January 11, 2025 • 27 mins
Junia emerges from the pages of scripture as a pivotal figure, highlighting the essential roles women played in early Christianity, including the possibility of her being an apostle. By closely examining key texts and historical contexts, we debunk traditional biases against women's leadership, recognizing their vital contributions in the body of Christ.
• Discussion on the evolution of apostolic roles in light of the New Covenant
• Analysis of scripture revealing Junia as a female apostle
• Examination of cultural contexts behind Paul's letters on women's roles
• Reflection on the significance of passages emphasizing unity in Christ
• Historical exploration of the name "Junia" and its implications for women leaders
• Acknowledgment of early church female figures and their impact on Christianity
• Encouragement for listeners to reclaim and celebrate women's voices in the church
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
announcement (00:01):
Hello and welcome to the Waking Up to Grace
podcast where we celebrate andexplore the finished work of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
Tune in to the Waking Up toGrace podcast on every major
platform.
You can also listen to ourepisodes and read our full
transcripts atwakinguptogracecom.
And now here's Lenny.
Welcome back to the podcasteveryone.
Melissa (00:24):
Welcome back to the podcast.
Everyone, Welcome back.
Lenny (00:26):
This week we're going to be discussing the woman apostle
and I think, on the note ofwoman apostle, it's important
that we realize that when weconsider whether or not we have
apostles today, we have tounderstand that the mission the
apostles were sent on wasfulfilled, and not only that.
All prophecy has been fulfilled.
The destruction of Jerusalemand the once holy temple marked
(00:49):
the end of the old covenant ageof the law.
The new covenant age, whichbegan at the cross, is now fully
established.
The work of Christ Yeshua isfinished.
We no longer have any use forapostles and prophets and they
no longer come in the name ofthe Lord.
I would say, now that no longercome in the name of the Lord.
I would say now that theymostly come in the name of
prophet margins.
So maybe we need to change thespelling of prophet in this new
(01:12):
covenant age to P-R-O-F-I-T.
What do you think, Melissa?
Melissa (01:17):
Sadly, it's true.
Lenny (01:19):
But today we have a very interesting topic to look at,
don't we?
Oh yeah, at the end of ourletter from Paul to the Romans,
we read of a female apostle.
Melissa (01:28):
Can this be for real?
Lenny (01:30):
I think it is.
If you look at this passage inyour Bible, though, you could
easily miss it.
It's literally been lost intranslation.
Melissa (01:39):
Completely buried.
Lenny (01:40):
I was reading Romans one evening, and you remember this,
melissa.
Yes, one evening before bed I'mreading my literal evening, and
you remember this, melissa.
Yes, one evening before bed I'mreading my literal translation
of the New Testament by DavidBentley Hart and suddenly this
female apostle was revealed.
I was shocked and quite excitedabout this new revelation, so I
had to do some studying to makesure I woke up and it was like
(02:01):
time to dig in.
Melissa (02:04):
I was like wait what.
Lenny (02:06):
But when you look at scripture, women prophesying was
a fulfillment of prophecy andit was happening all throughout
that first century age of signsand wonders.
Yes, we read about instances inthe book of Acts and the
prophet Joel predicted it beforeit even happened.
He said and it shall come topass afterward that I will pour
out my spirit on all flesh, andhe was referring to what started
(02:29):
at Pentecost.
Right when they received theSpirit, these things started
taking place and they went onall the way up until Jerusalem
was destroyed in 70 AD.
Melissa (02:47):
Incredible.
Lenny (02:48):
What an age to live in.
Excitement and tragedy.
But based on that alone, we cansee that the Lord clearly has
no issue with women being astrong voice in the church, does
he?
Melissa (03:00):
Clearly.
Lenny (03:01):
And when we seek to understand our apostolic
writings, we will find that theapostles didn't have an issue
with this either.
In fact, they fully supportedit.
The gospel united all people.
We're now brothers and sistersin Christ, apart from what we
are in this world.
In Galatians 3.28, paul saysthere is neither Jew nor Greek,
(03:22):
there is neither slave nor free,there is neither male nor
female.
But does that mean the churchhas always saw it the spiritual
way?
If they did, then why wouldPaul have to write these things
in his letters?
I've heard it suggested that theauthor of Hebrews may have been
a woman.
(03:42):
Maybe it was not signed becauseof the view some had on women
in the church in those times.
Some have said I think thisspeculation has some valid
points to it.
For example, in Paul's letterto the Corinthians we read the
women should keep silent in thechurches, for they are not
permitted to speak but should bein submission, as the law also
(04:03):
says.
That's 1 Corinthians, chapter14, verse 34.
So what's going on here?
This doesn't sound like thesame Paul that said in Christ
there is neither male nor female.
In fact, it doesn't sound likePaul at all when I read this
passage.
It's like Paul got takenhostage and someone else started
writing.
I don't think that's actuallywhat happened, but how can we
(04:26):
reconcile this with the rest ofour scripture and even the rest
of Paul's writings?
Some teachers say that womentended to have a lesser
education and sat on theopposite side in the gatherings.
In this case they'd be yellingacross the group asking
questions of the men.
So you'd be like, hey, lenny,what was that?
In 1 Corinthians.
Melissa (04:46):
Might be a little distracting and disruptive.
Lenny (04:50):
Yeah, so Paul would be basically telling them to do
that at home.
In this scenario, Ask yourhusbands at home be silent in
the church.
I like the simplicity here, butthere's one major problem.
What law is Paul referring tohere if he's telling us?
The law also says when we readthis 1 Corinthians letter, we
see that it was in response tothe people that Paul wrote.
(05:13):
In several areas there was acorrespondence taking place
within this letter.
Melissa (05:18):
What a revelation.
When we read the introductionto most Bible translations, they
will tell you that there's nopunctuation in the original
Greek manuscripts.
Quite important to note.
There was no indication whenthey quoted others or quoted
scripture.
They didn't have quotationmarks and they had no practice
(05:39):
of making these indications forthe reader but the recipients of
the letter.
They would have known the fullcontext of the situation right.
Yeah, we don't have that luxury.
Thousands of years later wehave to figure it out because we
weren't there.
Lenny (05:54):
Yeah, I mean, that's really something that takes some
time to understand.
You know, I think we're so usedto just opening our Bible and
say, what's God telling me today?
Yes, we've got to be carefulwith that.
So you and I, melissa, I knowthat we believe that it was
Paul's church that made thatstatement, not him.
It was the Corinthian churchsaying the women should keep
(06:15):
silent in the churches, for theyare not permitted to speak but
should be in submission, as thelaw says.
That was Paul basically quotingthem.
Okay so if we look at it thisway, paul's quoting them saying
you say women should keep silentin the churches, as the law
says, to which Paul then wouldrespond what?
Melissa (06:35):
Or was it from you that the word of God came, or are
you the only ones it has reached?
If anyone thinks that he's aprophet or spiritual, he should
acknowledge that the things I'mwriting to you are a command of
the Lord.
If anyone does not recognizethis, he is not recognized.
Interestingly, in the KingJames translation, it picks up
(06:58):
on the fact that the openingword can be seen as shocking and
alarming based on context.
This really grabbed me when Irealized this.
Lenny (07:08):
Yeah.
Melissa (07:09):
So this added emphasis would only be in your
translation if the translatorunderstood how to interpret the
passage.
Lenny (07:17):
Context.
Melissa (07:18):
Context is king.
This passage has stumped manyin the church throughout history
because of the way it's written.
Lenny (07:25):
Yeah, if you don't recognize that, it sounds very
choppy.
It sounds like he just came outof the blue with this.
Melissa (07:32):
Right.
Lenny (07:32):
You're like what happened ?
Did he just stop writing andthen pick up somewhere else and
forget what he said?
Yes, it's weird, but when yousee it as a correspondence it
becomes a lot less weird.
And when you're payingattention all throughout that
letter you start to make theseconnections.
So I mean, what would it soundlike if you were to emphasize
what the King James picks up?
(07:53):
I mean, how would it read then?
So this is really cool.
Melissa (07:57):
This is how it would read what Came the word of God
out of you, or came it unto you?
Only, if any man think himselfto be a prophet or spiritual,
let him acknowledge that thethings I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord.
So I can see what you weresaying about Paul's reaction,
(08:17):
paul's rebuking these guys fortheir error, saying that his
teaching was commanded by God.
Paul would have known that thiswas not the law, because it
isn't, and he was once a veryzealous Pharisee.
Paul would not have misquotedthe law in this way.
(08:37):
Exactly it's not in the law.
But would Christians have beenswayed by Judaizers?
Yeah yeah, this is extremelyprobable, and we also know that
the Talmud was spoken orally inthe synagogues.
In those days, the Talmud wasnot the law.
It was the first century Jews'commentary on the law, and it
(09:00):
was riddled with error.
I mean, christ was constantlycalling the Pharisees hypocrites
over their Talmud, wasn't he?
Lenny (09:09):
Yeah, and so in those days the Talmud was known to be
orally said, but later on itbecame written and it just kind
of transformed into what it istoday in so-called Judaism.
Melissa (09:23):
Right.
Paul would have been familiarwith the Talmud and was likely
setting straight the differencebetween true law and commentary.
Lenny (09:32):
Yeah.
So he's calling them out sayingthat's law.
What?
What do you guys know about law?
Let me teach you.
Yes, Because they didn't knowabout law.
They were the Corinthians, theywere probably mostly Gentiles
and hearing this from Judaizersand Paul's like come on, guys,
you and law.
Melissa (09:50):
Right, right.
Lenny (09:52):
Those two things don't work with you.
Don't be going there, right.
Melissa (09:58):
But then there was Paul's letter to Timothy, said
to have been written in EphesusLet a woman learn quietly, with
all submissiveness.
I do not permit a woman toteach or to exercise authority
over a man.
Rather, she is to remain quiet.
For Adam was formed first, thenEve.
(10:18):
That was 1 Timothy, 2, 11-13.
In this instance we have theopposite situation happening
Women were seeking to exerciseauthority over men.
This was probably to do withthe cult of Diana, which was the
Roman version of the GreekArtemis cult.
(10:39):
It was comprised exclusively ofwomen and taught that Eve was
created first, that only Adamwas deceived by Satan and that
females were inherently superiorto males.
So a little bit of error there.
The influence of these womenhad evidently infiltrated the
(10:59):
church and was causingdisruption.
Interestingly, our passagereads a woman, not women.
The Greek leads us down thesame road in various lexicons.
Lenny (11:13):
Yeah, it's pretty interesting.
It seems that there may havebeen a primary leader being
called out and rebuked in thissituation.
Why, would he say a woman?
There was probably oneparticular leader, a ringleader,
getting all the women riled upand empowered, and the men were
just like I can't speak.
It was like totally opposite.
Women are like no, shut up, wehave a few of those today too.
(11:37):
And Paul's like no, that womanneeds to be more submissive
because she's completely out ofcontrol.
So we wanted to mention thosepassages to gain some context
for this study.
But are you guys really readyto dig into this topic of a
woman apostle?
Now there's more, we're justgetting started.
Melissa (11:55):
Awesome.
Lenny (11:56):
So in Romans 16, verse 7, in the ESV translation we read
Greet Andronicus and Junia, mykinsmen and my fellow prisoners.
They are well known to theapostles and they were in Christ
before me.
So in our ESV translation wedon't see a female apostle, do
we?
No, in fact, we see the wordkinsman.
(12:18):
According to Webster, kinsmanis defined as a relative,
usually by birth, especially amale relative.
So we read of two men here inthe ESV translation, don't we?
Melissa (12:31):
That's how I've always seen it.
Lenny (12:33):
We also read here that Junia was well known to the
apostles, implying that he, inair quotes, was not an apostle
himself.
We observe a similar thing inthe King James.
Salute Andronicus and Junia, mykinsmen and my fellow prisoners
who are of note among theapostles who also were in Christ
before me.
(12:53):
The difference we see in theKing James is that the two were
of note among the apostlesrather than well known to the
apostles.
You see the difference.
Melissa (13:05):
Yeah, and it's quite a difference.
Lenny (13:06):
Yeah, well known to implies they weren't well known.
Among implies that they were.
There's a big difference.
It's polar opposites, wow.
So let's see what the NASBtranslation did with this.
In the NASB of Romans 16, 7, weread Greet Andronicus and
Junius, my kinsmen and my fellowprisoners who are outstanding
(13:30):
among the apostles who also werein Christ before me.
Melissa (13:34):
All of a sudden, they are apostles.
They're among them.
Lenny (13:37):
Yeah, and not only that, but outstanding.
However, Junia is suddenlyJunius.
What is that all about?
Melissa (13:47):
Right.
Lenny (13:48):
This time Junia becomes Junius and is an outstanding
apostle.
Melissa (13:53):
Quite a difference.
Lenny (13:56):
So we're going to have to see Jung's literal translation
now, aren't we?
Melissa (13:59):
Yes.
Lenny (14:00):
So Jung's literal translation reads Salute
Andronicus and Junius, mykindred and my fellow captives,
who are of note among theapostles who also have been in
Christ before me.
So the literal translation ofYoung's uses Junius again, but
again places both of them amongthe apostles, which would make
(14:21):
both of them apostles without adoubt.
Melissa (14:24):
Why such a shocking change?
Lenny (14:27):
Yeah, so it seems that ESV is a bit outnumbered here in
their view of them only beingknown to the apostles.
They're the only one in thesefour translations that we looked
at to see it that way.
But then all of thetranslations except Young's use
the word kinsmen to describeAndronicus and Junia.
Young's literal translationsaid kindred.
(14:50):
As we noted earlier, kinsmenimplies male relations, not
female.
But our Young's literaltranslation came up with a
different word here, and so didDavid Bentley Hart's literal
translation, which read kinsfolk.
Kindred is very similar tokinsfolk and according to
(15:11):
Webster, kindred is defined asof similar nature or character,
of the same ancestry, a group ofrelated individuals, one's
relatives, family relationship.
So really what we see is thatPaul saw them as family
according to our literaltranslations, not specifically
(15:31):
as men, just family, I see it so, based on this, do you think we
need to go to the Greek tocheck up on these scholars?
Melissa (15:39):
Absolutely.
Lenny (15:40):
Let's go there.
The word we see translate askinsmen in most Bible
translations, except for theliteral ones, is now don't judge
me on this, on my Greeksonganes.
I didn't listen to itbeforehand, I should have and
according to Strong's it means arelative by blood, by extension
(16:00):
a fellow countryman, cousin,kinsfolk, kinsmen.
And then according to Vine's itmeans cousin.
So they reference the wordbeing used in Luke more than
once and they say it's likecousins respectively signify
kinswoman and kinsfolk and theword literally signifies born
(16:23):
with, of the same stock ordescent.
Hence kinsman, kindred, kin,kinsfolk, kinswoman.
So we see Strong's mention themale usage kinsmen, kindred, kin
, kinsfolk, kinswoman.
So we see Strong's mention themale usage kinsmen, while Vines
points out that kinswoman seemsto be tied to the common context
of the word used in other areasof scripture but, like Strong's
, also sees it as kinsfolk.
(16:45):
So it seemed most reasonable tohave translated this word as
kindred or kinsfolk if it wasnot 100% certain that we were
dealing with two men.
So I think our literaltranslations did well by us
there.
Melissa (17:00):
Agreed.
Lenny (17:01):
We're going to look at the history soon to see if Junia
can be found as a male nameanywhere in history, and this
should help us to decide the waywe should interpret this text.
But before we explore thathistory, let's look at the Greek
to see if these two were evenapostles at all.
Let's make sure that they wereapostles.
So according to Strong's, theGreek word translated to among,
(17:25):
as in known among the apostlesand in ESV was known to the
apostles.
It's this word en E-N.
It's a primary prepositiondenoting fixed position in place
, time or state and, byimplication, instrumentality,
(17:46):
medially or constructively.
I know it's kind of a lot totake in, but it'll start to make
sense here.
So the King James Versiontranslates N in the following
manner 1902, so 1,902 times.
It's saying it was in, and then163 times by it's translated
(18:08):
with 140 times, and then we seeit as among 117 times, at 113
times, on 62 times, through 39times and then it was used
miscellaneously, 264 times.
So if we go with the by farmost common usage, it would be
(18:31):
that Andronicus and Junia werein the apostles.
So based on the common use ofthe word, it is by far most
probable that these two were infact apostles, and all of these
variations of the word describea very close relationship to
something, but in that's asclose as you can be to being an
apostle.
If you're in the apostles, theword among makes more sense, but
(18:56):
it's describing that they're inwith them, they're among them.
They are in the group of theapostles.
Melissa (19:03):
Yes Wow.
Lenny (19:04):
So making it read as two must fall into the miscellaneous
category somewhere, becauseit's not even listed as a common
usage.
So I think our ESV let us downthere pretty badly.
I love that translation, butwe've got to be paying attention
because there's mistakes ininterpretation.
They're supposed to betranslating, but translation has
(19:26):
this funny way of blending withinterpretation.
Melissa (19:29):
And sometimes the translators are biased.
Lenny (19:32):
Well, we're all biased.
Probably always, we're allbiased in some way in the way
that we, with interpretation,and sometimes the translators
are biased.
Well, we're all biased.
Probably always, we're allbiased in some way in the way
that we view scripture.
We're either biased towardstruth or we're biased towards
error.
We hope to be biased towardstruth, don't we?
Melissa (19:42):
Yes.
Lenny (19:44):
So, Melissa, let's look at the recorded history and see
if we can find anything helpfulto this argument, shall we?
Melissa (19:50):
We shall the early church father, John Chrysostom,
upheld the fact that this Juniawas a female apostle of great
wisdom.
Lenny (20:01):
And I just wanted to pause.
We say early church fatherbecause that's just what people
know them, as that's whatthey're always referred to, as
we don't see them as any kind offather above us and a lot of
people get bothered by thatusage because it paints a funny
picture.
Melissa (20:18):
Yes.
Lenny (20:24):
You know, when Paul referred to himself as a father,
most grace teachers and peoplethat understand grace see that
as because of his age, becauseof his older.
You know, because he was olderthan them, not because he saw
himself as somehow above them inthe Christian life.
Melissa (20:36):
Very important to point out.
Lenny (20:38):
But he did express his apostolic authority at times.
But I don't think that's why hesaid I'm your father, you're my
son, son.
So John Chrysostom saw Junia asa female apostle of great
wisdom.
He did that's pretty cool, yeah.
Melissa (20:54):
In later centuries, due to anxiety about women church
leaders, junio was changed toJunius to sound more male.
It was supposedly a variationof the name Julianus.
The first to make this argumentwould have been Giles of Rome.
Interestingly, it is said thathe probably knew no Greek.
Lenny (21:15):
I thought that was pretty interesting.
I was reading about that inthat literal translation by
David Bentley Hart.
He was noting a lot of thesehistorical facts.
Melissa (21:25):
So they were letting the guy that knows no Greek take
the lead and make the decision.
Lenny (21:29):
Yeah, so literally, this leader of Rome, you know, just
makes this announcement, doesn'teven know Greek and is saying
this Greek name is this and notthat.
Melissa (21:40):
But this view stuck nonetheless.
It reminds me a lot of what wesee in our society today.
Lenny (21:46):
Yeah.
Melissa (21:47):
The problem here is that scholars who looked at the
evidence have declared that inall of recorded history there is
no use of the name Junius as amale figure anywhere.
There's nothing.
It was just another classiccase of mankind making stuff up.
Lenny (22:05):
Yep.
Melissa (22:05):
So to hear of it nowhere.
That really says something.
Lenny (22:10):
Yeah, there's no historical evidence of that name
, they just made it up Oldguiles.
Melissa (22:17):
Based on real evidence, I believe we can safely
conclude this to be a femaleapostle.
Lenny (22:23):
I agree that's cool.
That's I agree, that's cool,that's really cool.
Melissa (22:26):
That's way cool and that fits a lot more with the
Paul that we know in all of hisother letters.
Lenny (22:32):
Yeah.
Melissa (22:33):
On top of that, it's impossible to ignore that he
acknowledges them as a pair,just as he does with only
certain others, including Priscaand Aquila, who are known to be
husband and wife according toour scriptures.
Lenny (22:48):
Yep, and some say Priscilla and Aquila.
Melissa (22:50):
They do, which is kind of fun, like a little rhyme.
Lenny (22:53):
Yeah.
Melissa (22:54):
I love that, because you and I are in this together.
Yep, and to further drive thispoint home, our messenger Phoebe
, whom we spoke of in ourintroduction.
There is much to say about heralone, not to mention plenty of
(23:20):
other women in our scripture,about the saints, and help her
in whatever she may need fromyou, for she has been a patron
of many and of myself as well.
Quite a compliment from Paul.
Lenny (23:33):
Yeah.
Melissa (23:34):
That's Romans 16, 1-2.
A servant here comes from theGreek word diakonos and can also
mean minister, attendant deacon.
Yes, that would make itpossible for women to be deacons
, which would be a form ofoverseer.
Lenny (23:53):
Yep.
Melissa (23:54):
But it gets better, lonnie.
Inconceivable A patron, as said, of Phoebe here, comes from the
Greek word prostasis and canalso mean protectress, champion,
leader.
What I said, leader.
Lenny (24:12):
No, a woman leader.
You can't have women goingaround leading stuff.
Melissa (24:17):
Melissa A woman champion from the lips of Paul.
Lenny (24:21):
Oh man.
Melissa (24:22):
But of course, if we don't regard context, we can
just knock that down to theleast possible meaning and move
on.
Lenny (24:29):
Let's just keep it at Junius, okay.
Well known to the apostles.
Melissa (24:35):
Can't close your eyes to truth.
Once you've seen it, can'tunsee it, but we have to
remember there's neither Jew norGreek.
There's neither slave nor free.
There is neither slave nor free.
There is neither male norfemale, for you are all one in
Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3.28 I love that,amen.
Lenny (24:56):
That's the real Paul right there, isn't it.
Melissa (24:59):
That's the Paul we know and love.
Lenny (25:01):
Women are much needed in the church and their voices need
to be heard.
Don't believe everything youhear at the pulpit.
If you stop your research atthe pulpit, you're missing out
on your God-given freedom.
Take back what is yours, yourGod-given gift of freedom in
Christ.
In regards to a marriage, we dobelieve there is a spiritual
(25:22):
structure and that women arevery different than men in this
way.
Melissa (25:26):
Yes, we do.
Lenny (25:27):
Paul gives us a beautiful view of this balance in
Ephesians 5, while making aparallel to Christ and the
church.
We'll certainly talk about thatmore at some point, but if you
are married, that is some greatstuff.
David Curtis had some goodmessages on that.
I believe it was around thetime, or combined with that
federal headship message that hedid, that I'd linked in our
introduction to the Romansmessages.
(25:49):
We don't share his view onwomen in the church, but we
loved his view on marriage.
It was really good.
Melissa (25:54):
Yes.
Lenny (25:56):
So that's all we got for you guys today, and we are going
to see you again next week withanother hot topic.
And we got a good one brewing.
I think I'm going to keep it asurprise.
I'm going to keep it a surprise, I'm going to make it a
surprise.
No spoiler alert.
No spoilers.
If you click on the episodedescription of our podcast,
there's a link to our episodetranscript page where you can
(26:17):
correspond with us, leave ussome feedback, share some
insights, things like that.
We encourage you guys to dothat.
You can also if you're on amedia platform.
If there's a way to makecomments there, feel free to do
so as well.
We'd love to hear from you guys, and it helps build the
activity.
Amen For a new Christianpodcast.
(26:37):
We love to have some activity,don't we?
Melissa (26:40):
We sure do, and please remember together we are the
church.
Amen.
Have a great day out there,everyone.
See you next week.
announcement (26:50):
Thank you for listening to the Waking Up to
Grace podcast brought to you bythe finished work of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
If you enjoyed today's episode,we would love to hear from you.
You can send encouragement ourway right from our episodes and
transcripts page or reach Lennyprivately from the contact form
at wakinguptogracecom.
Hello and welcome to the Waking Up to Grace
podcast where we celebrate andexplore the finished work of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
Tune in to the Waking Up toGrace podcast on every major
platform.
You can also listen to ourepisodes and read our full
transcripts atwakinguptogracecom.
And now here's Lenny.
Welcome back to the podcasteveryone.
Melissa (00:24):
Welcome back to the podcast.
Everyone, Welcome back.
Lenny (00:26):
This week we're going to be discussing the woman apostle
and I think, on the note ofwoman apostle, it's important
that we realize that when weconsider whether or not we have
apostles today, we have tounderstand that the mission the
apostles were sent on wasfulfilled, and not only that.
All prophecy has been fulfilled.
The destruction of Jerusalemand the once holy temple marked
(00:49):
the end of the old covenant ageof the law.
The new covenant age, whichbegan at the cross, is now fully
established.
The work of Christ Yeshua isfinished.
We no longer have any use forapostles and prophets and they
no longer come in the name ofthe Lord.
I would say, now that no longercome in the name of the Lord.
I would say now that theymostly come in the name of
prophet margins.
So maybe we need to change thespelling of prophet in this new
(01:12):
covenant age to P-R-O-F-I-T.
What do you think, Melissa?
Melissa (01:17):
Sadly, it's true.
Lenny (01:19):
But today we have a very interesting topic to look at,
don't we?
Oh yeah, at the end of ourletter from Paul to the Romans,
we read of a female apostle.
Melissa (01:28):
Can this be for real?
Lenny (01:30):
I think it is.
If you look at this passage inyour Bible, though, you could
easily miss it.
It's literally been lost intranslation.
Melissa (01:39):
Completely buried.
Lenny (01:40):
I was reading Romans one evening, and you remember this,
melissa.
Yes, one evening before bed I'mreading my literal evening, and
you remember this, melissa.
Yes, one evening before bed I'mreading my literal translation
of the New Testament by DavidBentley Hart and suddenly this
female apostle was revealed.
I was shocked and quite excitedabout this new revelation, so I
had to do some studying to makesure I woke up and it was like
(02:01):
time to dig in.
Melissa (02:04):
I was like wait what.
Lenny (02:06):
But when you look at scripture, women prophesying was
a fulfillment of prophecy andit was happening all throughout
that first century age of signsand wonders.
Yes, we read about instances inthe book of Acts and the
prophet Joel predicted it beforeit even happened.
He said and it shall come topass afterward that I will pour
out my spirit on all flesh, andhe was referring to what started
(02:29):
at Pentecost.
Right when they received theSpirit, these things started
taking place and they went onall the way up until Jerusalem
was destroyed in 70 AD.
Melissa (02:47):
Incredible.
Lenny (02:48):
What an age to live in.
Excitement and tragedy.
But based on that alone, we cansee that the Lord clearly has
no issue with women being astrong voice in the church, does
he?
Melissa (03:00):
Clearly.
Lenny (03:01):
And when we seek to understand our apostolic
writings, we will find that theapostles didn't have an issue
with this either.
In fact, they fully supportedit.
The gospel united all people.
We're now brothers and sistersin Christ, apart from what we
are in this world.
In Galatians 3.28, paul saysthere is neither Jew nor Greek,
(03:22):
there is neither slave nor free,there is neither male nor
female.
But does that mean the churchhas always saw it the spiritual
way?
If they did, then why wouldPaul have to write these things
in his letters?
I've heard it suggested that theauthor of Hebrews may have been
a woman.
(03:42):
Maybe it was not signed becauseof the view some had on women
in the church in those times.
Some have said I think thisspeculation has some valid
points to it.
For example, in Paul's letterto the Corinthians we read the
women should keep silent in thechurches, for they are not
permitted to speak but should bein submission, as the law also
(04:03):
says.
That's 1 Corinthians, chapter14, verse 34.
So what's going on here?
This doesn't sound like thesame Paul that said in Christ
there is neither male nor female.
In fact, it doesn't sound likePaul at all when I read this
passage.
It's like Paul got takenhostage and someone else started
writing.
I don't think that's actuallywhat happened, but how can we
(04:26):
reconcile this with the rest ofour scripture and even the rest
of Paul's writings?
Some teachers say that womentended to have a lesser
education and sat on theopposite side in the gatherings.
In this case they'd be yellingacross the group asking
questions of the men.
So you'd be like, hey, lenny,what was that?
In 1 Corinthians.
Melissa (04:46):
Might be a little distracting and disruptive.
Lenny (04:50):
Yeah, so Paul would be basically telling them to do
that at home.
In this scenario, Ask yourhusbands at home be silent in
the church.
I like the simplicity here, butthere's one major problem.
What law is Paul referring tohere if he's telling us?
The law also says when we readthis 1 Corinthians letter, we
see that it was in response tothe people that Paul wrote.
(05:13):
In several areas there was acorrespondence taking place
within this letter.
Melissa (05:18):
What a revelation.
When we read the introductionto most Bible translations, they
will tell you that there's nopunctuation in the original
Greek manuscripts.
Quite important to note.
There was no indication whenthey quoted others or quoted
scripture.
They didn't have quotationmarks and they had no practice
(05:39):
of making these indications forthe reader but the recipients of
the letter.
They would have known the fullcontext of the situation right.
Yeah, we don't have that luxury.
Thousands of years later wehave to figure it out because we
weren't there.
Lenny (05:54):
Yeah, I mean, that's really something that takes some
time to understand.
You know, I think we're so usedto just opening our Bible and
say, what's God telling me today?
Yes, we've got to be carefulwith that.
So you and I, melissa, I knowthat we believe that it was
Paul's church that made thatstatement, not him.
It was the Corinthian churchsaying the women should keep
(06:15):
silent in the churches, for theyare not permitted to speak but
should be in submission, as thelaw says.
That was Paul basically quotingthem.
Okay so if we look at it thisway, paul's quoting them saying
you say women should keep silentin the churches, as the law
says, to which Paul then wouldrespond what?
Melissa (06:35):
Or was it from you that the word of God came, or are
you the only ones it has reached?
If anyone thinks that he's aprophet or spiritual, he should
acknowledge that the things I'mwriting to you are a command of
the Lord.
If anyone does not recognizethis, he is not recognized.
Interestingly, in the KingJames translation, it picks up
(06:58):
on the fact that the openingword can be seen as shocking and
alarming based on context.
This really grabbed me when Irealized this.
Lenny (07:08):
Yeah.
Melissa (07:09):
So this added emphasis would only be in your
translation if the translatorunderstood how to interpret the
passage.
Lenny (07:17):
Context.
Melissa (07:18):
Context is king.
This passage has stumped manyin the church throughout history
because of the way it's written.
Lenny (07:25):
Yeah, if you don't recognize that, it sounds very
choppy.
It sounds like he just came outof the blue with this.
Melissa (07:32):
Right.
Lenny (07:32):
You're like what happened ?
Did he just stop writing andthen pick up somewhere else and
forget what he said?
Yes, it's weird, but when yousee it as a correspondence it
becomes a lot less weird.
And when you're payingattention all throughout that
letter you start to make theseconnections.
So I mean, what would it soundlike if you were to emphasize
what the King James picks up?
(07:53):
I mean, how would it read then?
So this is really cool.
Melissa (07:57):
This is how it would read what Came the word of God
out of you, or came it unto you?
Only, if any man think himselfto be a prophet or spiritual,
let him acknowledge that thethings I write unto you are the
commandments of the Lord.
So I can see what you weresaying about Paul's reaction,
(08:17):
paul's rebuking these guys fortheir error, saying that his
teaching was commanded by God.
Paul would have known that thiswas not the law, because it
isn't, and he was once a veryzealous Pharisee.
Paul would not have misquotedthe law in this way.
(08:37):
Exactly it's not in the law.
But would Christians have beenswayed by Judaizers?
Yeah yeah, this is extremelyprobable, and we also know that
the Talmud was spoken orally inthe synagogues.
In those days, the Talmud wasnot the law.
It was the first century Jews'commentary on the law, and it
(09:00):
was riddled with error.
I mean, christ was constantlycalling the Pharisees hypocrites
over their Talmud, wasn't he?
Lenny (09:09):
Yeah, and so in those days the Talmud was known to be
orally said, but later on itbecame written and it just kind
of transformed into what it istoday in so-called Judaism.
Melissa (09:23):
Right.
Paul would have been familiarwith the Talmud and was likely
setting straight the differencebetween true law and commentary.
Lenny (09:32):
Yeah.
So he's calling them out sayingthat's law.
What?
What do you guys know about law?
Let me teach you.
Yes, Because they didn't knowabout law.
They were the Corinthians, theywere probably mostly Gentiles
and hearing this from Judaizersand Paul's like come on, guys,
you and law.
Melissa (09:50):
Right, right.
Lenny (09:52):
Those two things don't work with you.
Don't be going there, right.
Melissa (09:58):
But then there was Paul's letter to Timothy, said
to have been written in EphesusLet a woman learn quietly, with
all submissiveness.
I do not permit a woman toteach or to exercise authority
over a man.
Rather, she is to remain quiet.
For Adam was formed first, thenEve.
(10:18):
That was 1 Timothy, 2, 11-13.
In this instance we have theopposite situation happening
Women were seeking to exerciseauthority over men.
This was probably to do withthe cult of Diana, which was the
Roman version of the GreekArtemis cult.
(10:39):
It was comprised exclusively ofwomen and taught that Eve was
created first, that only Adamwas deceived by Satan and that
females were inherently superiorto males.
So a little bit of error there.
The influence of these womenhad evidently infiltrated the
(10:59):
church and was causingdisruption.
Interestingly, our passagereads a woman, not women.
The Greek leads us down thesame road in various lexicons.
Lenny (11:13):
Yeah, it's pretty interesting.
It seems that there may havebeen a primary leader being
called out and rebuked in thissituation.
Why, would he say a woman?
There was probably oneparticular leader, a ringleader,
getting all the women riled upand empowered, and the men were
just like I can't speak.
It was like totally opposite.
Women are like no, shut up, wehave a few of those today too.
(11:37):
And Paul's like no, that womanneeds to be more submissive
because she's completely out ofcontrol.
So we wanted to mention thosepassages to gain some context
for this study.
But are you guys really readyto dig into this topic of a
woman apostle?
Now there's more, we're justgetting started.
Melissa (11:55):
Awesome.
Lenny (11:56):
So in Romans 16, verse 7, in the ESV translation we read
Greet Andronicus and Junia, mykinsmen and my fellow prisoners.
They are well known to theapostles and they were in Christ
before me.
So in our ESV translation wedon't see a female apostle, do
we?
No, in fact, we see the wordkinsman.
(12:18):
According to Webster, kinsmanis defined as a relative,
usually by birth, especially amale relative.
So we read of two men here inthe ESV translation, don't we?
Melissa (12:31):
That's how I've always seen it.
Lenny (12:33):
We also read here that Junia was well known to the
apostles, implying that he, inair quotes, was not an apostle
himself.
We observe a similar thing inthe King James.
Salute Andronicus and Junia, mykinsmen and my fellow prisoners
who are of note among theapostles who also were in Christ
before me.
(12:53):
The difference we see in theKing James is that the two were
of note among the apostlesrather than well known to the
apostles.
You see the difference.
Melissa (13:05):
Yeah, and it's quite a difference.
Lenny (13:06):
Yeah, well known to implies they weren't well known.
Among implies that they were.
There's a big difference.
It's polar opposites, wow.
So let's see what the NASBtranslation did with this.
In the NASB of Romans 16, 7, weread Greet Andronicus and
Junius, my kinsmen and my fellowprisoners who are outstanding
(13:30):
among the apostles who also werein Christ before me.
Melissa (13:34):
All of a sudden, they are apostles.
They're among them.
Lenny (13:37):
Yeah, and not only that, but outstanding.
However, Junia is suddenlyJunius.
What is that all about?
Melissa (13:47):
Right.
Lenny (13:48):
This time Junia becomes Junius and is an outstanding
apostle.
Melissa (13:53):
Quite a difference.
Lenny (13:56):
So we're going to have to see Jung's literal translation
now, aren't we?
Melissa (13:59):
Yes.
Lenny (14:00):
So Jung's literal translation reads Salute
Andronicus and Junius, mykindred and my fellow captives,
who are of note among theapostles who also have been in
Christ before me.
So the literal translation ofYoung's uses Junius again, but
again places both of them amongthe apostles, which would make
(14:21):
both of them apostles without adoubt.
Melissa (14:24):
Why such a shocking change?
Lenny (14:27):
Yeah, so it seems that ESV is a bit outnumbered here in
their view of them only beingknown to the apostles.
They're the only one in thesefour translations that we looked
at to see it that way.
But then all of thetranslations except Young's use
the word kinsmen to describeAndronicus and Junia.
Young's literal translationsaid kindred.
(14:50):
As we noted earlier, kinsmenimplies male relations, not
female.
But our Young's literaltranslation came up with a
different word here, and so didDavid Bentley Hart's literal
translation, which read kinsfolk.
Kindred is very similar tokinsfolk and according to
(15:11):
Webster, kindred is defined asof similar nature or character,
of the same ancestry, a group ofrelated individuals, one's
relatives, family relationship.
So really what we see is thatPaul saw them as family
according to our literaltranslations, not specifically
(15:31):
as men, just family, I see it so, based on this, do you think we
need to go to the Greek tocheck up on these scholars?
Melissa (15:39):
Absolutely.
Lenny (15:40):
Let's go there.
The word we see translate askinsmen in most Bible
translations, except for theliteral ones, is now don't judge
me on this, on my Greeksonganes.
I didn't listen to itbeforehand, I should have and
according to Strong's it means arelative by blood, by extension
(16:00):
a fellow countryman, cousin,kinsfolk, kinsmen.
And then according to Vine's itmeans cousin.
So they reference the wordbeing used in Luke more than
once and they say it's likecousins respectively signify
kinswoman and kinsfolk and theword literally signifies born
(16:23):
with, of the same stock ordescent.
Hence kinsman, kindred, kin,kinsfolk, kinswoman.
So we see Strong's mention themale usage kinsmen, kindred, kin
, kinsfolk, kinswoman.
So we see Strong's mention themale usage kinsmen, while Vines
points out that kinswoman seemsto be tied to the common context
of the word used in other areasof scripture but, like Strong's
, also sees it as kinsfolk.
(16:45):
So it seemed most reasonable tohave translated this word as
kindred or kinsfolk if it wasnot 100% certain that we were
dealing with two men.
So I think our literaltranslations did well by us
there.
Melissa (17:00):
Agreed.
Lenny (17:01):
We're going to look at the history soon to see if Junia
can be found as a male nameanywhere in history, and this
should help us to decide the waywe should interpret this text.
But before we explore thathistory, let's look at the Greek
to see if these two were evenapostles at all.
Let's make sure that they wereapostles.
So according to Strong's, theGreek word translated to among,
(17:25):
as in known among the apostlesand in ESV was known to the
apostles.
It's this word en E-N.
It's a primary prepositiondenoting fixed position in place
, time or state and, byimplication, instrumentality,
(17:46):
medially or constructively.
I know it's kind of a lot totake in, but it'll start to make
sense here.
So the King James Versiontranslates N in the following
manner 1902, so 1,902 times.
It's saying it was in, and then163 times by it's translated
(18:08):
with 140 times, and then we seeit as among 117 times, at 113
times, on 62 times, through 39times and then it was used
miscellaneously, 264 times.
So if we go with the by farmost common usage, it would be
(18:31):
that Andronicus and Junia werein the apostles.
So based on the common use ofthe word, it is by far most
probable that these two were infact apostles, and all of these
variations of the word describea very close relationship to
something, but in that's asclose as you can be to being an
apostle.
If you're in the apostles, theword among makes more sense, but
(18:56):
it's describing that they're inwith them, they're among them.
They are in the group of theapostles.
Melissa (19:03):
Yes Wow.
Lenny (19:04):
So making it read as two must fall into the miscellaneous
category somewhere, becauseit's not even listed as a common
usage.
So I think our ESV let us downthere pretty badly.
I love that translation, butwe've got to be paying attention
because there's mistakes ininterpretation.
They're supposed to betranslating, but translation has
(19:26):
this funny way of blending withinterpretation.
Melissa (19:29):
And sometimes the translators are biased.
Lenny (19:32):
Well, we're all biased.
Probably always, we're allbiased in some way in the way
that we, with interpretation,and sometimes the translators
are biased.
Well, we're all biased.
Probably always, we're allbiased in some way in the way
that we view scripture.
We're either biased towardstruth or we're biased towards
error.
We hope to be biased towardstruth, don't we?
Melissa (19:42):
Yes.
Lenny (19:44):
So, Melissa, let's look at the recorded history and see
if we can find anything helpfulto this argument, shall we?
Melissa (19:50):
We shall the early church father, John Chrysostom,
upheld the fact that this Juniawas a female apostle of great
wisdom.
Lenny (20:01):
And I just wanted to pause.
We say early church fatherbecause that's just what people
know them, as that's whatthey're always referred to, as
we don't see them as any kind offather above us and a lot of
people get bothered by thatusage because it paints a funny
picture.
Melissa (20:18):
Yes.
Lenny (20:24):
You know, when Paul referred to himself as a father,
most grace teachers and peoplethat understand grace see that
as because of his age, becauseof his older.
You know, because he was olderthan them, not because he saw
himself as somehow above them inthe Christian life.
Melissa (20:36):
Very important to point out.
Lenny (20:38):
But he did express his apostolic authority at times.
But I don't think that's why hesaid I'm your father, you're my
son, son.
So John Chrysostom saw Junia asa female apostle of great
wisdom.
He did that's pretty cool, yeah.
Melissa (20:54):
In later centuries, due to anxiety about women church
leaders, junio was changed toJunius to sound more male.
It was supposedly a variationof the name Julianus.
The first to make this argumentwould have been Giles of Rome.
Interestingly, it is said thathe probably knew no Greek.
Lenny (21:15):
I thought that was pretty interesting.
I was reading about that inthat literal translation by
David Bentley Hart.
He was noting a lot of thesehistorical facts.
Melissa (21:25):
So they were letting the guy that knows no Greek take
the lead and make the decision.
Lenny (21:29):
Yeah, so literally, this leader of Rome, you know, just
makes this announcement, doesn'teven know Greek and is saying
this Greek name is this and notthat.
Melissa (21:40):
But this view stuck nonetheless.
It reminds me a lot of what wesee in our society today.
Lenny (21:46):
Yeah.
Melissa (21:47):
The problem here is that scholars who looked at the
evidence have declared that inall of recorded history there is
no use of the name Junius as amale figure anywhere.
There's nothing.
It was just another classiccase of mankind making stuff up.
Lenny (22:05):
Yep.
Melissa (22:05):
So to hear of it nowhere.
That really says something.
Lenny (22:10):
Yeah, there's no historical evidence of that name
, they just made it up Oldguiles.
Melissa (22:17):
Based on real evidence, I believe we can safely
conclude this to be a femaleapostle.
Lenny (22:23):
I agree that's cool.
That's I agree, that's cool,that's really cool.
Melissa (22:26):
That's way cool and that fits a lot more with the
Paul that we know in all of hisother letters.
Lenny (22:32):
Yeah.
Melissa (22:33):
On top of that, it's impossible to ignore that he
acknowledges them as a pair,just as he does with only
certain others, including Priscaand Aquila, who are known to be
husband and wife according toour scriptures.
Lenny (22:48):
Yep, and some say Priscilla and Aquila.
Melissa (22:50):
They do, which is kind of fun, like a little rhyme.
Lenny (22:53):
Yeah.
Melissa (22:54):
I love that, because you and I are in this together.
Yep, and to further drive thispoint home, our messenger Phoebe
, whom we spoke of in ourintroduction.
There is much to say about heralone, not to mention plenty of
(23:20):
other women in our scripture,about the saints, and help her
in whatever she may need fromyou, for she has been a patron
of many and of myself as well.
Quite a compliment from Paul.
Lenny (23:33):
Yeah.
Melissa (23:34):
That's Romans 16, 1-2.
A servant here comes from theGreek word diakonos and can also
mean minister, attendant deacon.
Yes, that would make itpossible for women to be deacons
, which would be a form ofoverseer.
Lenny (23:53):
Yep.
Melissa (23:54):
But it gets better, lonnie.
Inconceivable A patron, as said, of Phoebe here, comes from the
Greek word prostasis and canalso mean protectress, champion,
leader.
What I said, leader.
Lenny (24:12):
No, a woman leader.
You can't have women goingaround leading stuff.
Melissa (24:17):
Melissa A woman champion from the lips of Paul.
Lenny (24:21):
Oh man.
Melissa (24:22):
But of course, if we don't regard context, we can
just knock that down to theleast possible meaning and move
on.
Lenny (24:29):
Let's just keep it at Junius, okay.
Well known to the apostles.
Melissa (24:35):
Can't close your eyes to truth.
Once you've seen it, can'tunsee it, but we have to
remember there's neither Jew norGreek.
There's neither slave nor free.
There is neither slave nor free.
There is neither male norfemale, for you are all one in
Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3.28 I love that,amen.
Lenny (24:56):
That's the real Paul right there, isn't it.
Melissa (24:59):
That's the Paul we know and love.
Lenny (25:01):
Women are much needed in the church and their voices need
to be heard.
Don't believe everything youhear at the pulpit.
If you stop your research atthe pulpit, you're missing out
on your God-given freedom.
Take back what is yours, yourGod-given gift of freedom in
Christ.
In regards to a marriage, we dobelieve there is a spiritual
(25:22):
structure and that women arevery different than men in this
way.
Melissa (25:26):
Yes, we do.
Lenny (25:27):
Paul gives us a beautiful view of this balance in
Ephesians 5, while making aparallel to Christ and the
church.
We'll certainly talk about thatmore at some point, but if you
are married, that is some greatstuff.
David Curtis had some goodmessages on that.
I believe it was around thetime, or combined with that
federal headship message that hedid, that I'd linked in our
introduction to the Romansmessages.
(25:49):
We don't share his view onwomen in the church, but we
loved his view on marriage.
It was really good.
Melissa (25:54):
Yes.
Lenny (25:56):
So that's all we got for you guys today, and we are going
to see you again next week withanother hot topic.
And we got a good one brewing.
I think I'm going to keep it asurprise.
I'm going to keep it a surprise, I'm going to make it a
surprise.
No spoiler alert.
No spoilers.
If you click on the episodedescription of our podcast,
there's a link to our episodetranscript page where you can
(26:17):
correspond with us, leave ussome feedback, share some
insights, things like that.
We encourage you guys to dothat.
You can also if you're on amedia platform.
If there's a way to makecomments there, feel free to do
so as well.
We'd love to hear from you guys, and it helps build the
activity.
Amen For a new Christianpodcast.
(26:37):
We love to have some activity,don't we?
Melissa (26:40):
We sure do, and please remember together we are the
church.
Amen.
Have a great day out there,everyone.
See you next week.
announcement (26:50):
Thank you for listening to the Waking Up to
Grace podcast brought to you bythe finished work of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
If you enjoyed today's episode,we would love to hear from you.
You can send encouragement ourway right from our episodes and
transcripts page or reach Lennyprivately from the contact form
at wakinguptogracecom.
Popular Podcasts
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Decisions, Decisions
Welcome to "Decisions, Decisions," the podcast where boundaries are pushed, and conversations get candid! Join your favorite hosts, Mandii B and WeezyWTF, as they dive deep into the world of non-traditional relationships and explore the often-taboo topics surrounding dating, sex, and love. Every Monday, Mandii and Weezy invite you to unlearn the outdated narratives dictated by traditional patriarchal norms. With a blend of humor, vulnerability, and authenticity, they share their personal journeys navigating their 30s, tackling the complexities of modern relationships, and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that challenge societal expectations. From groundbreaking interviews with diverse guests to relatable stories that resonate with your experiences, "Decisions, Decisions" is your go-to source for open dialogue about what it truly means to love and connect in today's world. Get ready to reshape your understanding of relationships and embrace the freedom of authentic connections—tune in and join the conversation!