One of Apostles was a woman, Church is told

The Times (UK) ^ | July 06, 2002 | Our Religion Correspondent

[aruanan]

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.

There are several problems:

1. the story makes it appear that Paul said in Romans that Junia was a wealthy woman from Herod's court, etc., etc.. It doesn't. This is conjecture on the prof's part and probably bad writing on the part of the correspondent filing the story.

2. people nowadays assume "apostle" to be synonymous with "one of The Twelve". It wasn't. Paul was considered, though not by himself, to have been one of the greatest apostles, though he was not one of The Twelve. Furthermore, Paul said that both Andronicus and Junias were a. "outstanding among the apostles", b. had been in prison with him, and c. were his relatives. If, by the last, he was merely referring to "brothers and sisters in Christ", we could also ask why no amazement on the prof's part over what could have been a Gentile apostle. There's certainly more evidence in the text for this than for his assertion that Julias is really Joanna who underwent a nominal sex-change operation.

3. The transmutation of Joanna to Junias is something that took place in the prof's own mind in order that his thesis be established. True, Joanna, Susanna, and many other women helped to support the ministry of Jesus:

After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2. and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3. Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.
--Luke 8:1-3

But none of this is establishing her (or Susanna) as an apostle. The prof has to get creative here. What role of the women in the Gospels does show, though, is that in the Gospel accounts and the rest of the NT the women weren't described as meek, submissive workhorses for the men. While the remainder of The Twelve were hiding out in fear of getting arrested, the women were trudging down before dawn with a load of embalming spices to a site with a sealed tomb and Roman guards ordered to maintain an perimeter between the body and everyone else. The women were intent on getting in and doing what needed to be done. The women, not The Eleven, discovered that Jesus had been resurrected. So much for those who talk about the "male-dominated" early church. Women were described throughout the New Testament as being in prominent, important positions.

Bottom line: the prof, building his thesis from one reference to Junias in Romans and two references to Joanna in the book of Luke, is being somewhat less creative than those who claimed Jesus to have been a psychedelic mushroom, though not much.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Is Mr Rice related to you?

[iconoclast]

Whatever the conclusions, I hardly think this opens the office of bishop to women -- hard to meet the "husband of one wife" requirement [1 Tim. 3:2].

Lord, not these days it aint! ;)

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Based upon the shifting back and forth of the grammatical gender-of her/him name-"IT" was actually a cross-dresser. This fits in with present day mores(if one can even call them mores.)

[AlGone2001]

Paul is considered an honorary 14th Apostle

Where do you get that?

[nicmarlo]

The women, not The Eleven, discovered that Jesus had been resurrected. So much for those who talk about the "male-dominated" early church. Women were described throughout the New Testament as being in prominent, important positions.

Something which struck me as I read this . . . which has never entered my mind previously: The Apostles, who walked with Jesus, would not even have Him speak to a woman, much less a Samaritan woman. . . . and here we have, after His death, the apostles writing about and praising women.....a complete "change of heart" on the effectiveness, ability, understanding, and God's desire for women on spiritual things. And yet, I do not read in the Scriptures where God suggests it is desirable that women lead men .... unless there is a reason for it . . . and then must be done with sensitivity and humility because the man is the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of the church.

Thanks for the ping, mom.

[Mark17]

Why? What purpose would it serve?

Feminizatiom.

[onedoug]

Though it is, "the first, and greatest commandment." And to, "carry a cross," is not always to, "feel good."

[onedoug]

Is the reference in #36 a rewrite too?

[Mark17]

No sale rev!

I don't buy it either Mom. I think women are the greatest thing since sliced bread, but no sale is right. No PC allowed.

[onedoug]

Might you comment on #36? Thanks.

[Grig]

Thanks for the links.

[poet]

And your point is? That is quite different from the subject matter of this thread. The other Mary was also there:

Matthew 27:61

[habaes corpussel]

Sure I will take the word of the Church of England anytime. (gag)....Whats a little fact bending between Churches every now and then.

[habaes corpussel]

"Wasn't there a female pope at one time?"

Yeah when Women were allowed to be Priests. But for the life of me I just can't remember when that was?

[Paulus Invictus]

Amen!

[onedoug]

My point is that if God was not working in how the Resurrection was transmitted, then that would seem to undermine its meaning, since the idea of returning from death was not new in either Hellinism or Judaism. This way in which the Resurrection is told however, does seem new given the ways in which women were denied leadership roles in virtually all societies of the period, including Judeo-Roman. Rather whereas, here is a woman now conveying the greatest news ever to be told to the men who had abandoned Christ, and who will not believe her now, even on that basis.

Not so much that I am arguing for women's apostleship, or their current admittance to any contemporary priesthood, yet that I do sense something profound in the way in which the divinely inspired Word carries the sense of the Resurrection forth. And which, as in commenting to your post, is not a rewrite - feminist or otherwise - of history, but at least according to the Gospels, the way it IS.