RT Wright Explores His Imagination to Support Christo-Feminism - by Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 1Timothy 2:13-14 (ESV)

https://charismamag.com/video/42914-nt-wright-why-more-women-should-be-church-leaders-preachers

NT Wright is theologian and former Anglican Bishop. Charisma News highlights a recent interview at the link above where he defends the notion of women in leadership positions over men in the church. I often read pieces like this in the hopes that someone would come up with something new to research but the arguments are always the same old tired recycled lines. They avoid what is clear instruction given by God in favor of wild interpretations and assumptions of what Paul really meant. (Rather than recycle what we have written in other posts, we shall simply direct you to our in-depth analysis of women in leadership in the context of 1 Ti. 2:13-15 to counter the author's bare assertions.)

They seemingly stop at no end, changing the actual meanings of word to prop up their unbiblical points. They open up scripture to the wiles of their imagination in order to make Junias an apostle or Phoebe a deaconess. As I have said before, this subject gives me no joy. I know godly women who can preach the paint off the walls but that does not change what God has said. So let us reason together once more through scripture and reality through the above link and try our best to listen only to what God is saying.

"N.T. Wright says that the New Testament clearly shows that women can be church leaders and preachers, and added that many American churches that deny women opportunities to lead do so off a "highly selective reading of Scripture" that misses the bigger context. In an interview with Premier's Justin Brierley, Wright bases his argument off the existence of female church leaders in Romans 16. "Romans 16 is explosive," Wright says. "Paul greets all these church leaders in Rome, many of whom are women who are church leaders in their own right, one of whom is an apostle--he says so, Junia. There's been a huge attempt to try to make out this as Junius, a man, but the scholarship is quite clear. This is a female name and she is an apostle. For Paul, that means somebody who has seen the Risen Jesus and is thereby commissioned to be an authorized representative." Wright adds that Paul selected a woman to be the carrier and likely reader and expositor of the letter which became Romans, which means both Paul and the church recognized she possessed a certain level of authority." -- Charisma News

(...) (Deleted a long, unfocused rant.)

Wright's assertion that Junias was a female is untrue. Many scholars believe Junias to be a male, especially in light of the text itself referring to Him as a "kinsman." (Which of course means that many scholars believe the opposite.)

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. -- Romans 16:7 (ESV) (The author uses the ESV, I suspect on purpose because it helps the author make his case. However, other translations have a different take on sentence construction:

• (NIV) Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
• (NAS) Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
• (KJV) Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
• (NRS) Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
• (ASV) Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.

Let's deal with the sex issue first. 

Junias is Ἰουνιᾶς, ᾶ, ὁ (Iounias)      Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine

It means a kinsman of Paul... (a woman's name) which is possible...

So we have to admit at least the possibility that Junias was a woman. It isn't required of us to do so, however, as it is not a key issue for the argument. Nevertheless, the author persists in his ignorance, so we will continue to address his arguments. 

He asserts that the use of the word "kinsmen" conclusively establishes that Junias was a male. But "kinsmen" is συγγενής, ές (suggenes), which means congenital, akin to, subst. a kinsman, relative, a countryman... a kinswoman...

Hmmm. A "kinswoman." The author is simply wrong that the use of this word makes Junias a male.

It's the same word used in Lk. 1:36:

Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.

So here we have it. The word is used to refer to both males and females. Rev. Wade is wrong.)

However, we do not even need to be sure of the gender of Junias because there is no way they were an apostle! (We remember the author's claim from another post that he is a former English teacher.)

Read the text! It says that Andronicus and Junias were "well known to" the Apostles. So among the Apostles, these two men were well known. They themselves were not Apostles. (Again the author's selected ESV translation is invoked to prove his point. But this is not sufficient for the serious lay scholar. 

"Well known" has a larger meaning. It is ἐπίσημος, ον (episémos), which means bearing a mark, notable, conspicuous. remarkable, i.e. (figuratively) eminent...

"Among" is ἐν (en), and means properly, in (inside, within); (figuratively) "in the realm (sphere) of," as in the condition (state) in which something operates from the inside (within)...

Therefore, the reading is 

Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are [eminent/notable/remarkable] [inside/within] the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

So the language is not quite so clear cut as the author would have us think. Indeed, there is plenty of room to suggest that Andronicus and Junias were apostles. 

Since they're not the only ones who are identified as apostles [in addition to the Twelve], we are at loss to explain why the author bristles at their apostleship. See our discussion of the Apostles here.)

These are the lengths people like Wright will go to in order to prove their unbiblical point. To dismiss clear and directive scriptures in favor of redefining someone's gender and then twisting the one scripture they appear in to create doctrine out of whole cloth. The scholarship of the gender is only clear to those wishing to dismiss the key verses and the larger point is it is irrelevant. What is most sad here is that Wright actually goes as far as to say Junias must have therefore seen the risen Christ even though this is mentioned nowhere in the entire canon of scripture. ("Seen the risen Christ" is not a qualification to be an apostle. Again, see our discussion here.)

Next Wright claims that Phoebe must be an example of a woman with a certain level of authority because Paul assigned her the task of delivering the letter to the Roman churches. I agree she was given the authority to deliver the letter because the text reveals that. The text however reveals nothing further, other than Phoebe being a servant. Now, being assigned this task does show that Paul trusted this woman implicitly, no argument there but it does not mean we toss out clear and directive scriptures spoken by the same exact source! In order to make their case, people like RT Wright are forced to leave the surety of scripture for the whims of their imaginations. (Again we refer you to our analysis of women in leadership here.)

(...)

'Wright says that because Paul and the early church allowed women to preach and lead congregations, it doesn't make sense for churches today to prevent women from assuming leadership roles. "To row back from there and to say, 'Well, Paul didn't really mean that,' I then want to say, What are the forces in our culture today--particularly I have to say in America--which are forcing some churches and some people to fasten on one or two verses from elsewhere to say 'Oh, no, no, we can't have women doing this, that and the other'?" Wright says. "Because that's a highly, highly selective reading of the Scripture, and as with all other theological answers, the best place to start is with the resurrection of Jesus and then everything that flows out from there."' -- Charisma News

This is also a clever technique Christo-feminists use. They present unsupported arguments (Wow, irony. The author is more than familiar with unsupported arguments.)

(...)

Once again beloved, this subject is not joyful but I had too many people, mostly women, ask for clarification. Any fair reading of the bible must make you conclude that while women play an important and pivotal role in the church God has said no to one thing. Like the fruit in the garden however, we want to reach out for this one thing away and discard clear and directive scripture. It does not however change what God has said.