Recently I enjoyed preaching on Romans 16. Perhaps surprisingly, there was a lot to learn from the long list of names. One obvious feature was the many women mentioned.
In recent years, it’s been popular to say that the church has oppressed women, that it has little place for them, and even that the Apostle Paul was a woman-hater. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Paul identifies 28 people he wants to greet in Rome. Ten of them are women. Even that statistic is impressive in a fairly male-dominated society. Paul was certainly not ignoring women.
Several women mentioned were obviously important in Christian circles. For example, there is Priscilla in verse 5, mentioned, unusually, before her husband. Obviously she was a capable woman, whom Paul greatly admired. He says she and her husband risked their lives for him. And many were very grateful to her and Aquila.
Then in verse 6 there is Mary, and in verse 12, Tryphena, Tryphosa and Persis—all women who are said to work hard in the Lord.
And we shouldn’t forget Phoebe, mentioned in verses 1-2. She’s not in Rome, but is travelling there on some matter. She is identified as a ‘servant’, which can also be translated as ‘deacon’. This word was sometimes used for a recognized church office. And so it’s quite likely she had a recognized ministry role in the church at Cenchrea. She is also a great help or ‘patron’—probably providing financial or social backing to the Christians. In fact, Phoebe was possibly the one whom Paul trusted to take his letter to the Christians in Rome.
Paul obviously had a lot of time for women like these.
So what conclusions can we draw about the place of women in ministry? Paul’s letter says we can be certain there is an honoured place for women in ministry. They were servants of the church, they were Paul’s fellow workers and they were hard workers in the Lord. And we should encourage women today to get involved and to work hard in serving the Lord.
But if there’s a danger of glossing over the fine ministry done by women, there is an opposite danger of reading too much into the brief references in places like Romans 16. This is exactly what is done by many proponents of an egalitarian approach to ministry.
There’s a problem when feminists claim this passage proves women served as public Bible teachers and church leaders. The reality is that the references don’t give enough information to define the precise nature of their ministries.
For example, the fact that someone is called of a ‘fellow worker’ with Paul does not prove she was a preacher or a church leader. I consider our office administrator my co-worker. But she does not lead or preach in church. Likewise, my wife is my fellow worker. She administers the music ministry. She teaches children at Kids’ Church and in school Scripture, and teaches the women in her Bible study group. But she does not lead or preach in church. So the use of the term ‘fellow worker’ does not prove women may be church leaders.
The same applies to calling Phoebe a deacon. As a patron, Phoebe’s ministry may have majored on hospitality or financial support. In Acts 6, those who served as deacons were to help with feeding the poor widows in the Jerusalem church. And in 1 Timothy 3, unlike the church elders, deacons are not required to possess the quality of “being able to teach”. In fact, in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, 3:1-7 (cf. v. 8ff) and 5:17-18, it is the male elders, not the deacons, who oversee or direct the affairs of the church—some of them by preaching and teaching. So this reference to Phoebe as a deacon does not prove she was a church leader or teacher.
Lastly, there is the example of Junia in Romans 16:7:
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were also in Christ before me. (HSCB)
I’ve heard this verse used to say women were foundational authoritative apostles. But there are three uncertainties here:
-
The name is grammatically ambiguous: it could be male (Junias) or female (Junia)—although it’s most likely female, since almost all the references in other literature from the time suggest Junia was a common female name, but Junias appears virtually unknown.
-
The phrase “outstanding [or ‘prominent’] among the apostles” is also ambiguous. Imagine someone says to you, “Sandy is prominent among the bishops” (unlikely I know!) Does this mean Sandy is a prominent example of a bishop? Or does it mean that Sandy is prominent (as a person or as a minister) in the estimation of the bishops? Grammatically it could be either, although once again, it is arguably more likely an inclusive reference.
-
The third uncertainty is what the word ‘apostle’ means here. It has the basic sense of ‘delegate’ or ‘envoy’ or ‘messenger’ or what we might call a ‘missionary’ (one sent on a mission).
Often it is used of envoys with special God-given status—especially of the original twelve apostles of Jesus. Paul applies ‘apostle’ to a wider group of eyewitnesses to the resurrection, including himself in 1 Corinthians 15, and to himself in most of the opening greetings of his letters, as one appointed directly by God as his special envoy.
But elsewhere, he uses the word simply to refer to messengers without any special God-appointed status. For example, in 2 Corinthians 8:23, the term ‘apostles’ is translated as “representatives” in the NIV and as “messengers” (i.e. of local churches) in the ESV. Likewise in Philippians 2:25, Epaphroditus is an ‘apostle’, which simply means Paul’s messenger. (This is also the case in John 13:16.)
In other words, even if (as is grammatically possible) Junia is called an ‘apostle’ in this verse, it does not prove she was a church leader and teacher. She may simply have been a Christian messenger or missionary with a range of possible duties, alongside Andronicus, who is most likely her husband.
The word itself does not prove what her role is. And it is dangerous to suggest that this part of the New Testament must contradict the other parts of the New Testament that put certain clear restrictions on women with regards to not teaching or leading a mixed congregation.
Another more subtle problem with this approach is that it suggests that such ministry is the only pinnacle available to a woman. But don’t forget how positive Paul is in verse 16 about the mother of Rufus who had also been like a mother to Paul. Her ministry of mothering—of raising children and practising hospitality for a visitor like Paul—is equally commendable to that of Phoebe as a deacon or the outstanding Andronicus and Junia and Priscilla and Aquila.
So today, just like Paul in Romans 16, we need to value and encourage women in the full variety of those ministries legitimately available to them.
Reference: Andreas J Köstenberger, ‘Women in the Pauline Mission’ in The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission, Apollos, 2000, pp. 221-247.
Sandy, when I read your list of women I immediately thought of other women that Paul honoured in various ways. In 2 Timothy Lois and Eunice get special mention as the mothers of Timothy’s faith. They must have been early converts to Christ indeed! My guess is that they too heard the gospel when Paul and Barney preached it back in Acts 14. Although you never know, it could even have happened during the Acts 11:20 evangelism.
Sandy,
Thanks for a great post on Romans 16 and it certinly gives much pause for thought on women in church based service. Keep in mind that I’m not an egalitarian, but I have a few quibbles with your handling of Rom. 16.7:
1.There are over 200 inscriptions of Junia and in every single one it is feminine and in every single manuscript of Romans (except two) it is feminine as well. This is hardly ambiguous, it is overwhelming.
2. “Outstanding … apostles” is certainly ambiguous in the Greek, but in most translations Andronicus and Junia are regarded as apostles. Chrysostom has an excellent comment about how great she must have been to have been counted worthy of the designation apostle. See also Linda Belleville’s article on this against Dan Wallace.
3. Apostle here could mean apostle in the sense of a delegate of a church, much like Epaphroditus from Philippi, but usually the name of the sending church is also given or some kind of qualifier (e.g. your apostle). I surmize that A & J were either the founders of the first Jewish Christian ekklesia in Rome, or else they were among the extended witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection.
An excellent read on this verse is the book by Eldon J. Epp.
My comments are motivated by the fact that I cannot believe the violence done to the text by the ESV translators. Junia is no longer a women and no longer an apostle. This is the clearest case of agenda-driven textual tinkering that I’ve ever seen.
Gordo, great reference to Lois and Eunice. It tells us heaps!
2 Tim 3:15 tells us that Timothy had been brought up in the Scriptures from infancy. Clearly v15 is referring to the Old Testament Scriptures (since judging by the likely timing, the NT documents weren’t written when he was a young child).
2 Tim 1:5 tells us the faith Timothy has first lived in his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice.
Acts 16:1 tells us Timothy’s mother was a Jewish believer, but his father by contrast was a Greek, and since nothing is mentioned about him being a believer, the implication is clearly the opposite.
I agree it’s highly likely Timothy and his mother (and grandmother if still alive) learned that Jesus was the hoped for Christ when Paul and Barnabas visited Lystra and preached the gospel of Jesus there as recorded in Acts 14.
But I wonder if my Jewish Christian MTS Apprentice, Ben, might take issue with the precision of your description of Lois and Eunice being early “converts to Christ”.
This is because the fact they had been teaching Timothy the (OT) Scriptures from infancy indicates they were <i>believing Jews</i>, presumably like Simeon and Anna early in Luke, waiting for the consolation of Israel with the coming of the Messiah (i.e. the Christ). So they already believed in the Christ (that God would send him) but did not yet know he had actually come.
Presumably Paul and Barnabas simply had to convince them that “<i>Jesus</i> was the Christ” (as per Acts 9:22). After all, it was the OT Scriptures <i>known from infancy</i> which made Timothy wise for salvation through faith in <i>Christ</i> Jesus (2 Tim 3:15).
Presumably this means the OT set up the categories of understanding by which Timothy and his mum (and grandma) knew of their need of saving, knew God’s promise of the Messiah to do this, and so could see the reports about Jesus’ teachings, mighty acts, death and resurrection fulfilled those hopes.
So I am never quite sure whether it would be right to call them converts. Rather they went from being Old Covenant believers to New Covenant believers; from believers in the promise to believers in the fulfilment.
Far more practically, the example of Eunice tells us that a mother can have a very powerful ministry with children even when the father is not a believer.
By extension I think this should encourage grandparents to keep seeking appropriate chances to share the gospel and the Scriptures with grandchildren, even if the parents do not believe.
And by further extension it should encourage every Sunday School teacher (for American readers, this refers only to children in Australia) and school Scripture teacher (i.e. SRE = Special Religious Education teachers in public schools – for those outside of NSW).
You never know when you might have the next Timothy in your class as you teach them the Scriptures. After all, that’s how my fellow panelist, Lionel, was made wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus – through school SRE/Scripture!
Sandy, I think you are splitting hairs in your interpretation here!
Hello, Ros! Thanks for commenting, but it’s very hard to engage with what you say unless you indicate which hairs you think I am splitting and why. Otherwise it’s just an assertion.
Was it a part of my original post, and if so, which bits? Or was it something I said about Lois and Eunice?
Michael,
Thanks for your comments. I tried to respond several days ago, but somehow my remarks got lost when posting and foolishly I had not saved them on my own machine, so I lost my work, and did not have time to re-create it at the time.
Now I try again…
In regards to the three uncertainties on Junia in Romans 16:7:
(i) I agree that the name itself is almost certainly feminine – as I said in my original post. I understand the form of the word in the Greek is grammatically ambiguous, but the historical evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of it being a feminine name.
(ii) On whether “outstanding/prominent among the apostles” is inclusive (an outstanding example of an apostle) or exclusive (prominent in the estimation of the apostles)… I live in Wollongong and there is no theological library available locally. So I have not been able to consult Epp or Belleville. However I have worked through the detail of Suzanne McCarthy’s long series of posts in response to the original article by Dan Wallace and Michael Burer on this matter. I am just a parish minister, struggling to maintain my Greek, not an academic with special Greek expertise. However, it seems, she raises some reasonable objections to Wallace and Burer’s case that the phrase should be translated “well known to the apostles” (as per ESV & NET). On other matters, I think she overstated her case (e.g. in her initial dismissiveness of their use of Pss. Sol. 2:6 – which she first said was totally mistaken but now agrees is admissible evidence to be debated). In her last reply to Michael Burer – she has a useful set of links to materials on this debate. At the end of the comments section, she agrees that “I prefer a translation that is ambiguous if consensus cannot be attained” such as the KJV’s “of note among the apostles”. So she agrees that there is no complete knock-down argument in favour of the inclusive view, although possibly the evidence is a stronger in that direction. It will be interesting to see if Burer and Wallace produce anything more on the matter.
(iii) On whether the “apostles” word has a ‘capital A’ authoritative apostle sense (i.e. The Twelve and Paul), or a ‘smaller a’ apostle as missionary/messenger sense, this is certainly an open question. I am quite comfortable with your suggestions Michael.
I think my overall point remains. We are given too little information in this verse to justify overturning the teaching of the NT on gender matters elsewhere. If Junia is among the apostles – which is not 100% certain, although perhaps on balance more likely – we don’t know what sort of apostle (big A or little a) and how her partnership with Andronicus (probably her husband) affected the expression of the ministry, nor what duties were entailed in it.
Lastly, I am quite happy to reject the ESV translation at this point. You may recall that I used the HSCB in my original post. It may interest to know that I was a strong critic of the ESV (for not living up to its own translation philosophy – e.g. too many archaisms, not translating terms consistently where linguistically possible). I think it may have been this criticism of the ESV that was one factor that led to Tony’s invitation for me to become more involved with Matthias Media. Clearly we share much in common in our views and approach, but Matthias Media does not just want ‘yes men’!
Hi Sandy
Re my comment, I was referring to your original post. It seemed to me that in the later part of the article, you went to great lengths to support a particular point of view, rather than taking the text as written.
Your earlier points about Junia being a valued co-worker with Paul seemed to be a sufficient interpretation of the text, rather than trying to speculate about whether she was an ‘apostle’ or an ‘Apostle’.
Just my impression on an initial reading.
Cheers
Ros
Ros, Thanks for clarifying. The reason I went to some lengths to outline what we can and can’t say about Junia is because others have so insistently made inflated claims from Romans 16:7, beyond what the evidence can sustain
For example, James Dunn in his <i>Romans 9-16</i> commentary on p895 in my edition
By this he means Andronicus and Junia “belonged most probably to the closed group of apostles appointed directly by the risen Christ in a limited period following his resurrection” (also p895). For this he rests on the comment about “apostles” in 1 Cor 15:7. But no comment is made about the nature of this group of apostles in that text, let alone that they were appointed directly by the risen Jesus, although this may be implied by Paul’s comments about himself in vv8-9. Nor do we know for sure that Junia is that sort of apostle!
So Dunn moves from what he says is a probable conclusion (which is not so clear as he suggests) to a firm conclusion that they were foundation apostles.
This sort of firm statement beyond the evidence encourages some egalitarians to then claim that clearly there should be no restrictions on women in ministry from Rom 16:7.
But at the very least there is some doubt about what sort of apostle Junia might have been and what her duties were. It’s totally unspecified. It would be honest to acknowledge this.
Hi Sandy,
Thanks for mentioning my series of posts on Junia. You note that I have shifted position. It is a tricky thing to allow dialogue at the same time as remaining firm in one’s own conviction.
First, I do believe that there is a knock-down argument that Junia is an “apostolos.” It is that every reference to her in Greek literature for 2000 years maintains that she was an apostle. The 19th century Vamva version is unambiguous.
I have attempted to be gracious and invited Mike Burer to respond to me but his recent article in JBMW makes it clear that he will not engage further for several years.
Combine this disappointing response with the equivocation that Dr. Kostenberger engages in on 1 Tim 2:12 and I wonder that anyone speaks with certainty on this issue. I do not believe that men speak with sufficient authority to restrict the response of women to God.
G’day Suzanne.
Thanks for appearing here. Just to clarify I was not trying to suggest you had “shifted position”, and I certainly did not use that term. What I was alerting people to was the fact that you agreed that an ambiguous translation, such as KJV “of note among the apostles” was a good idea where there was no consensus.
I think it fair to note that I probably understated how very strong you think the evidence for the inclusive translation “prominent among the apostles” is. Sorry for that.
When I looked at your posts on Junia, it seemed you did not especially look at the third issue – the semantic range of “apostle” and how it might be functioning in Rom 16:7. Did I miss something? I’d be interested to read it if so.
For others reading this discussion, it’s worth pointing out that I would not agree with Suzanne’s contention about Dr Kostenberger alleged “equivocation”.
But I think it better to point people to the discussion I am involved in about Kostenberger’s interview on Justin Taylor’s blog here.
Thanks for clarifying. I have had the goal of seeking a mediating, and overliteral Bible translation, but I now see how impossible that is. It seems that there is a deliberate intent to translate several verses in a way that excludes women from leadership.
No, I have not argued that the word “apostolos” had one meaning over another, but we can see from the list of gifts that it was one of the higher gifts, higher than a teacher. I would not argue that there should be “apostles” today, but even the role of missionary is that of a teacher, not a role without leadership.
How do you explain that Dr. Kostenberger said that there were “one or two” occurrences of authenteo, and didaskein was “virtually always” positive? Don’t you find that evasive.
The problem is that I cannot look up to Kostenberger, Wallace and Burer et al as men with “authority.” I think the whole enterprise of establishing “male authority” is very misguided.