Jesus, Women and the Twelve Male Apostles

I am sure we all agree, if we want to know anything about what it means to be a disciple of Christ, the best place to begin is the Gospels. These four books give an account of Jesus' birth, life, teaching, miracles, death and resurrection. What Paul and the other New Testament authors say is of course hugely important and part of our Bibles with the same authority as the Gospels, but we are not followers of Paul, Peter or John. We are followers of Christ, like Paul, Peter and John. If on any matter we find a tension between what Jesus clearly teaches and what the other New Testament writers say, then we should read the latter in the light of what Jesus says.

On turning to the Gospels what we need to recognise is that much of Jesus' teaching sets before us great ideals; love your neighbour as yourself, turn the other cheek, forgive and forgive again, never think lustfully, and most confronting of all, "Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt 5:48). In contrast, Paul and the other apostolic writers often give practical advice to followers of Christ living in a fallen world. They advise church members how to behave when a fellow Christian is unloving or judgmental, has fallen into sexual sin or transgressed social norms such as women leading in prayer or speaking in church without their heads covered. For this reason, some of their teaching is pragmatic, specifically addressed to problems in first century churches.

Before we turn to the Gospels to study what Jesus said about women and how he related to them,1 I need to underline that Jesus lived and addressed people in the first century AD. The Gospels are historical documents. The Jesus of the Gospels did not drive a car, watch TV, play games on his computer or go to supermarkets. In his world, women were dependent on men all their lives and their educational opportunities were very limited. He would never have imagined a world where women would be leaders of nations as presidents and prime ministers, managers of large businesses, judges, doctors, carpenters or generals in the Salvation Army. What this means is that whatever Jesus taught or did was within the confines of what was conceivable within his cultural setting. He certainly fully affirmed women and saw them standing side by side with men, but to suggest he had much the same agenda as a modern day feminist is to divorce him from his historical context.

Nevertheless, what Jesus said about women and how he related to them was revolutionary. His view of women, given the culture in which he lived, was breathtaking. As twenty first century disciples in a very different culture, one where women are given equality of opportunity, we need to follow the trajectory he set.

Women disciples

In contrast to the Jewish rabbis, the rabbi Jesus had female disciples. His call, "Come, follow me" was in the first instances addressed to the men who travelled with him as his close companions. He called them "the twelve", "the twelve disciples" and on a very few occasions, "the apostles" (Mark 1:16-20, 6:7 cf. 6:30). A few women, however, also travelled with the twelve at some period, literally 'following' Jesus in his travels (Luke 8:13, 23:49, 24:10). However, Jesus also gave an open invitation to "follow me" to men and women without distinction (Mark 8:34). In the Synoptic Gospels those who accept his invitation to become his disciples are said to 'believe' (Mark 1:15, Luke 8:12-13, Matt 18:6). In John's Gospel, "a believer" and "a disciple" are synonymous terms (John 1:12, 2:11, 6:28-29, 21:23). The historic disciples were definitely not a "men's club" on a male only excursion; women disciples were

numbered among them.

Jesus and his relationship with women

How Jesus related to women, given the cultural context, is astounding. In first century Judaism men were not to talk with women in public, let alone touch them. In contrast Jesus freely did both. He went gladly to a sick little girl and when he arrived at her home "he took her by the hand" and healed her (Mark 5:41). When a Syrophoenician woman, begged him to cast out a demon in her daughter, he first rebuffed her because she was a Gentile by saying, "Let the children [of Israel) be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children's food and give it to dogs." To which the woman replied, "even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs" (Mark 7:27-28). Jesus took no offence at her cheeky reply. His ego was not dented by the woman answering him back. In fact he commends her. He likes what she says. He says to her, "For saying that you may go - the demon has left your daughter" (Mark 7:29). At another time when he met a grieving mother, Luke says, "he had compassion for her" and said to her, "Do not weep". He then raised the boy (Luke 8:11-17). In one healing story a haemorrhaging woman touches Jesus thereby breaching the purity laws (Mark 5:24-34). He offers not one word of criticism of her for doing this. Rather than criticizing her for touching him, he sent her away with his blessing, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace and be healed of your disease" (Mark 5:34).

Jesus on marriage

Jesus' teaching on marriage was also confronting for his hearers (Matt 19:3-9). When he was asked the androcentric question, can a man divorce his wife "for any cause," he says,

"Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning "made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What God has joined together, let no one separate."

What Jesus says here is hugely significant. He indicates that the creation ideal for the man-woman relationship in general and for marriage in particular is given in the creation stories before sin had distorted the male-female relationship. The two texts he quotes, Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, both speak of the reality before the Fall when the man did not rule over the woman. The author of Genesis explicitly makes the rule of the husband over his wife a consequence of sin (Gen 3:16). This is not the God-given creation ideal. The implication is that in God's perfect creation, the marriage relationship was the perfect unity of a man and a woman who were of equal dignity and leadership potential. One did not rule over the other and thus the man had no special privileges or freedoms.

In reply to the question "Can a man divorce his wife for any cause'?" Jesus draws a contrast between the creation ideal where marriage was intended to be life-long union and the realities of fallen existence where marriages do break down. As far as Jesus was concerned, Moses was simply giving guidelines on what to do when a marriage fails in a fallen world, not endorsing divorce.

In making this point Jesus discloses how everything said about the man-woman relationship is to be understood. In creation men and women are both made in God's image and likeness, both commissioned to rule over the world in partnership and both given the family mandate (Gen 1:28-29). Genesis chapter 2 makes the same points in a different literary form and in different words. The climax of the story comes when the woman stands beside the man and he recognizes her as "bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh", i.e. exactly like me, yet different to me

because she is woman (Gen 2:23). Nowhere in Genesis chapters1and 2 is there any suggestion that the woman is subordinated to the man in creation before the Fall. Genesis chapters 2 to 3 make it explicit that the rule over the woman by the man is a consequence of sin (Gen 3:16).

What Jesus says on marriage explains so much. He wants his disciples to make the creation ideal their ideal. He wants them to accept that as far as God is concerned men and women are of equal dignity, have the same leadership abilities and are equally responsible for their lives and decisions, and specifically in marriage neither party has any special rights or privileges.

Jesus and women - four telling encounters

When a woman cried out in the crowd, "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you", Jesus replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it" (Luke 11:27-28). In Jesus eyes, as important as mothering might be, the highest calling for men and women is to hear and obey the word of God.

The longest account of an encounter between Jesus and a woman is given in John chapter 4. It takes place by the well in the village of Sychar, which you can visit today. I have drunk from that well. Jesus spoke with a woman about her life and about "living water", and he revealed to her that he was the coming Messiah. When the male disciples who had temporarily left him returned, John says, "They were astonished that he was talking with a woman" (John 4:27). We should note that Jesus does not discuss with this woman the weather, the weight of the water jars, or what women should wear. He had a profoundly theological conversation with her. What is more, John records this woman going to her village where she tells the men what Jesus had said, and John adds, "Many believed in him [Jesus] because of the woman's testimony" (John 4:39). In this passing comment, John allows that women can lead men to faith by preaching. We must conclude that Jesus had no reservations about talking theology with, or evangelizing women, or about women evangelising men.

Another encounter between Jesus and women of great significance is found in the account of Jesus' visit to the home of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38-42). When Jesus entered the home, Martha greeted him and then got busy with domestic chores. Her sister in contrast "sat at the Lord's feet and listened to what he was saying". She took the role that men took in that culture. Men sit and listen to guests and women go to the kitchen to prepare food. This is what happens, I have personally discovered, when you visit a home in a rural setting in Lebanon of Jordan today. Nothing much has changed. Not surprisingly given this cultural setting, Martha became quite angry. She says to Jesus, "Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me. Instead of rebuking Mary, as the first readers of Luke's Gospel would have expected, Jesus commends her for choosing "the better part" and chides Martha for being "worried and distracted by many things". Joseph Fitzmyer says this story is hugely important because it: makes listening to the 'word' the 'one thing' needed. Priority is given to hearing of the word coming from God's messenger over preoccupation with all other concerns. Martha wanted to honour Jesus with an elaborate meal, but Jesus reminds her that it is more important to listen to what he has to say... Moreover, Luke in this scene does not hesitate to depict a woman as a disciple sitting at Jesus' feet.2

One sits at a teacher's feet to learn, and one learns to teach others.

Another significant encounter between Jesus and a woman is found in the account of his anointing by a woman. This was unquestionably a very important story in the early church, since it is one of the few stories recounted in all four Gospels, albeit in variant forms.3 Mark sets his version of the story immediately before the Last Supper thereby adding significance to it, and he has the woman anoint Jesus' head. In the Old Testament a prophet anointed the head of the Jewish king. The implication is that this unnamed woman prophetically recognises Jesus as the Anointed one, the Messiah, the Christ. Jesus is not embarrassed by her action, and allows no criticism of her. He is in fact so taken by her action that he says, "Truly I tell you, wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her" (Mark 14:9). Has this been done? No, she has been forgotten. Of the three disciples that figure most prominently in Mark's passion story, one of them, Judas, betrays Jesus. He is remembered and demonised. Another, Peter, denies him. He is remembered and lionized. The third, an unnamed woman, who publicly anoints him as the Messiah and is warmly commended by him, is generally forgotten and ignored.

Jesus commissions women as "apostles to the apostles"

Surprisingly, the risen Jesus chose to appear first to women, and then he sent them to tell the frightened male apostles that he had risen from the dead (Matt 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-12, John 20:1-18). St Thomas Aquinas called these women, "apostles to the twelve apostles" 4 Luke and women For long centuries it has been noted that Luke is particularly concerned to emphasise Jesus' positive and affirming stance towards women. 5 He names thirteen women who do not appear or are not named in the other Synoptic Gospels;6 he has three parables that positively mention women not found in the other Gospels;7 and he gives women a very prominent place in the birth stories.8 He depicts Elizabeth and Mary as women who speak in the power of the Spirit, and explicitly calls Anna a 'prophet' (Luke 2:36-38).9 For him, Mary the mother of Jesus is always strong in faith (Luke 1:26-56, 8:19-21, Acts 1:14), an exemplary disciple. In Acts, Luke has the Spirit poured out on men and women believers alike, and as a consequence they alike speak in the power of the Spirit (Acts 2:17-18). At least 34 times he pairs men and women to indicate that in the new age inaugurated by the coming of Christ, man and woman stand together, side by side (Luke 1:57-80, 2:22-38, 4:25-27,7:36-50, 15:4-10, Acts 2:17-18, 5:14, 17:4, 12, etc.). The German theologian, Helmut Flender, says:

Luke deliberately extended and developed male-female parallels to emphasize that in the new community founded by Christ man and woman stand side by side before God. They are equal in honour and grace, they are endowed with the same gifts, and they have the same responsibilities.10

All of the four Gospel writers have distinctive things to say about Jesus and women. What Luke says is of most interest and importance. Luke goes out of his way to mention women and to extol their leadership in word and deed.

Conclusion

Not once does Jesus speak of the subordination of women and not once does he speak of male 'headship'/leadership. Rather, he says and does much to indicate he believed that men and women in his community stood side by side, equal in value, dignity and leadership potential just as they did in creation before the Fall.

On the basis of this conclusion we now ask, what does this say to us today two thousand years later when in Western societies about 60% of women are graduates, they are in control of their fertility, they are national rulers and leading in all walks of life, they can live independent lives supporting themselves and the best of marriages are profoundly equal partnerships? The answer, I suggest, must be the complete abandonment of any thought that women are the subordinated sex or that they are not to lead in church.

Addendum: The twelve male apostles

Women's leadership and ministry in the church is a pressing contemporary issue. Those totally opposed to women in leadership and thus their ordination argue that because Jesus chose twelve men to be apostles this proves that leadership in the church is male, and this can never change.

No matter how many times and how loudly this objection to women in leadership is made it is not convincing. It is special pleading. As we have just seen, Jesus had an entirely positive attitude to women and to their leadership. Not one word of his teaching and nothing in what he did would suggest that he thought God had given "headship"/leadership exclusively to men. The argument that his appointment of twelve men and only men as the first apostles, implies the principle that men only should be church leaders, nevertheless, must be seriously evaluated.

At least seven reasons suggest this argument to exclude women from church leadership is special pleading. 1. Jesus did not teach that his appointment of twelve male apostles indicated that church leadership was male. We must make a distinction between what Jesus did and what he taught. Mute historical actions by Jesus on their own prove nothing. Jesus travelled mainly by foot but this does not indicate that he was opposed to other forms of travel. All the twelve were Jews but this does not indicate that all priests/pastors after his time should be Jews. It Jesus wanted his future followers to understand that only men should be leaders in the community he founded, we would expect him to have said something explicitly on this, but he did not. Any conclusion drawn from this mute historical fact is an inference, a deduction. Much of what Jesus said and did counts against this inference or deduction.

2. Women were not Jesus constant companions because this was not possible. To be numbered among the twelve, Luke says, a candidate must have followed Jesus from the time of his baptism until his ascension (Acts 1:21-22). In other words, to have been his constant companion throughout his ministry. In the cultural context of first century Judaism, it was not possible for women to travel for weeks on end and to sleep, often in the open, with men. Luke, it is true, has women following Jesus (Luke 8:1-2) but possibly this was only while he was in a town or moving from one town to another.

3. Cultural reasons, not theology, demand that the twelve be men. The cultural expectation of that time that men would provide leadership would have certainly influenced Jesus' choice of male apostles. Most of the cultural norms of his day Jesus tacitly accepted. If he had chosen six men and six women, designating them as the future leaders of his followers, he would have indicated that he had a very radical political and social agenda, and nothing in the Gospels suggests this. The kingdom he had come to establish was ultimately not of this world, even if it had profound social implications to be worked out in this world. Jesus undeniably subverted many of the cultural norms of his day, but nowhere do we find him openly rejecting them.

4. Women could not be witnesses. Luke makes the primary work of the twelve bearing witness to the ministry, teaching, death and resurrection of Christ (Luke 24:48, Acts 1:21-23). In Judaism, Witness or testimony of women in support of factual matters was generally rejected. 11 Thus Paul, when recounting the resurrection witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:5-11, does not mention the women who were first to the empty tomb and first to see the resurrected Christ. For this reason, to appoint women as factual witnesses was not an option for Jesus.

5. Twelve men symbolised the restoration of Israel. The twelve apostles had to be men because for Jesus the number twelve indicated that he was calling into existence the new or restored Israel, the church (Matt 19:28, Luke 22:30). If his Jewish audience were to see this symbolic paralleling, the twelve had to be men like their Old Testament counterparts, the twelve sons of Israel. He appointed men for this reason, but it was not their maleness which was central to his choice; it was that they were twelve in number. The men themselves do not seem very important. The Gospel writers cannot agree entirely on their names.12 What is more, with the exception of Peter, James and John, neither Acts nor any other New Testament writing says anything about them. They are not of interest as persons. Nowhere is it suggested that any of them were congregational leaders/pastors. What in fact this typology implies is that the twelve are to be seen proto-church (and the church includes men and women), not proto-pastors.

6. There was at least one female apostle. I think the most devastating argument against the argument that the maleness of the twelve excludes women from church leadership is that almost certainly Paul commends a woman apostle, Junia (Rom 16:7). She is not one of the twelve apostles but she is certainly among those whom Paul says are "first in the church" (1 Cor 12:28). If a woman can be an apostle then the claim that women cannot be leaders in the church has little weight. I will say more on this below.

7. The argument is selective. Lastly, I raise a somewhat humorous objection to the argument that the maleness of the twelve is prescriptive of which gender should be in church leadership. In Acts 6:3, in speaking of who should be appointed, and in Acts 6:5 of those who were appointed to manage the food for the Hellenist widows, Luke uses the specifically male noun aner-andros. If the maleness of the twelve apostles is prescriptive for church leadership, then is the maleness of those who were to look after the food supplies also prescriptive? Should men and men only man the church kitchen?

Junia (Romans 16:7)

Those who make much of the mute fact that Jesus chose twelve male apostles say very little about Junia who is almost certainly a temale apostle, 13 "first in the church" (1 Cor 12:28), and some deny this is the case. To understand what follows it has to be noted that in the apostolic age there were two kinds of apostles. There were first the twelve apostles who were with Jesus throughout his ministry, heard his teaching, saw his miracles and were witnesses of his resurrection. In Acts 1:21-22, Luke list these things as the qualifications needed to be numbered among the twelve apostles. Then second, there were others called apostles; Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:4 and 14), Apollos (1 Cor 4:6-9), James (1 Cor 15:7, Timothy (Col 1:10), and others. Paul implies that the number of apostles other than the twelve is not prescribed (1 Cor 12:28, 29, 15:7,2 Cor 11:13, Eph 4:11). These apostles were in some way sent out by the risen Christ to preach the Gospel, plant churches (1 Cor 9:1-2), and teach believers. 14 If Andronicus and Junia were apostles, they were apostles of this kind. Because the existence of a woman apostle completely undermines the argument that women cannot be priests in the Catholic tradition, or church leaders and teachers in the evangelical tradition, male commentators have tried valiantly to find reasons to reject what the text says. They have argued either that:

1. Paul here speaks of a male apostle called Junias.

2. Paul is only saying Andronicus and Junia were esteemed by those who were apostles.

3. Andronicus and Junia were not apostles like Barnabas, Apollos, James and Timothy.

1. The first objection to Junia being a woman apostle is the argument that the name lounian given in the Greek text of Romans 16:7 refers to a man. Grammatically it is possible that lounian could be a contracted form of the Latin male name Junianus. However, despitea huge amount of effort not one example of the contracted male name.

Junias, has been found. There is no such name. On the basis of this evidence virtually all recent commentators have conceded that here Paul speaks of a woman, probably the wife of Andronicus. Even Professor Douglas Moo, who is totally opposed to the leadership of women in the church, agrees that the name lounian must indicate a woman. 15

2. The second objection to Junia being a female apostle is that the Greek translated as "of note among the apostles" can mean one of two things: either that Junia was an apostle of note, or that she was held in high esteem by the apostles. Again virtually all modern commentators agree that in this context the Greek most naturally means that Junia and Andronicus stood out among the apostles. Their faith and work as apostles was exceptional. Since Paul adds that they were "in Christ before I was" , it seems likely they were Jewish believers, and it is possible that they were eye witnesses of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:7). As we will see in a moment, the Greek-speaking Fathers took the Greek to mean that Junia was a woman apostle of note. She was highly esteemed for her ministry as an apostle.

3. The third objection to Junia being a female apostle in the same sense as Barnabas, Apollos, James and Timothy is a doctrinaire one. Women cannot be church leaders. Moo, who has to admit that the name Junia is a female name, as noted above, takes this route. He arbitrarily concludes that here Paul uses the title 'apostle' in a 'looser' sense, definitely not of an "authoritative leadership position" 16 This argument has absolutely nothing to commend it. Moo allows his own contemporary dogmatic agenda to determine his exegesis. As we are about to show, all commentators before the thirteenth century concluded that Andronicus and Junia were esteemed apostles. Furthermore, we must ask why Paul would speak in such glowing terms of this couple if they were not notable leaders and missionaries.

The early commentators on Romans 16:7

Every commentator on Romans 16:17 before the thirteenth century took it that Paul was speaking of a woman apostle. In his commentary on Romans, the erudite Roman Catholic scholar, Joseph Fitzmyer, lists sixteen Greek and Latin commentators from the first Christian millennium who all take Paul in Romans 16:7 to be speaking of a woman apostle. 17 I give some examples; Chrysostom, who lived in the fourth century and is ranked among the most learned of the Greek Fathers, unambiguously says of Junia:

To be apostles is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles-just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They [she and Andronicus] were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the tile of apostle!18

In the next century, Theodoret (393-458), bishop of Cyrrhus, speaking explicitly of Andronicus and Junia says, "To be called 'of note' not only among the disciples but also among the teachers, and not just among the teachers but even among the apostles" is amazing.19

Still later John of Damascus (675-749) says, "And to be called 'apostles" is a great thing... but even among these of note, just consider what great encomium this is" 20

It was not until the thirteenth century that Junia was given a "sex change", and from then on commentators began arguing that in Romans 16:7 Paul was commending two male apostles. Interestingly Calvin showed his usual independence of thought in his treatment of this verse. He his usual independence of thought in his treatment of this verse. He conceded that here Paul commends a man and a woman, calling them both apostles, in the sense of missionaries and church planters? 21

Lastly we note that in the second century other women were called apostles. This is attested by the apocryphal Acts of St. Paul and St. Thecla. 22 This work is a popular story that had wide circulation in the post-apostolic period. It is first quoted in the second century AD. Here we meet Thecla, a woman apostle and companion of Paul who teaches, baptizes and is eventually martyred for her faith in Christ.

The almost certain mention of a woman apostle in Romans 16:7 is of huge significance. All arguments that Paul excluded women from church leadership and teaching on a theological principle are demolished if Junia is an apostle, and the overwhelming evidence indicates just this. Paul says apostles- and he is not speaking only of the twelve - are "first in the church" (1 Cor 12:28). Later in writing to the Ephesians he says that along with the prophets, the apostles are "the foundation" on which the church is built (Eph 2:20). They are the ones that begin churches.

It is not at all surprising to find women apostles in the early church. Jesus appeared first to women and sent them to proclaim that he had risen from the grave (Matt 28:7, John 20:17). And Paul's theology of the charismata (see 1 Cor 12:1-31) envisages that every ministry is open to men and women without distinction. This article was first published in Giles, K. and Cooper-Clarke, D. (2017) Women & Men: One in Christ: CBE National Conference ‘Better together 2017’, Melbourne, Australia Denise Cooper-Clarke & Kevin Giles, editors. Melbourne, VIC: Christians for Biblical Equality.

---

1. Important post 1970s studies on Jesus and women including the following: B.Witherington, Women in the Ministry of Jesus, Cambridge: CUP, 1984; E. Schussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, London: SCM, 1983, mainly pages 105-160; Tal Ian, Jewish Women in Greco-Roman Palestine, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996;

   Women in Christian Origins, eds Ross Kraemer and Mary D' Angelo, Oxford: OUP,

   1999; R. Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002; D. Scholer, "Women", in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, eds J. B. Green, S McKnight, I. H. Marshall, Downers Grove, II.: VP, 1992, 880-887; Mary A. Beavis, "Christian Origins, Egalitarianism, and Utopia" Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, 23.2 (2007), 27-49; K.E. Bailey, Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Downers Grove: IVP, 2008, 189-275; K. N. Giles, "Jesus and Women" , in S. Clifton and J. Grey, Raising Women Leaders: Perspectives on Liberating Women in Pentecostal and Charismatic Contexts, Sydney: Australian Pentecostal Studies, 2009, 89-110.

2. The Gospel According to Luke, vol. 2, New York: Doubleday, 1985, 892.

3. Matt 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-11, Luke 7:37-50, John 12:1-8. In fact there may have been more than one anointing.

4. For the reference to Thomas and the endorsement of Thomas' words by Pope John Paul II see, On the Dignity and Vocation of Women, Homebush: St Paul, 1988, 60 and note 38.

5. A huge amount has been written on Luke and women. The general consensus is that Luke is consistently very positive about women, yet constrained by first century parameters. Some, however, have challenged this consensus. The most comprehensive bibliography on Luke and women and the most balanced assessment of the debate just mentioned is given by Craig Keener, "Luke's Perspective on Women and Gender", in his, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, vol. 1, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012, 597-638. For a very positive view of Luke and women by two competent Australian scholars who use narrative criticism to show how the many Lukan stories and comments on women cohere, see G. W. Forbes and S. D. Harrower, Raised from Obscurity: A Narrative and Theological Study of the Characterization of Women in Luke-Acts, Oregon: Pickwick, 2015.

6. Luke 1:5, 2:36, 3:19, 4:26, 7:11-17, 8:1-2, 10:38-42, 11:27-28, 15:8-10, 18:1-8, 24:19.

7. Luke 13:20-21, 15:8-10, 18:1-8

8. He makes no mention of "the wise men" but he has three "wise women", Elizabeth, Mary and Anna. They are key players in the Christmas story according to Luke.

9. "The Magnificat" is a prophetic oracle (cf. Luke 1:67).

10. St Luke: Theologian of Redemptive History, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967, 10.

11. See Illan, Jewish Women, 163-166

12. The names given in the four Gospels are not exactly the same

13. See the definitive study, Eldon Jay Epp, Junia: the First Woman Apostle, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.

14. Teaching is consistently seen as a key ministry of an apostle (Acts 2:42, 11:26, 15:35, 1 Cor 4:17, Col 1:28, 2 Tim 4:2).

15. The Epistle to the Romans, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996, 923.

16. The Epistle to the Romans, 923.

17. Romans, Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday, 1993, 737-38. See also Epp, Junia, 32-33.

18. The English translation is taken from Epp, Junia, 32.

19. Ibid., 33.

20. Ibid

21. Commentary on Romans and Thessalonians, trans. Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids:

    Eerdmans, 1973, 322.

22. An English translation of this work is found in E. Hennecke, New Testamanet Apocrypha, 2, English editor R. M. Wilson, Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965, 353-64.

---

Rev Dr Kevin Giles (Th.D.) is a graduate of Moore Theological College, Sydney and has completed post graduate study in England and Germany. He was in parish ministry for forty years in various ways; associate minister, church Planter, university chaplain, rector of a large multi-staff parish, and in "rebirthing' an inner city church. He has published widely on what the Bible says on the church, ministry, women and the Trinity. He writes with a passion to see the renewal of the church.