia on the list?

No, and I've already said that I have no problem distinguishing "the Twelve" as unique among the apostles.

I don't really see this discussion going anywhere. It appears to me that (as I've mentioned previously) you have concluded that there were twelve and only twelve apostles, and so any other people most certainly could not be apostles. I don't think anyone here is attempting to number Junia, Andronicus, Silas, Timothy, Barnabas, or the brothers of Christ among the Twelve- obviously, if any of them were on the list, it would become "the Thirteen" or more. What we ARE saying is that there were other apostles in addition to the Twelve. IMHO, it's evident within the text, but if you have your heart set on there being 12, you won't deem any other use of the word "apostle" or its derivatives as being in the same context.

[Jim Chabot]

Sent by Christ- all present at the ascension received the great commission, so they were sent by Christ.

That premise indeed hangs by a gossamer thread. Luke 10 may be a better passage for this. In the Luke account He actually commissions and sends seventy, although I have not seen an argument anywhere purporting the seventy as apostles. In the passage to which you refer, no one is sent out. Jesus prophesies what will happen and it did happen, there was no sending. As an old C&MA boy this is a very familiar passage. We had a saying way back that said "It took Acts 8:1 to produce the fulfillment of Acts 1:8."

Timothy is sent by Paul in 1 Cor 4:17, and Paul later sends him one of the pastoral letters. He was sent to do the work of Christ. IMHO, one who is sent to do the work of Christ, and who had a personal encounter with the risen Christ, can be considered an apostle. I said Timothy "He had a special charge and mission from God," which he clearly did, and that he was "sent out to do that mission." I have used the requirement of a personal encounter with the Risen Christ because otherwise we may as well classify everyone who is called of God as an apostle, and although the bare meaning of the word would support that, it would also render this discussion moot. Also, my later reference to the thessalonians passage is where I believe Timothy is indeed labeled an apostle. If I used the wrong case of the word, I apologize.

We probably will not find agreement here, I cannot buy into your initial premise. Now I see it forms part of a presupposition to support a position. May I suggest that it would be helpful to take an additional step when approaching this. To get the proper perspective we need to step back even from context to a vantage point where we can view the narrative. I fear that your focus may be hemmed in. Timothy was clearly sent to do God's work, specifically the work of Christ, he was sent by Paul, his charge came from Paul. I see where the bare meaning of the word would render this discussion moot, I am encountering some amount of difficulty imagining how we would draw a point on a line drawn between the twelve and everybody who has ever been sent. I am afraid that I view your defense as somewhat like a house built upon sand. I am not finding your underlying premise as sound.

Thanks for the clarification on the Timothy reference, no apology needed. I was diligently looking to see where you were coming from, I was looking amiss.

Interesting, yes, but not particularly relevant. Barnabas' charge appears to have come later, which would be why Luke's language concerning him changes at that point in the narrative.

What charge? You are making an assumption based upon Luke's one time casual observation. A search through the passages related to Barnabas would suggest that the Acts 14 passage is the anomaly rather than the proof text.

And I think one can. Yes, his point is regarding the burden, and yet, he does not use the "I" language that is generally present when he speaks regarding his rights as an apostle. In 1 Cor 9, for example, Paul talks about his rights as an apostle in the singular, despite that the epistle itself was written with the assistance of Sosthenes.

Point taken, although I don't see that as conclusive. We cannot prove from an omission.

You can make that assumption, but it stems from your conclusion that Paul was the twelfth and final apostle, which is something of a reflexive point.

Exactly incorrect. I conclude that Paul is the twelfth apostle based upon Jesus direct intervention in the selection of Matthias. Not the other way around. Without this direct intervention, Paul's status becomes quite curious, especially since he alone makes claim to his authority. His claim then becomes the same as John's claim as the disciple that Jesus loved.

If it did indeed carry the meaning for him that you suggest, then he was apparently careless in his speech in 1 Thess, as well as in Romans.

Are you saying that his speech was careless in Romans? I say that it was/is unclear in that passage. I think that those who elevate Timothy and Silas based upon the Thessalonian passage are making a leap that cannot be adequately supported. As I said earlier, the only passage that could be problematic is the Lukan account in Acts 14.

No, and I've already said that I have no problem distinguishing "the Twelve" as unique among the apostles.

That is probably the crux of our difference here. I do not see the "other apostles." I admit that I garner a certain amount of scepticism quite possibly from the observation that church tradition has used this alternate or supplemental list as a crutch to prop up the doctrine of apostolic succession. In my opinion this taints the relevancy of tradition to a large extent.

I don't really see this discussion going anywhere. It appears to me that (as I've mentioned previously) you have concluded that there were twelve and only twelve apostles, and so any other people most certainly could not be apostles. I don't think anyone here is attempting to number Junia, Andronicus, Silas, Timothy, Barnabas, or the brothers of Christ among the Twelve- obviously, if any of them were on the list, it would become "the Thirteen" or more. What we ARE saying is that there were other apostles in addition to the Twelve. IMHO, it's evident within the text, but if you have your heart set on there being 12, you won't deem any other use of the word "apostle" or its derivatives as being in the same context.

I agree, from here we would probably start moving slowly around in a circle then progress to the point where we talk past each other. I had hoped to get you to think a little outside of where you are at, that doesn't look like it will happen. It has been a nice conversation nevertheless, probably best to move on at this point.

Perhaps I will go back to critiquing Epp's work. That was what I was prepared to do, this has been a nice diversion from that.

[Todd Erickson]

One suspects that whatever their qualifications, a true apostle would be full of the image of Christ.

As a result, they would care little for their office, station, or labeling, so long as it pointed toward Christ and away from themselves.

We, in the comfort of our armchairs, gazing back over histories, make pronouncements over the lives of men and women who lived and died in the name of Christ, and pronounce who were acceptable and who were not.

Whose image are we doing so in?

[Jim Chabot]

One suspects that whatever their qualifications, a true apostle would be full of the image of Christ.

As a result, they would care little for their office, station, or labeling, so long as it pointed toward Christ and away from themselves.

We, in the comfort of our armchairs, gazing back over histories, make pronouncements over the lives of men and women who lived and died in the name of Christ, and pronounce who were acceptable and who were not.

Whose image are we doing so in?

I'll go one further, actually I already have. There are no qualifications for an apostle, or at least none that may be fashioned by humans. The twelve that became eleven and then twelve once again, were chosen personally by Christ. No humans participated in the vetting process, no qualifications.

[Randy Wise]

I'll go one further, actually I already have. There are no qualifications for an apostle, or at least none that may be fashioned by humans. The twelve that became eleven and then twelve once again, were chosen personally by Christ. No humans participated in the vetting process, no qualifications.

I believe the 12 were all Hebrews, Israelites, and children of Abraham. (some of that is assumption) Other then Judas who was called a devil they seemed to have reverence for God whether then were sinners or not. (context Luke 5:8) I don't know for sure but I think they all drank the Lords cup. (gave their lives - didn't shrink back) Also they appeared to have left everything to follow Jesus.

Now Jesus Himself did send others out "the seventy".

It is interesting to note Jesus didn't consult or let the 11 know about Paul as we read they just starting hearing reports that the one who opposed the message with so much zeal now was preaching the same message. Then they finally met up.

Randy

[Todd Erickson]

Wikipedia points out that in usage, the Disciples only used the word "Apostle" to refer to their own group, whereas Paul used it for anybody who was sent to spread discipleship. So the usage seems to depend on the source.

[Dennis Bratcher]

The twelve that became eleven and then twelve once again, were chosen personally by Christ. No humans participated in the vetting process, no qualifications.

Actually, they were chosen by Jesus who was most certainly a human. I agree that this does not relate to qualifications. However, it most certainly relates to the range of who was chosen since human beings live within the parameters of time and place.

Some have argued that since Jesus chose only men, therefore women should be excluded from being apostles or church leaders. But that fails to realize that the same argument could be made for Gentiles. Or for Africans or Asians. Or for light skinned Europeans. Or for those who do not speak Greek. Etc.

The Church has caused (and continues to cause) a lot of confusion, even perversion, by trying to make applications and laws from biblical texts without understanding the importance of context in biblical material, or of failing to understand our own context.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Randy Wise]

Actually, they were chosen by Jesus who was most certainly a human. I agree that this does not relate to qualifications. However, it most certainly relates to the range of who was chosen since human beings live within the parameters of time and place.

Some have argued that since Jesus chose only men, therefore women should be excluded from being apostles or church leaders. But that fails to realize that the same argument could be made for Gentiles. Or for Africans or Asians. Or for light skinned Europeans. Or for those who do not speak Greek. Etc.

The Church has caused (and continues to cause) a lot of confusion, even perversion, by trying to make applications and laws from biblical texts without understanding the importance of context in biblical material, or of failing to understand our own context.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Setting the 12 aside I get the impression that those that asked to participate at the signs, miracles, wonders level were "ok'ed" by Jesus with the reply of drop everything, family, job, possessions, and follow Him.

Randy

[Rich Schmidt]

Wikipedia points out that in usage, the Disciples only used the word "Apostle" to refer to their own group, whereas Paul used it for anybody who was sent to spread discipleship. So the usage seems to depend on the source.

Paul clearly uses the term "apostle" more broadly, applying it to more than just the Twelve. And since his words are part of our Scripture, we can't simply dismiss his usage of the term. As others have mentioned, we can distinguish between "the twelve apostles" and "the apostles" more generally, and if we do, then certainly Junia isn't one of the Twelve, though she may in fact be one of the apostles.

BTW, for any who might not be aware, www.biblestudytools.com makes it easy to search for a Greek or Hebrew word. In this case, I looked up the 1 Thess. passage in the New American Standard version, checked the box for the Strongs numbers, then clicked on the word "apostles." It took me to the page for the Greek word, and on the side lists the number of times it's used in each book of the Bible. Clicking on any book of the Bible opens a page showing all the verses in which the word is used.

If you really want to get adventurous, you can look the passage up in the Interlinear Bible, which gives the Greek text under the English text. Doing so shows that, just like in the English, Paul uses the plural form of "apostles" in 1 Thess. 2:5-7, apparently referring to his whole group, not just himself.

[Jim Chabot]

Paul clearly uses the term "apostle" more broadly, applying it to more than just the Twelve. And since his words are part of our Scripture, we can't simply dismiss his usage of the term. As others have mentioned, we can distinguish between "the twelve apostles" and "the apostles" more generally, and if we do, then certainly Junia isn't one of the Twelve, though she may in fact be one of the apostles.

BTW, for any who might not be aware, www.biblestudytools.com makes it easy to search for a Greek or Hebrew word. In this case, I looked up the 1 Thess. passage in the New American Standard version, checked the box for the Strongs numbers, then clicked on the word "apostles." It took me to the page for the Greek word, and on the side lists the number of times it's used in each book of the Bible. Clicking on any book of the Bible opens a page showing all the verses in which the word is used.

If you really want to get adventurous, you can look the passage up in the Interlinear Bible, which gives the Greek text under the English text. Doing so shows that, just like in the English, Paul uses the plural form of "apostles" in 1 Thess. 2:5-7, apparently referring to his whole group, not just himself.

The same feature is available at www.blueletterbible.com however I have found that one must be careful not to rely too heavily on Strong's as it is not entirely "exhaustive" in that it links to generic greek words only. There are times where the greek texts differ from Strong's.

A few years back I sang at an Easter service at a friends church. As part of the introduction to "It Is Finished" I spoke briefly on the word tetelestai, only to find out later that I had inadvertently trashed my friend's entire sermon that he had based upon Strong's reference to "telos".

[Rich Schmidt]

The same feature is available at www.blueletterbible.com however I have found that one must be careful not to rely too heavily on Strong's as it is not entirely "exhaustive" in that it links to generic greek words only. There are times where the greek texts differ from Strong's.

If there's a more "exhaustive" way to search the Greek and Hebrew texts - for free, on the web - I'd love to hear about it. Until then, that's why I hop over to view the verse in the interlinear view, so I can see what Greek word is actually being used in the verse.

I suppose I could dig my Greek NT out of the basement... but the web is so darn handy!

[Jim Chabot]

If there's a more "exhaustive" way to search the Greek and Hebrew texts - for free, on the web - I'd love to hear about it. Until then, that's why I hop over to view the verse in the interlinear view, so I can see what Greek word is actually being used in the verse.

I suppose I could dig my Greek NT out of the basement... but the web is so darn handy!

I took a minute to check out the site you linked to, and it appears to be pretty comprehensive, more so than blueletterbible. My cause for concern was with Strong's, I think that you are safe as long as you check back with the interlinear text, to be sure that Strong's is in agreement with it. I think that generally they agree, but that one embarrassing episode for my friend was enough for me to double check whenever I use Strong's as a resource.

[Steven Burton]

I have no clue regarding Junia.

I am learning much reading this thread.

But can we keep the old tired "unless you support the ordination of women you are oppressing them" idea out of the discussion?

Those that oppose it do so on Biblical grounds. Those that support it do so on Biblical grounds.

Teach me the Biblical grounds for each viewpoint, please.

Or else we are going to have to liberate men and let them wear pantyhose and spike heels. Or maybe in the interest of consciousness raising DEMAND they wear them on the job.

Man o man, I can just see my pastor now.........

I see you have seen a picture of Eddie Izzard then?

[Larry Parsons]

In the 16th chapter of Roman seem to be saying there were women in ministry that was helping Paul. For example verse 12 we read of two women who were were helping Paul in his work, probably going around exhorting both men and women while they were visiting in diffrent home. Here what I find interesting in the New American Bible at verse 7 .......my kinsmen and fellow prisoners; they are outstanding apostles......" In the Good New Bible says ......they were well know among the apostles..." Two different opion here.This is just my opion but think both the women and the men that is being mention here in Roman 16 are just plain disciples of the Lord and the reasons I'm say this is because Jesus only call 12 men to be his apostles and the rest of us are his disciples.
Thanks
Larry P.

[Kami Tuenning]

I do not understand some Christians' need to oppress women.

How many christian women truly feel oppressed? I never have. I have found that for most of the woman I've known in ordained ministry most of their oppressed "feelings" came from not being accepted by other woman or(this is really hard to say but I can only speak from personal experience and am not imposing a generalization) these woman ALWAYS felt inferior because they didn't grow up attractive, popular, etc. They suffered more from loss of self-esteem imposed by cultural standards rather than oppression from within the church. I don't feel less intelligent, nor creatively restricted if I can't hold a certain title or office. This is really confusing to me, the whole "oppression" argument...