Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. (Rom 16:7)
Junia is one of the many people named in passing in the Bible that we don't know much about. I imagine that during eternity we will have plenty of time to get to know them! We do know that she is known among the apostles in some way and is somehow affiliated with another relatively unknown figure, Andronicus.
Anyway, Matt Slick who writes apologetic works for CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry), penned a fairly in-depth study of Junia and what we know and more importantly what we don't know about this intriguing individual. This is especially pertinent because some people take this passage about Junia and her relationship to the apostles as "proof" that there are no gender distinctions in Scripture in terms of who leads and how they lead. Matt's article, Was Junia in Romans 16:7 a female apostle in authority? , debunks this idea.
I think what Matt's article demonstrates is that what we know of Junia is pretty sketchy. Was Junia a "he" or a "she". Probably a she. Probably. Was she an apostle or known among the apostles or known by the apostles? It depends on the translation but it certainly seems plausible that she was well known by the apostles. Who is Andronicus? Her brother or her husband? Maybe a married couple like Priscilla and Aquila. If she is a she and if she is an apostle, what does that mean? She wasn't one of the twelve. She wasn't an apostle like Paul. Who did she minister to? Who did she teach? Half of the church were probably women, so can someone be an apostle (one who is sent) and minister/teach exclusively among other women?
Junia appears all of one time. Once is enough to recognize her for who and what she is but to try to override other, more clear and explicit teachings on an uncertain reference to an otherwise unknown individual seem pretty sketchy to me. Suppositions are OK but not when we use them to trump explicit teachings.
13 comments:
Explicit teachings like 1 Tim 2:12 and 1 Cor 14:34-35?
Or more like, obscure teachings interpreted with literal hermeneutics minus cultural context and historical data?
Explicit teachings like 1 Cor 14:34-35 and 1 Tim 2:12. I don't find anything obscure about those passages.
Even in light of the rest of the new testament regarding the roles of women?
Ever read the Talmud, or Mishnah and compared it to 1 cor 14:34-35?
Better yet, the structure of 1 cor 14, that ALL prophesy, ALL may learn...is intriguing, especially after you consider 1 Cor 11:5...
I hardly think Paul contradicts himself.
Either the traditional role of women requires re-examination,
or we essentially have an all male clergy, and the royal priesthood is only for men..welcome back to Rome.
James
Ever read the Talmud, or Mishnah and compared it to 1 cor 14:34-35?
Nope but I have compared the other writings of Paul and Peter with 1 Cor 14:34-35. I likewise don't find that Paul contradicts himself and clearly at time women prophesy. I think it is also clear that when Paul is speaking throughout 1 Corinthians 14, given the qualifier that he uses in the referenced verses, he was speaking to the brothers, not the entire Body.
As far as an all male priesthood, you are making a false either-or argument: Either women have no role in the church or women have no restrictions at all. Women are called to minister to other women, i.e. half of the church. They are called to manage the home. They are likewise called to submit to the leadership of their husband. They are not called to lead in the church nor to teach. It would be inappropriate for a man to develop a mentoring relationship with a woman. That isn't denying men a priesthood, it is just establishign specific restrictions on how men and women minster and function in the church and the home.
My original point remains. We don't know a lot about Junia and attempts to twist the limited knowledge to argue for an egalitarian understanding of gender are baseless.
Hey, I feel ya...I understand your position. But your qualifier is actually false. Try re-examining Paul's usage of brethren in the New Testament, and most specifically in 1 Corinthians. When he specifies a difference between brethren, and sisters, you know he is doing so.
You make a fatal error with your 'qualifier' when you do it to the tune of ignoring 1 Corinthians 12-14 addressing the entire body, relating to gifts, relating to their purpose in the body, and the fact that ALL...means ALL. Not, all brethren.
I suppose Jesus was showing impropriety when he mentored Mary at his feet right?
My point? The passages are obscure, and the topic of Junia does not necessarily remain vague when you consider the actual place of women in the NT church. She opens up a whole new story regarding just how integral a role the women play in the church. One need not argue for domination of a man to implement role relationships in the church. Indeed, it actually is ironic that one would argue that all believers submit themselves to one another, but women don't count in that rule.
Then again, there 1 Cor 7:5. I'm wondering how 'submission' becomes 'subjection'
Your point? Women are only priests in the home, not in the church. Do you really think that jives with Jesus' teachings? Or Hebrews for that matter?
I am not sure what you are arguing. You know me brother, just someone saying “You’re wrong” is not persuasive.
Can and do women minister in the church? Absolutely. I am not arguing against that. Does that reality and the examples in Scripture like Mary washing the feet of Jesus have anything to do with whether women are in positions of leadership in the church? Absolutely not. Either Paul and Peter don’t really mean what they are saying or there is a simpler explanation, i.e. that when it comes to leading in the home and the church, that is a function that is reserved to men. Otherwise you are left with attempting to explain away what is written in favor of extra-biblical sources or suppositions of cultural or location specific issues that Paul and Peter didn’t see fit to mention.
I don’t think you can seriously make a comparison between the teaching of Paul and Peter where they specifically and directly reference women and men and the gender issue versus the single reference to Junia as being either an apostle of some sort or perhaps more aptly known by the apostles. That is the point of the post.
No problem brutha...first let me clarify..
You made mention of the inappropriate nature of men mentoring women...That is the reference regarding Jesus and Mary I made. I think that clarifies the issue of impropriety pretty easily.
Regarding what Paul and Peter didn't see fit to mention? That is mainly my point regarding the broaching of this issue in the context of the "Junia" topic. You stated that there is much more specific statements related to the issue of leadership/apostleship in the NT to trump the ideal that Junia would be an Apostle. Ignoring the cultural issues and practices of the day is exactly the problem with the 'sacramental' bread breakers. Traditions are read back into a text that had an audience who would've had some assumptions.
ie., 1 tim 2 and 1 cor 14:34-35.
There are MORE issues giving evidence to the ministry of all the body in the context of the body's meeting than there are against, and two obscure passages eliminate all of that? Really?
If we are not under the Law...why do we impose the Law mentioned in 1 cor 14 on the sisters? Quite the problem if you think about it? Then what law is it? The Talmud and the Mishnah are quite specific regarding women's speech.
The references here are integral to the topic of Junia. The mere mention of her existence brings automatic dismissal of her being a 'her' or that Paul might have actually commended her as an apostle...because apostles teach...and only men are allowed to have that gift for edifying the body....well...at least women can have separate meetings to edify the body in...
James
You made mention of the inappropriate nature of men mentoring women...That is the reference regarding Jesus and Mary I made. I think that clarifies the issue of impropriety pretty easily.
a) Mary washing the feet of Christ, in a public place amidst a large group of people, a one-off event as far as we know, doesn’t rise to the level of “mentoring”, mentoring requires an ongoing, intimate one on one relationship and b) I trust Jesus far more than I trust myself or any other man.
Regarding what Paul and Peter didn't see fit to mention? That is mainly my point regarding the broaching of this issue in the context of the "Junia" topic. You stated that there is much more specific statements related to the issue of leadership/apostleship in the NT to trump the ideal that Junia would be an Apostle. Ignoring the cultural issues and practices of the day is exactly the problem with the 'sacramental' bread breakers. Traditions are read back into a text that had an audience who would've had some assumptions.
Huh? In Junia we have one, and only one, offhand remark. Even "only" taking the applicale text of 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Cor 14, that still is comparing one reference to one person that is quite unclear (did you read the CARM article I linked to?) versus very clear teaching from Paul and Peter.
If we are not under the Law...why do we impose the Law mentioned in 1 cor 14 on the sisters? Quite the problem if you think about it? Then what law is it? The Talmud and the Mishnah are quite specific regarding women's speech.
I didn't bring up the Law. Paul did. Trying to use one unclear point of the text to erase the clear points is dangerous. You are assuming that Paul is referencing the Talmud and Mishna, which is not at all clear from what he actually wrote. Paul's reference to the Law is ancillary to his main point. He is not appealing or relying on the Law, whatever he meant by that, for his argument.
*cont*
*cont*
This cultural or historical context, silent in the text but crucial to interpreting the text 2000 years later, is the same argument against headcovering. “Well, there is this cultural context you don’t understand and this is what Paul really means so there is no need for women to cover their heads”. Likewise with Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behavior in Romans 1. We need to be very cautious when overriding what appears to be the intent of a plain reading of Scripture based on cultural or historical facts that are not mentioned and keeping in mind that these letters, epistles, gospels, etc were preserved not just for the church in Corinth but for our benefit as well.
Rather than dealing in sweeping generalizations and suppositions, let’s break down some of what Paul is actually saying.
“the women should keep silent in the churches”
“For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
You are assuming the Law to be some extra-Biblical source. That is not clear at all in the text or context and what Paul is saying is consistent with what he says elsewhere regarding women teaching in the church, wives submitting to their husbands and women covering their heads as a symbol of authority. I am loathe to overturn what Paul did say based on something he did not.
This silence makes sense when you look at the very next verse:
“If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home.”
Followed by:
“For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”
I think it is easy to speak in generalities but when you just read what Paul wrote and what those in Corinth who received the letter would have read, there is nothing vague here. Ask your husband at home. It is shameful for women to speak in church. Not permitted to speak. Should keep silent. I am not a Greek scholar and neither are you but it seems that this whole passage is strongly and unambiguously worded. Any one of the above statements, taken alone and in a vacuum might be difficult to build a doctrinal position from but what Paul says here he says forcefully and repetitively and in harmony with what else he has written (i.e. referencing twice that women should be quiet in 1 Timothy 2: 11-12). I am not an advocate of women being muzzled in the gathered church but when it comes to teaching or judging prophecy, Paul is quite clear that those actions are unacceptable for our sisters to be engaged in.
In our zeal to divest the church of traditions of men built up over the centuries, we need to be careful not to lose valid teachings, commands and examples and replace them different practices and interpretations that are more palatable to contemporary culture.
I mean, it is not as if Paul wrote unambiguously that women and men are called to minister in the church identically throughout his writings and then randomly inserted a parenthetical statement: (women be quiet). Since he does not specify throughout his writings by explicit or even implicit statements that he saw no gender differences in church functions but rather in multiple places indicated in very strong language that there are restrictions on function within the church, the logical and sensible interpretation is that he meant what he said when he wrote it down for the church both at that time and throughout history and didn’t mean what he didn’t see fit to write down.
--Arthur. Of all people, you know the issue isn't one of relevance or making a teaching more palatable to contemporary culture. That is kind of insulting to say the least.
RE: Mary and Jesus, you are forgetting a verse..
Luk 10:39 And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching.
and another for reference regarding 'mentorship' or the posture of discipleship
Act 22:3 "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God as all of you are this day.
You are right, Jesus word is advisable to listen to,
Joh 13:15-16 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.
... silence makes sense for the women who are married. The ones who have husbands to ask at home. The Law Paul brings up has zero to do with women's silence because there is no Law that says women are silent.
Even if the law is the Civil, Ceremonial, or Moral law, or the whole of Torah, there is no law regarding the speech of women, anywhere. The logical end then is Paul placing the Corinthians (and as you say all other churches forever) under the law that he says is no longer binding? So the end result, you have made a law that does not exist in the scripture (but plainly exists in the Talmud) and you have not addressed the silence of women who are not married (children, widows, etc.,)
A woman's voice is prohibited because it is sexually provocative. (Talmud, Berachot 24a)
Women are sexually seductive, mentally inferior, socially embarrassing, and spiritually separated from the law of Moses; therefore, let them be silent. (Summary of Talmudic sayings)
It is a shame for a woman to let her voice be heard among men. (Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin)
The voice of a woman is filthy nakedness. (Talmud, Berachot Kiddushin)
To deal with the texts, and the Greek, let's look at the usage of sigao in 1 Cor 14:28, 30, and your reference 34.
v28 says the tongue speaker is to be silent if there is no interpreter. So that means no speaking in the meeting at all...good no more noise outta that guy!
v30 says the prophets are to be silent when someone else gets up to prophesy...no more peeps out of those folks for the rest of the meeting either.
and v34 let your women be sigatosan - silent - for it is not allowed for them to speak (laleo).
The first alert this creates is that it is not in collusion with the previous inferences to silence is it? Its out of place. It contradicts 1 Cor 11:1-16 and it contradicts,
1Co 14:23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you(plural) are out of your minds?
or wait...here is the best interpretation,
1Co 14:24 But if all men prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all the men, he is called to account by all the men,
1Co 14:25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among the men.
still just talking about the men?
1Co 14:26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
Okay, okay... I think Paul clears it up here...same verb for speak in 1 Cor 14:34,
Eph 5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
Of interesting note here, he mentions not being drunk with wine in 5:18, a reference I believe to table fellowship, and in tandem with the reference to overall body fellowship/gifts seen in Eph 4.
Regarding 1 Tim 2:11-12...well. You yourself have argued against the complete removal of gold and silver, or adornments in general, as being 'figurative' or 'analogous' but find this command of being silent/subject in 1 Tim to be definitive and imperative?
The real problem is again, the silent statement. Hesuchia means quietness. Silence in some regard, yes, completely mum and a non-contributor? I think not. I won't even open the can of worms regarding Authenteo.
Lastly, Paul is explicit when he states,
Col 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you (plural) richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.
Summarily,
The reason I have come to question the abrogation of female roles in the assembly, mainly teaching, is not due to a relative or contemporary justification. It is the overwhelming evidence of the whole NT (that is not a puzzle or clipboard for cutting and pasting) that women are priests along with men and they serve the same function of offering spiritual sacrifice as men do.
Am I prepared to say women are elders or pastors (which is the same)? Not yet. Do I think that women can teach men? I think the NT says it is allowable under certain circumstances, and the texts we are concerned with are all referencing wives/husbands. 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 14 are hard texts to wrestle with in both the greek and english, but taken with the rest of the NT they appear to be requiring much further examination than just saying women can have any gift except the gift of teaching...in the context of the body.
James
That is all very interesting but I think you are arguing against something I didn’t say. You conclude with:
Am I prepared to say women are elders or pastors (which is the same)? Not yet. Do I think that women can teach men? I think the NT says it is allowable under certain circumstances, and the texts we are concerned with are all referencing wives/husbands.
If that is your position, then I see nothing wrong with it. This is where brevity and clarity come in. I am not arguing for total silence from women in the gathered church nor do I think Paul is calling for that. I neither stated nor implied that. I think taking 1 Cor 11 and 1 Tim 2 in context with 1 Corinthians 14 presents a picture of women participating in the gathered church with restrictions. Women are not to teach men or be in positions of leadership or to use the example from 1 Corinthians 14 to judge prophesy. Can a woman offer a prayer in the gathering? I don’t see that as problematic provided she has her head covered, although I am unconvinced that 1 Corinthians 11 is referencing the gathered church. Now, if a gathering has corporate prayer offered on behalf of the gathering I think it is inappropriate for women to lead in that prayer but I am hardly saying that women cannot say “Hi” to others or clear their throats while in church.
It seems that you are missing the point of the original post which simply is that one reference to Junia does not trump the explicit teaching of Scripture elsewhere regardless of how one interprets those Scriptures.
Post a Comment