THE CLAIM TO FEMALE APOSTLESHIP - by Lovesickscribe

Found here. Our comments in bold.

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

Other than the opening Scripture the author does not quote a single verse. Not one. How is it possible to be regarded as a Bible teacher without quoting the Bible?

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

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

When you read the Word of God, do you acknowledge that you are under apostolic teaching and reading the more sure Word of prophecy? (The author is alluding to 2Pe. 1:18-19:

We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Peter appealed to his eyewitness experience on the mount of transfiguration [2Pe. 1:16] as confirming the words of the OT prophets. These prophecies were made "more certain" because of what he had seen and heard. In other words, Peter witnessing the transfiguration confirmed the prophets.

Therefore, the Bible is not the subject here. It is not the more sure word of prophecy. 

These Bible verses are plain statements. The author is not off to a good start.)

I ask this question because of what can be observed today regarding the belief of modern apostles. There are current claims today from women, espousing to be apostles, and they are being affirmed by self-appointed and affirmed male apostles. A recent example took place on September 15, 2023 in Orlando, Florida. During a corporate gathering, several individuals were commissioned into the five fold ministry, and one of these individuals was a woman. Her spiritual father, who professes to be an apostle, commissioned her as an apostle. She received an extensive word over her from self-professing prophets, including God would fulfill His covenant through her, people would come into rest and be healed by her, and that her name was being mentioned in other nations. It was actually quite shocking and sad to hear the subtle references to Scripture reserved for Jesus Christ and the focus upon a fallible individual rather than on God.

When this term is used in such an example, it is not meant in the sense of being a missionary. The term apostle in the New Apostolic Reformation is used in reference to governing authority. In fact, that was one of two maxims C. Peter Wagner noted when discussing the restoration of apostles today. Many Bible scholars hold to the Biblical prerequisites for an Apostle of Christ: one who had been with Jesus in His earthly ministry and had seen His resurrection (Acts 1:22, 22;14, 1 Corinthians 9:1), (Let's quote these Scriptures, since the author doesn't bother: 

Ac. 1:21-22 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.

Ac. 22:13-14 He stood beside me and said, `Brother Saul, receive your sight!’ And at that very moment I was able to see him. 14 “Then he said: `The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth.  

 

1Co. 9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?

We first note that the author quoted 1 Corinthians 9:1, which is part of Paul's statements defending his apostleship to the Corinthian church. We make the obvious point that Paul did not qualify as an apostle according to the author's criteria. He was not with Jesus in His early ministry as required by Acts 1:21. 

Second, no one saw Jesus' resurrection. He was in a closed tomb when He rose from the dead. If the author means that an apostle must have seen the resurrected Christ, well, that's a different claim. And critically, seeing the resurrected Christ was not an Acts 1:21 qualification for apostleship.

Dear reader, read it yourself: For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection. The eleven apostles wanted someone who would join with them to give witness to the resurrected Christ. 

Again, this is a plain statement of Scripture. The author has now made two errors.)

one who had been selected by Jesus Christ Himself, (Matthias [Ac. 1:23], Barnabas [Ac. 14:14], and Epaphroditus [Ph. 2:25] were not personally selected by Jesus.)

and one who performed miracles. (Only Paul [Ro. 15:19], Barnabas [Ac. 14:3], Peter [Ac. 3:6], and Philip [Ac. 8:6] were named as performing miracles. Stephen [Ac. 6:8] and Ananias [Ac. 9:17] also did miracles, but were not named as apostles.)

They also had the ability to write Scripture. (Sigh. The author just keeps going with faulty claims. Several apostles did not write Scripture, and Mark, Luke, Jude, and the author of Hebrews were not apostles.

The author made four spurious claims:

• seen His resurrection
• selected by Jesus Christ Himself
• one who performed miracles
• the ability to write Scripture

None of these were apostolic requirements. None. And the glaring omission is 

been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us

which the author doesn't even discuss.

The errors compound. We are no longer confident that the author is competent.)

I encourage you to read this paper by Dave Miller on the subject of modern-day Apostles. (We critiqued that article here and found it to be quite flawed.)

Despite the fact that Scripture does not support the continuation of apostles today similar to the Apostles of Christ, (Where in the Bible does it discuss being similar to the Apostles of Christ? Similar in what way?

The Bible clearly tells us: 

Ep. 4:11-13 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fulness of Christ.

So we will make a similarly undocumented counter claim: Scripture does not support the cessation of apostles today.)

one professing female apostle has taught that the Scripture referencing the Apostles needing to see Jesus Christ physically in order to be called as an Apostle, (Oh, now the author changes the criteria. Previously it was a requirement to have seen the resurrection, now instead it's seeing Jesus physically. So, would that be pre- or post-resurrection?)

has been misunderstood. Her argument is that seeing was in the spiritual sense, (Indeed, we agree with the author at this point, this is an unacceptable interpretation. Yet cessationists will claim that Paul saw the resurrected Christ, i.e., in the spiritual sense, and cite this as one of his qualifications as an apostle.)

and in teaching this, she gives credence to the belief that modern apostles with governing authority are needed today. Those who claim to be apostles not only profess authority, but they also claim to bring fresh revelation to the church. Without these modern apostles and prophets, the church is missing the anointing and is left weak and powerless. Among those who hold to this belief comes the practice of receiving an impartation from the professing apostle so that individuals may walk in that person’s powerful anointing. 

Aside from the controversial teaching surrounding modern-day apostles, (What controversial teaching might that be? Please, explain.)

the Bible does not support the belief of female apostles. Though we see women in Scripture who professed Christ and were the ones who found His tomb empty and informed the disciples (Mark 16:1-8, John 20:1-18), we do not see women who held a position of authority over men. (With the exception of Deborah. of course [Ju. 4:4]. Beyond that, the author is making an Argument From Silence.

But more to the point, there is no necessary connection to apostles and the exercising of authority. The Bible does not say that apostles definitionally have authority over the church.)

This would contradict Scripture (1 Timothy: 2:12). (We discuss this Scripture in a lot of detail here. Suffice to say, it does not teach what the author says it does.)

We should also note that the Apostles appointed by Christ Himself were men. (Were there other apostles not appointed by Christ? We have noted three of them above. 

Could there have been unnamed women apostles? We don't know, because to make an assertion about what the Bible does not say is an Argument From Silence. This is what the author is doing, arguing from what isn't written.)

There are those who will teach that the apostles must be restored in order for the church to be equipped and continuing in spiritual maturity. They will also contend for an equal authoritative position for women within the church.

Those who agree with this belief may even teach that the church cannot progress without apostles and prophets today. The issue with this is that we are under apostolic teaching every time we read the Word of God. (This is true, but it does not refute the belief in contemporary apostles.)

The Bible is sufficient for us in being equipped and trained in righteousness. (This is also true, but that does not refute the belief in contemporary apostles.)

We have no need of new revelation today, and to claim such need negates the sufficiency of Scripture (Connecting "new revelation" and "sufficiency" is a non-sequitur. We discuss sufficiency in a good bit of detail here.)

and what Jesus Christ did in commissioning His disciples to lay the foundation for the church (Ephesians 2:20). (Sigh. Let's quote it: 

Ep. 2:19-20 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow-citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

The apostles are not described here as laying the foundation, they are PART OF the foundation. And what "new revelation" and "sufficiency" has to do with the foundation is a mystery.)

The verse referenced above in the book of Romans (Finally the author arrives at the subject, but there are only a couple of paragraphs remaining...)

has been used as a lynch pin to support the belief of female apostles, particularly in the apostolic movement, otherwise known as the New Apostolic Reformation. When you begin to look at this verse and what Bible scholars have to say on the matter, you find that there are differing views, including if the name used was indeed female, if Andronicus and Junia were husband and wife, and if they were known either among the apostles or to the apostles. According to Dr. Daniel Wallace, a scholar knowledgeable on this matter, “In sum, until further evidence is produced that counters the working hypothesis, we must conclude that Andronicus and Junia were not apostles but were known to the apostles.” (?? The author punts by simply quoting a theologian who agrees with her perspective.

Let's requote the verse:

Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

There are two matters to consider:

• Were Andronicus and Junias apostles
• Was Junias a woman

First, we already know there were other apostles named in Scripture beyond the Twelve, so there should be no particular problem with Andronicus and Junias possibly being apostles as well. So this is largely a non-issue.

But, let's go ahead and look at a couple of the Greek words:

"Outstanding" is (episémos), which means bearing a mark, notable, conspicuous. remarkable, i.e. (figuratively) eminent...

"Among" is 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, our amplified reading would be

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

There is plenty of room to allow that Andronicus and Junias were apostles.

Second, regarding Junias, the Greek word is Iounias, Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine... It means a kinsman of Paul... (a woman's name) which is possible...

Some have suggested that the use of the word "kinsmen" conclusively establishes that Junias was a male. But "kinsmen" is suggenes, which means congenital, akin to, subst. a kinsman, relative, a countryman... a kinswoman...

Further, suggenes is the same word used for "relative" 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.

Elizabeth was a kinsmen, a suggenes. So here we have it. The word is used to refer to both males and females. Thus Junias may have been a woman. But we don't know for sure, and are reluctant to make an argument from the silence of Scripture.

In any case, suggenes does not help the case for those who would suggest that Junias was a man.

Based on this it is possible that Andronicus and Junias were apostles and that Junias was a woman. Perhaps they were married and working in the Church as an apostolic team, maybe like Aquila and Priscilla [Ac. 18:2].)

It would seem fair to say that creating a doctrine from a debated or unclear passage of Scripture is unwise. (Which is exactly what the author has done. She claimed there are no female apostles, yet relies on this debated passage.)

Jesus prayed for His disciples who He called as apostles in John 17. He prayed for those who would believe in Him through their word (John 17:20). In Acts 2:42, we find believers submitting themselves to the apostles’ teaching, and this teaching is from the Apostles of Christ commissioned by Him. We are still under apostolic teaching today as believers, and those Apostles dually authored Scripture by the leading of the Holy Spirit. (Some wrote Scripture, some did not. Some non-apostles wrote Scripture as well. Writing Scripture is not a sign of apostleship.)

No part of canonized Scripture was authored by a woman. (Sighhhh... There are numerous examples of women writing Scripture. That is, various prophecies and other inspired speaking of women are recorded all over the Bible. In the OT, Hannah [1Sa. 2:1-10], Deborah [Judges 5:1-9], Huldah [2Kg. 22:15-20], Miriam [Ex. 15:20-21], and the queen of Sheba [2Ch. 9:5-8]. In the NT, Elizabeth [Lk. 1:41-45], Mary [Luke 1:46-55], and Anna [but her words were only summarized in Luke 2:36-38]. 

And some Scripture was written by unknown persons. 

Did these women take a pen in hand and actually write down Scripture? Well, that is not a requirement. Paul often used amanuenses. So, to write Scripture does not mean to write down inspired words.

It is very nearly puerile to suggest women didn't write any Scripture.)

This is not to say that women do not have important roles in the church. We simply should be at peace with God’s order and instruction according to His Word regarding our roles and our service to others (Titus 2:3-5). Just as the restoration of apostles today with governing authority is not necessary or supported by Scripture, female apostles of the same caliper (sic) are unsubstantiated by Scripture.

Listen to this in-depth episode evaluating a recent teaching from a professing female apostle: The Lovesick Scribe Podcast: The Claim of Female Apostleship on Apple Podcasts