I’m continuing to pick up on some of the arguments in Preston Sprinkle’s book on complementarianism and egalitarianism. Y aim is to highlight a few examples from his book for discussion before providing a full review. This might also help to give you an insight into my reading methods. I’m working through the book but when something comes up that I’m not sure about, I pause to work it through.
The last woman that Sprinkle considers from Paul’s list of greetings in Romans 16 is Junia. [1]Sprinkle notes that there has been some dispute over who Junia was and their role. Some people have even suggested that Junia was in fact a man and some manuscripts offer the male version of the name, Junias. Scholarship today seems pretty convinced that we are talking about a woman.
The second question is as to whether or not she was an apostle. This depends on whether you interpret the text, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, as “who are outstanding/noteworthy among the apostles” or “… to the apostles.” There has been a recent push for the latter view and Sprinkle interacts with Michael Burer who claimed along with Daniel Wallace to have found a significant number of examples of texts where ἐν τοῖς is intended to mean “to” rather than “among”. Sprinkle responds:
“But when I combed through his references for myself, I discovered that only ten of the thirty-five contain the Greek word en before the dative plural. I know it’s a small word, but it’s enormously significant. Without the word en, the phrase would much more likely mean “to,” not “among.” No one disputes this. Of Burer’s thirty-six references, then, only ten are relevant to the point he’s trying to prove.[2]
He then works through the ten relevant examples and concludes that whilst there are some examples of texts meaning “to” rather than “among” making the translation possible, it is unlikely because:
In summary, nine of Burer’s ten references that parallel Romans 16:7 are better translated as “among” not “to,” which actually lends support for Junia being among the apostles.[3]
I am inclined to agree with Sprinkle on this point, I find the translation “outstanding among” more plausible. There is a risk that we look for the easier translation which seems to best fit our theological presuppositions and if you think that either it was impossible for there to be apostles beyond the twelve or for a woman to be an apostle, then you might find “noteworthy to” preferable.
Sprinkle goes on to discuss what it would have meant for Junia to be an apostle, what kind of apostle was she? Was she one of the twelve, part of a broader category or a messenger from a specific church. I agree with Sprinkle that if she were an apostle then it is likely to be that she was from a wider category of workers. She obviously was not one of the twelve and she does not seem to be linked to one specific church.
Again though, we need some caution here because I’m not always convinced of Sprinkle’s supporting evidence. Specifically, Sprinkle writes:
“The apostles in this group are clearly leaders in the early church. They are sometimes distinguished from the Twelve (Acts 15:2, 4), but in other passages both are grouped together as “apostles” (1 Cor. 9:5–6; 12:28). 68 Paul, who’s part of this second group of apostles, recognized that Peter, James, and John (members of the Twelve) were “esteemed as pillars” in the Jerusalem church (Gal. 2:9), but he also relativized their unique importance (Gal. 2:6) and even rebuked Peter to his face (Gal. 2:11–14). Thus, there doesn’t appear to be a hierarchy of authority of the Twelve over this other category of apostles. Both groups played a fundamental role in building the early church (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20).[4]
First note that in Acts 15 , the Twelve apostles are not distinguished from another group of apostles but from the elders, who clearly in Acts are those with local church responsibility in Jerusalem. Secondly, whilst Paul was not part of the original 12, it is clear from his own testimony and defence that he sees himself as part of that group rather than a second grouping, he was an eye witness of the resurrected Jesus. These are surprisingly sloppy errors on Sprinkle’s part and I’m sure he will want to correct this in future editions of his book. Thirdly, Sprinkle suggests that the twelve and other apostles were grouped together into a single category in 1 Corinthains 9 and 12 but this is another example of speculation without evidence in the text. In Ephesians 2:20, apostles are identified as foundational. The point is that the church is built on them and the prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. This suggests that Paul is not so concerned there with their status in the church as with the content of the revelation they delivered. Incidentally, I find it hard to see the reference in chapter 4 as being different given it follows on so quickly. The reference to ascension gifts should also be seen as a reference to the 12 and to the gift of scriptural/special revelation.
Sprinkle highlights that Junia and Andronicus had been in prison with Paul which he sees as evidence of their leadership and apostolic status.
“been in prison with me” (Rom. 16:7). 72 Several things could land you in a Roman prison in the first century: theft, murder, attempted murder, temple robbery. But it’s unlikely that such sinful activities would earn Paul’s praise. So what kind of crime did Andronicus and Junia commit? Romans also imprisoned people for civil disturbance and inciting riots—and this was why some early Christians wound up in Roman prisons. Paul himself was accused of these crimes when he preached the gospel (Acts 19:40). Whether Andronicus and Junia went to prison together with Paul then or on a different occasion, it’s likely they were jailed for the same reason. Perhaps this couple also “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6 CSB) by “defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus” (v. 7). Whatever they did to get themselves in so much trouble, it must have been something public and recognizably disruptive.[5]
This seems like an unnecessary complication to me. The most likely reason for them being in prison with Paul would be that they had been serving with Paul as part of his team at the time. Incidentally, one possibility is that those who served with the apostles, including those who had travelled with the twelve during Jesus’ earthly ministry were in some way included within the apostolic team. This may be the case with Andronicus and Junia though it is also possible that they are people like Barnabas, Titus and Timothy who seem to have had a ministry that extended beyond one local church.
However, the point about being included in a team and then spoken of with the same language draws our attention to the fact that Junia is not listed separately as “outstanding among the apostles”. Rather, it is a husband and wife that appear to be identified together for an exceptional greeting from Paul.
Therefore, once again, there seem to be problems with Sprinkle’s exegesis and reasoning.
[1] Romans 16:7.
[2] Sprinkle, Preston. From Genesis to Junia: An Honest Search for What the Bible Really Says About Women in Leadership (p. 140). David C Cook. Kindle Edition.
[3] Sprinkle, Preston. From Genesis to Junia: An Honest Search for What the Bible Really Says About Women in Leadership (p. 141). David C Cook. Kindle Edition.
[4] Sprinkle, Preston. From Genesis to Junia: An Honest Search for What the Bible Really Says About Women in Leadership (pp. 145-146). David C Cook. Kindle Edition.
[5] Sprinkle, Preston. From Genesis to Junia: An Honest Search for What the Bible Really Says About Women in Leadership (pp. 146-147). David C Cook. Kindle Edition.
Faithroots 