One of Apostles was a woman, Church is told

EVIDENCE that one of the Apostles of Jesus was a woman is being examined by leaders of the Church of England, who are debating whether women should be ordained bishops.

Joanna, who was close to Jesus during His ministry, changed her name to Junia and was recognised by St Paul as an Apostle, research to be published later this year found. Her role was ignored for centuries because medieval scholars altered the name to Junias to make it masculine.

Joanna, who was with Mary Magdalen when the empty tomb was discovered and taken as proof of the Resurrection, changed her Hebrew name to a Latin name to fit in with the Romanised culture of Tiberias, where she lived, Richard Bauckham, Professor of New Testament Studies at St Andrews University, says.

As Junia, she was described by St Paul in a letter to the Romans as “prominent among the Apostles”. She was a wealthy woman from King Herod’s court who turned to Jesus after seeing Him heal a friend’s wife, he says.

The defection of the powerful courtier to the new Christian movement was seen as even more scandalous because she was married to Chuza, one of Herod’s most influential stewards. Joanna converted her husband, changed the way she dressed and used her own money to support the mission.

Although it has been previously suggested in theological circles that the Apostle Junia was a female, she has never previously been linked to Joanna and the Herodian upper class of Tiberias.

The discovery suggests that not only was society far less patriarchal than previous research has shown, but that women such as Joanna may have used their wealth and standing in society to convert others to their cause. Joanna and Chuza were among the large numbers of disciples who gathered when Jesus appeared to rise from the dead. She witnessed the Crucifixion and Chuza later changed his name to Andronicus, Professor Bauckham says.

Professor Bauckham’s paper, Junia the Apostle, will be discussed during the meeting of the General Synod. Its presentation to a bishops’ working party on the theology of women in the episcopate will challenge the perception of the apostles that has dominated the Church since AD400.

Although Jerome, regarded as the most important religious scholar of that time, considered Junia to be a woman, subsequent translations in the Middle Ages and the King James Bible changed her name to the male Junias.

Robert Bartlett, Professor of Medieval History at St Andrews University, said: “If a name like Junia was a little ambiguous, the medieval scribes were quite likely to make mistakes. Certainly the medieval Church was male-dominated and wanted it to stay that way, but whether someone was cooking the books to make it appear that the Apostles were all men is not yet certain.” Medieval scribes were known for their inaccuracies, he said.

The assumption that the leading Apostles were all men has been one of the most unassailable arguments against the ordination of women bishops.

If the claim that Joanna and Junia were the same person, and that Junia was a woman and an Apostle is accepted, the argument for women bishops will have been all but won.

The “greatest surprise”, Professor Bauckham said, was that St Paul knew one of them “and considered her an outstanding Apostle”. Her high status would have conferred social legitimacy on the new religious movement.

After witnessing the Resurrection she left for Rome with her husband. Both were imprisoned for their beliefs and never heard of again.

Hmm, Another re-write of history by feminists?

Or perhaps the alterations were on the part of the religious zealots. I don't know why anyone would believe everything in the bible. It was written down a generation or more after the events it discribes took place and has been altered so many times. I'm very sceptical of the claims of Christians. If God wanted to prove to everyone that he existed by sending his son down to earth, why would he choose a time in history were scientific understanding and literacy were almost non-existant. A time were superstition is rampant and documentation is questionable at best. Then he puts a multitude of other religions on earth with equally outragous claims with equally unreliable evidence. Then he says you must pick the right one to believe in or spend an eternity of inescapable torture. Does this sound like a moral god to me? No.

Sorry for the delay - I had a tremendous week at a youth
conference and am now wading back through some old emails,
etc and getting caught back up.

Apostles were both the original twelve as well as others,
presumably those who followed Jesus and were a part of the original band or who were encountered and commissioned by
the Risen Christ. See: 1 Corinthians 15:5,7. An Apostle
was someone who had seen, been confronted by, the Risen Christ - 1 Cor. 9:1.

So, others than the Twelve were counted apostles. Barnabas, Silas, James, Adronicus. Certainly, Mary the Great or Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of Christ, Salome, etc. would
fit the definition of Apostle as well. They had seen Christ and they had been empowered and commissioned by the Spirit to share the gospel. (Acts 14:14; Romans 16:7; Galatians 1:19; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6; Matt. 28:7; Mark 16:7).

Specifically, looking at Junia whom Paul describes as prominent and a fellow apostle - Romans 16:7 - we see that Junia ia a common name, Latin, for women. It is not
a diminutive, becasue Latin diminutives were formed by lengthening not shortening, a name.

Origen and John Chrysostrom, certainly not friendly toward
women, admitted that Junian/Junia/Junias was a female.

In Epistolam ad Romanos Commentariorum 10,26; 39 Origen
took for granted that Junia was a female apostle.

John Chrysostrom wrote, "Oh! how great is the devotion of this woman, that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle! ((Homily on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans 31)).

Not until Aegidus of Rome (b. 1245 - d.1316) do you find
a commentator simply assume that both Andronicus and Junia
are both men.

Certainly, there are multiple evidences in Scripture, for
those who want to sling verses back and forth, that point
toward the authoritative leadership of women in the Old and New Testament Churches.

In the Old Testament we find female prophets in Miriam, Huldah and the wife of Isaiah. See Micah 6:4; Judges 4:4
- among other passages.

Joel wrote of a time that both genders would prophesy, would proclaim, forthelling/foretelling, God's reign, Joel 2:28. Indeed, in Acts 2 we see that the Holy Spirit filled
and empowered for proclamation (preaching/teaching)
both men AND women! Also, Luke 2:36 should be of interest.

And of course, there is ample evidence that there were both
teaching elders and deacons in the New Testament era. We find such evidence in both Scripture and in Church History.
Not until the 800's do you find conciliar teaching coming
down to finally squelch the role of female leadership in the Church.

In the New Testament, specifically in Paul's injunction 'silencing' certain women, it is obvious from the context and the larger message of Paul, that he is dealing with a specific situation of women coming from Gentile/pagan backgrounds and importing various practices into the Church. The exhortation to LEARN in silence is a standard 1st Century rabbinical teaching method - learn in respect, in silence - in turn to teach. The Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 14 means quiet (the same verb is used when Paul exhorts Christians to live quiet lives - not lives of monastic silence, but quiet, dignified, self-controlled).
Both men and women are urged to learn and live in quiet/silence.

Paul always assumes women are praying and teaching in the Church. He never forbids it, rather he gives guidelines to two particular church contexts for the right execution of those duties and offices. Standards for male elders/deacons are always joined to similar standards for women. There is certainly evidence in the Pastoral Epistles and 2 John that there were female patrons, deacons, and elders - leaders of house churches and apostles. Galatians 3:28 is a fine lens
through which to view the whole of Paul's teaching. Even
in Revelation where 'Jezebel' is condemned by the Risen
Christ for false teaching, she is not condemned for
teaching(as a woman).

Again, I am not inclined to begin writing lengthy essays on FR, rather for anyone genuinely interested in the foundations in Scripture and early Church history regarding
the role of women in the Church ought to consult some of the scholarly and learned works available from Christians for Biblical Equality.

That women and men stand on an equal footing in Christ and that the Holy Spirit calls men and women to all the ministries of the Church is not a cultural accomodation to secular feminism, it is being true to Scripture and the teachings and example of Jesus.

I hope this provides some little justification for why
evangelical Christians can and do affirm female leadership in the Church.

Blessings.

In Romans 16:1-2 Paul commends Phoebe to the Roman Church.
He describes her as 'our sister' and in addition as a
minister and a leader.

Diakonos means, as you rightly point out, 'servant.'
It became an important title in the early church and had
secular usage as well. Contextually, in the NT, it is used
synonomously with 'ministry of the word' and/or 'ministry to equip the saints.' Deacon and "minister" became functional equivalents. The secular use was such to have the meaning 'servant or minister of a sovereign.'

1 Peter 4:10 would indicate that the role/office of deacon did indeed meet physical needs as well as proclamation of the word - there are two types of service, of ministry.

Both men and women are described with the noun diakonos in the NT. When it is applied to a male, there has been a
translator's bias toward rendering it "minister" and when
connected to a female as "servant."

Early Church History testifies to the role that women played
--- not as deaconesses, a word that does not appear in the NT but is a later ecclesiastical development ---- as deacons. Two female deacons in Bithynia-Pontus were tortured during Trajan's reign (AD 98-117) as the leaders and most knowledgable persons in their congregations.
The Letters of Pliny, Book 10, 96 reads: "it was all the more necessary to extract the truth by torture from the slave-women, whom they called ministers."

Phoebe is not only a minister, but is commended by Paul as
a ruler (prostatis) in the church. She was a woman set over others. Both elders and deacons are seen as having
authority in the Church.

In Romans 16:1-2 Paul commends Phoebe to the Roman Church. He describes her as 'our sister' and in addition as a minister and a leader.

A blatent lie. He introduced her as a servant plainly and openly.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak: but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in church."

Get thee from me..

Run along back to NOW or some other pack of fools who will believe your lies..

Actually, you probably won't have to run very far as there is a large contingent of women right here on FR who aren't happy with the way God created them and are continually looking for arguments to use in this regard..

Being smarter than the Creator himself, they wish to be Adam, Eve and all things in between. Truly, the blind and their guides deserve the company of one another.

I concur - and that is a standard objection. However, for
those who hold to the traditionalist/patriarchal interpretation of Paul's instructions regarding the role
of women, the gender roles are rooted in the creation
account, are universally applicable throughout all human
culture & society and so are retained in the Church.

I don't believe you ought to defer to anyone because of
their gender! If you wish to defer to someone because they
are a brother or sister in Christ for the sake of unity, more power to you, but simply because they are men . . . ?

But, I certainly respect your position, it was mine for
quite some time as I struggled through the exegesis of
certain New Testament pericopes and their real life applications. There are tough issues to wrestle with & many are not made any easier by the temptations & corruptions of the culture in which we live. But, I defer to your piety & learning and end my arguments. Blessings 8-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.