Recently I was petitioned by an Elder I highly respect to make an examination of a blog entitled “Was Junia (Romans 16:7) a female Apostle?” by J.R. Ensey. I do not know Bro. Ensey and have never met him. I understand that he is a respected minister of the Apostolic faith, and is also the former president of Texas Bible College. Therefore, my examination of his article is by no means a personal reflection toward Bro. Ensey.
Romans 16:7, Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
This is the passage under consideration in the blog. The purpose of Bro. Ensey’s article is whether or not the name “Junia” (Iounian - Greek) describes a woman, and whether or not the phrase “of note among the apostles” means that Andronicus and Junia were themselves apostles (making Junia a female apostle), or that it simply means they were well known by the apostles. Bro. Ensey is of the persuasion that Junia was NOT a woman, nor an apostle. In an effort to prove his position, Bro. Ensey appealed to several different Bible commentaries.
The first commentary mentioned was that of Marvin Vincent who simply stated that the name may either be masculine or feminine. If the name is feminine Dr. Vincent surmised (as with others) that this would make Andronicus and Junia husband and wife (similar to Aquila and Priscilla). Bro. Ensey added his comments that it would be more accurate to understand “Junia(s)” as a man because Paul referred to them as “kinsmen” and “fellow prisoners.” The fact is, however, that neither of these terms indicate the gender of the persons in the text. “Kinsmen” literally means “of the same blood.” It is used in other passages to mean “cousin.” Thus, “kinsmen” either means that Andronicus and Junia were either blood relatives of Paul (“my relatives” or “cousins” as given in many translations) or that they were simply Jewish. Also, “fellow prisoners” by no means indicates that Junia was a man. Paul (Saul) himself cast both men AND WOMEN into prison (Acts 8:3)!
Next, Bro. Ensey appealed to the commentary of Jamieson-Fausset-Brown. This commentary did nothing to help Bro. Ensey’s position. In fact J-F-B stated that it was more probable that “Junia” refers to a woman!
“But if, as is more probable, the word be, as in our version, ‘Junia,’ the person meant was no doubt either the wife or the sister of Andronicus.”
Bro. Ensey also mentioned the translations of Goodspeed (“noted men”) and Philips (“outstanding men”), but the Greek word for “men” IS NOT even in the text! This is the danger of appealing to private translation over a committee translation (KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc.). As far as translations go, I might point the reader(s) to two ancient translations. The first is the Coptic Bible (my Elder friend will love this) which is more ancient than the Latin Vulgate. The Coptic Bible (still read in Egypt to this day) definitely understood Iounian as a feminine name:
“Salute Andronikos and Joulia, my kinsfolk, and my fellow prisoners, who are known among the apostles, these who are prior to me in Christ.”
The Coverdale Bible (1535) not only recognized Iounian as a female, but also as an “ancient Apostle.”
“Salute Andronicus & Iunia my cosens, & felowe presoners, which are awncient Apostles, & were before me in Christ.”
Bro. Ensey referenced the comments of Stephen Clark who actually accepts that “it is grammatically possible that Junia(s) could be a woman who is here termed an apostle.” However, he rejects this grammatical possibility because he claims that only men were chosen to be apostles. Well, that is the very issue we are discussing! This would mean that Clark’s mind was already made up that there were no female apostles before he even examined the grammar of the text. This is an irrational form of Bible study at best!
Next, Bro. Ensey moved to the phrase “among the apostles” to determine whether this phrase indicates that Andronicus and Junia were apostles or known by the apostles. Bro. Ensey made that statement, “However, most scholars agree that the words do not necessarily mean that Andronicus and Junia[s] were apostles along with the others but were honored by them for their faithfulness.” One would think after a statement like this the author would then give a list of “most scholars” who hold to this view. However, Bro. Ensey simply referenced ONE “scholar” (MacArthur Study Bible). The fact is Bro. Ensey is WRONG in his statement that “most scholars agree” that the words do not mean they were apostles! Burer and Wallace, in their study on this passage, stated, “The vast bulk of commentators follow the inclusive view [that they were apostles – JLW]; most of those who do see apostolos used in a broad sense.” And in a footnote they offer a long list of scholars who held/hold this view!
Bro. Ensey went on to say that the KJV rendering of “among the apostles” probably doesn’t indicate that the translators understood this to mean that these two were apostles. The reason given is because the KJV translators were of the Church of England (Anglican) and “did not even countenance female priests in 1611.” This is the biggest straw-man argument the “anti-women preachers” crowd has. No woman preacher I have ever met claims to be a “priest(ess).” For sake of space and time, I will simply say that the fact that the “priesthood” of the Old Testament was limited to men has no bearing on the New Testament “five-fold ministry.” The Old Testament “priesthood” was also limited to ONE particular blood line of Jews only! The New Testament “priesthood” is NOT the “five-fold ministry!” The New Testament “priesthood” is not limited to men only of one bloodline, but is made up of those who have been called out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Peter 2:5, 9)! The idea that the “five-fold ministry” is the New Testament “priesthood” began with the Roman Catholic Church who taught that the Catholic priesthood replaced the “five-fold ministry” of the Apostolic Church.
Bro. Ensey also list several translations of Romans 16:7 which he thought indicated that Andronicus and Junia were “simply well known to (en) the apostles.” Seven (7) translations were given. Out of those seven, two (2) did not indicate “to the apostles,” rather they translated it “among the apostles" which Burer & Wallace state is the translation preferred by the “inclusive” (pro-women preachers) view! If translations are a factor in this discussion then the great majority prefer the “inclusive” view i.e. “among the apostles:” KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, TEV, NRSV, NAB, Philips, REB, RV, Pickering, Weymouth, Worsley, YLT, etc. The NJB translates this as “those outstanding apostles,” and the NCV, “very important apostles.”
Albert Barnes’ Notes are quoted by Bro. Ensey as proof that “among the apostles” does not indicate that Andronicus and Junia were apostles. However, Barnes did not offer any grammatical reasons for this! All of Barnes’ so-called proofs were based upon his view of the “apostolate.” It is interesting that Bro. Ensey conveniently left out Barnes’ admission (5) that the phrase could indeed indicate that Andronicus and Junia were apostles, but limited the meaning of “apostle” as someone sent from a church.
Bro. Ensey also quoted Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, but again conveniently left out comments indicating the “inclusive” (pro-women preacher) view:
“Those who think the word ‘apostle’ is used in a lax sense, in the Acts and Epistles, take this to mean ‘noted apostles’ [Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Olshausen, Tholuck, Alford, Jowett];”
And just like Barnes’ Notes, J-F-B did not offer any grammatical reasoning why they reject this understanding; rather they simply stated that if Junia was a woman then it must mean “known by the apostles” which is a presupposition of the text!
Bro. Ensey offered his own explanation of why he thinks “among the apostles” does not mean that Andronicus and Junia were themselves apostles. His proof of this is a comparison of Romans 16:7 “among the apostles” with Romans 15:9:
“And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.”
Bro. Ensey states that “the use of ‘among’ here did not mean that the one glorifying God, confessing Him, and singing unto His name (Christ) among the Gentiles was one of them.” This statement is absolutely incorrect! Read the passage again! Paul said, “And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy!” Who is the one glorifying God? Bro. Ensey said it wasn’t the Gentiles, but Paul said it WAS the Gentiles! As proof that the Gentiles could now (under the New Testament) praise and glorify God, Paul quoted a passage from the Psalms, “… as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles…” Now, we understand that when David wrote this Psalm (18:49) that David wasn’t a Gentile, but “among the Gentiles” certainly does not exclude the person from being a Gentile for Paul quoted this verse as proof that it was indeed the Gentiles who were glorifying God!
Finally, Bro. Ensey concluded, “It is entirely possible to find those in academia who may feel pressure to say absolutely that Junia was a woman and an apostle, giving a not to political correctness” [bold emphasis mine – JLW]. A statement such as this lacks wisdom and scholarship. It is not “pressure” or “political correctness” that causes a commentator to indicate that Junia was a female apostle! The conclusion is based upon a historical use of the name Iounian and the grammar of the text.
One of the best articles proving that Junia (Romans 16:7) was a woman is by David Jones (Moffatt College of Bible). The interesting thing is that David Jones is actually anti-women preacher, but cannot deny the possibility that Junia was a female. What distinguishes Jones from other “antis” is that he recognized that “of note among the apostles” means that Junia was in fact an apostle. However, Jones diminished the term “apostle” in the passage (Romans 16:7) to simply mean a person who carried a letter.
To determine whether the Greek name Iounian (Romans 16:7) is masculine (Junias) or feminine (Junia), Jones examined: (A) the morphology of the name Iounian; (B) an interesting textual variant in Rom 16:7; (C) the name Iounian as it occurs in secular Greek literature; (D) the name as it occurs in secular Latin literature; and (E) the witness of the early church fathers. I will summarize his findings.
(A) “Morphology” is the study of word formation in a language including inflection, derivation and compounding. Unfortunately morphology offered no help. Iounian can be either masculine or feminine.
(B) Not all Greek manuscripts read the ambiguous Iounian here: there exist a handful that make reference to a decisively feminine name. One of these, the important papyrus P46, along with several other less important manuscripts and versions, reads Ioulian. Ioulian is a feminine name, equivalent to our Julia. If this reading is to be preferred, then Paul is definitely referring here to a sister in Christ and not a brother.
(C) The name Iounian is found three times in first century Greek literature. One is the reference in Romans 16:7 – the text under consideration. The other two instances definitely refer to women. One was Junia the wife of Cassius, and the other was Junia Torquata, a Vestal Virgin who lived during the reign of Tiberius. Significantly, there are no unambiguous references to a man named Junias in the Greek literature in the first three centuries of the Christian era.
(D) In Latin writings Junia appears as a fairly common woman's name while Junias, the man's name, is virtually nonexistent. There is a masculine equivalent to Junia in Latin, but it is Junius, which when translated into Greek is Iounios, not Iounias. Some have suggested, although, that Junias is a Greek nickname for a longer Latin name such as Junianus, Junianius, or Junilius -- all common names for men at that time. However, it is freely admitted that there is no proof connecting the name Iounian with any of these names.
(E) The strongest case for understanding Iounian to be a woman is found in the comments made on Rom 16:7 by some of the early Church Fathers. Many patristic exegetes understood the second person mentioned in Rom 16:7 to be the wife of
Andronicus, such as: Ambrosiaster (c. 339-97); Jerome (c. 342-420); John Chrysostom (c. 347- 407); Jerome; Theodoret of Cyrrhus (c.393-458); Ps.-Primasius (c. 6th cent.); John Damascene (c. 675-749); Haymo (d. 1244); Hatto (?); Oecumenius (c. 6th cent.); Lanfranc of Bec (c.1005-89); Bruno the Carthusian (c.1032-1101); Theophylact (c. 11th cent.); Peter Abelard (1079-1142); and
Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160).
The most notable example among these writers is that of John Chrysostom who stated:
“To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles -- just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great is the wisdom of this woman that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.”
In response to the testimony of the early Greek commentators that Junia was female, Jones pointed to what he considered evidence to the contrary from Origen and Epiphanius. Jones stated that Origen translated Iounian into Latin as a masculine singular “which demonstrates that Origen understood the person mentioned in Rom 16:7 to be a man.” However, Burer & Wallace indicate that Origen actually “cite(d) the name once as a masculine and once as feminine” and concluded that the masculine form was a “later corruption of his text.” Jones went on to mention that Epiphanius used the masculine form “Junias” along with the relative masculine pronoun which, according to Jones, shows this person to be a man. But once again Burer & Wallace show this view to be false:
“However, Epiphanius’s [sic] testimony here ought not to be weighed too heavily, for he calls Prisca in the previous sentence a man, too!”
So, neither Origen nor Epiphanius can be used as testimony that Junia was not a female! Jones also referenced Greek minuscule manuscripts (9th Century) that accent the name Iounian as masculine. However, Dr. Wallace questioned the value of these scripts in their ability to reflect earlier opinions of the text. He also pointed out that “somewhat contradictory evidence is found in the church fathers: an almost universal sense that this was a woman’s name surfaces – at least through the twelfth century.” It was not until around the thirteenth or fourteenth century that commentators (Aegilius of Rome, etc.) identified Iounian as a male.
Next Jones systematically investigated the syntax of the phrase “among the apostles.” After examining various English translations of the passage, Jones concluded:
“In other words, most scholars understand the text to say that Andronicus and Iounian were themselves prominent ‘apostles,’ whatever that term might denote, and not just highly esteemed by the Apostles.”
Jones also examined the use of the preposition en (“among”) with the definite article plus the dative [en + article + dative]. His conclusion was that the usual construction in Greek to denote human agency was the preposition hupo + the genitive, not en + the dative. After a lengthy explanation of en + the dative in the New Testament, Jones summed up his findings:
“It is very unlikely that Paul expects us to read ‘by the apostles’ or ‘in the eyes of the apostles’ here, for he could have used hupo ton apostolon with much less ambiguity … Andronicus and his partner are envisioned as being prominent members of the group which Paul refers to as ‘the apostles.’”
Having proven that “among the apostles” indicates that Andronicus and Junia were themselves “apostles;” Jones, finally, concluded with his thoughts on the semantic range of the word apostolos (apostles). Jones claimed that the term “apostle” is used in the New Testament to denote three different groups of people (some other “anti-women preachers” claim four groups): [1] the Twelve; [2] others (besides the Twelve) who had witnessed the resurrected Christ (such as Barnabas and Paul or James the Lord’s brother); and [3] those commissioned by the apostles to be messengers i.e. carry letters between churches. Jones affirms that the third group did not exercise authority over churches. Jones concluded that Junia would have to belong to the third group of apostles for several trivial reasons one of which being that Paul referred to this group (of apostles) in the third person meaning that he was not in this group.
First of all it must be pointed out that IF the term "apostle" denotes three different groups, Jones has no proof that Andronicus and Junia were not witnesses of the Resurrection. Paul stated that they were in Christ before him. So that possiblity is definitely open. Also Jones’ dividing of the “apostles” into three (3) groups is simply conjecture and cannot be found specifically in the New Testament. It is simply his understanding of the term “apostle.” This three-fold division of the apostles falls to the ground when we examine Paul’s testimony to the Galatians.
Galatians 1:18-19,Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Notice in Paul’s statement that he went to Jerusalem to see Peter (one of the Twelve), and then stated that he did not see any other apostles except James the Lord’s brother (who was not one of the Twelve). Paul did not indicate any sort of division of the apostles between “the Twelve” and those that were not of the Twelve. James the Lord’s brother (whom Jones admits was not one of the Twelve) is mentioned as being a part of the same group of apostles that Peter belonged to. Also, note that Paul here used the term “apostle” in the third person. The fact that Paul used the term “apostle” in the third person in Romans 16:7 by no means indicated a division of groups among the apostles. This would have been the normal way to reference someone by the term “apostle” (just as in Galatians 1:18-19). So to divide the term “apostle” into three different groups is a position that Jones is forced into and does not reflect a Biblical view of the term “apostle.”
In conclusion the women preachers issue does not stand of fall on the text of Romans 16:7. From the comparable data concerning this text it indeed appears that Junia was a woman of whom Paul considered to be an apostle!
Related articles:
https://www.cbmw.org/wp-content/uploads/articles_pdf/jones_david/femaleapostle.pdf
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/Was%20Junia%20Really%20an%20Apostle%20A%20Re%20examination%20of%20Rom%2016%207.pdf
http://bible.org/article/junia-among-apostles-double-identification-problem-romans-167
Good response.
ReplyDelete