Wow. Good stuff! I’ve always wondered whether visitors to my church (not just my current one) felt this way. Is your church totally lame? Do you see yourself in this video?
What if Starbucks Marketed Like the Church?
Wow. Good stuff! I’ve always wondered whether visitors to my church (not just my current one) felt this way. Is your church totally lame? Do you see yourself in this video?
Despite being a Christian for most of my life (or perhaps because of it) I find most ‘Christian-y’ stuff trite, overdone, derivative or lame. At first glance, I thought this video would be just that. I often stop videos like this one mid-stream, thinking that it’s just one more in a long line of self-congratulatory, Christianity-is-way-cool stupid videos.
That being said, I’m glad I didn’t stop it. It’s a novel and meaningful video that shows both talent and forethought, which is sometimes lacking in what many Christians produce. My hat goes off to the creator…enjoy!
Simon Peter was one of Jesus’ first disciples. His given name was Simon, sometimes spelled Symeon. Simon is the English rendering of the Hebrew name Shimon. Shimon comes from the Hebrew word shema.
Shema (also shama) technically means “to hear” but, like many ancient Hebrew words, it suggests much more than that. It means to listen, to understand, and to respond…and more.
You may be familiar with Deuteronomy 6:4-7, which are very significant words for observant Jews:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
The first word is “hear,” which is shema. It instructs the hearer to not only listen and understand, but to respond appropriately. Below is a great video explanation of Shema from The Bible Project…it’s worth watching again and again.
When you hear the name Simon, remember to hear what God says, and to understand it, and to do it.
Thanks to Drew for this question.
Let’s look at Romans 16:7.
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
Two questions about this passage have been debated for many years:
Some would ask, “Who cares?” Well, the reason this is debated – even among non-scholars – is that the passage may show that women could be apostles in the early church. This would undermine those who believe that women shouldn’t teach men, or be in authority over men. If the Bible says that a woman was an apostle, as the argument goes, there’s no reason that a woman can’t be a pastor today.
My conclusions about Junia are entirely unrelated to the question of Christian women in leadership. My conclusions are – as they should be – based on the evidence, and not on some more modern argument about the implications of the text. If the text tells of a woman apostle, so be it. If not, so be it. Our doctrine and practice should come from the Scriptures. So what does the evidence show?
Unfortunately, the evidence isn’t clear.
If the Bible specifically said that only men could be apostles, that would settle the issue. The Bible doesn’t say that. The Greek word translated “apostle” is apostolos. It only appears in the New Testament, and it means a delegate, or a messenger, sent forth with orders. That could be anybody: a man or woman, a child, or even an angel (though the word used for an angel would more likely be angelos, which means “messenger”). Apostolos is usually applied to Jesus’ twelve disciples, but is also applied to others. For an example of how the word simply means “messenger,” see John 13:16: Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. The word translated “messenger” is apostolos. Here are more examples of apostolos in the New Testament:
These people are variously interpreted, in English, to have been “messengers” and “representatives” and “emissaries.” Could a woman, based on the above information, be considered an apostle? It appears so. There’s no passage that limits this to men, and nobody seems troubled by the idea that a number of women witnessed Jesus’ ministry from His baptism to his resurrection. If Junia was a woman, it seems reasonable to conclude that she might have been an apostle.
Ideally, we could just look up other biblical references to Junia and find out. Romans 16:7 is the only biblical reference to Junia, so we get no help there. The Greek construction of the name could be useful…if it was written after the ninth century. Because the accent marks that would tell us Junia’s sex don’t appear in ancient manuscripts, we get no help there, either. The consensus among the early church fathers appears to be that Junia was a woman. Later writers say that Junia is a man’s name, but by “later” we mean those writing in the twelfth century. We should, of course, prefer the earlier references to the later ones…so it’s preferable to consider the early consensus more reliable. Being diligent, we can also look for the name Junia in extrabiblical texts from that time period. If Junia was a common woman’s name and was never used in the literature for a man, we could say with some confidence that Paul’s friend Junia was a woman. Unfortunately, we simply don’t have much information from other documents. There are no instances of Junias (a masculine spelling of the same name) as a man’s name in Greek literature, while there are three of Junia as a woman.
While it seems safe to say that Junia was probably a woman, we can’t say it with the kind of certainty we’d prefer.
Based on the definition of an apostle, there’s no textual basis for saying that a woman, including Junia, could not have been an apostle.
Because so many consider the idea of women in (or not in) ministry so important, and because our information about Junia is inconclusive, this information hasn’t settled the issue. We need to go back to the text. The Greek phrase translated “outstanding among the apostles” is episemos en apostolos. This can be understood in two different ways:
The text itself isn’t conclusive. I studied Greek in college, and have used Greek language tools in the decades since, but I’m no Greek scholar. It’s difficult for a layperson to draw conclusions about which translation most accurately reflects Paul’s intent, because most (including myself) lack sufficient experience with ancient Greek. Scholars differ, so we don’t really know whether Paul meant that Junia was an outstanding apostle (when compared with other apostles) or that Junia was simply well-known among those who were apostles. Apparently, this is an issue that we may never settle.
I think I should mention Daniel Wallace here. He is currently a professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. His Greek grammar is a standard college and seminary textbook. He’s the senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible (which appears to be a very good translation), and he is also the Executive Director for the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. In other words, he is a very well-known and respected scholar. Wallace believes that Junia was probably a woman, but that she and Andronicus were simply well-known by those who were apostles. I respect his opinion on the matter, as I know nobody better able to address the question of Greek grammar. Some will disagree, and – according to Wallace himself – maybe they should. We simply can’t make a final determination at this point.
Let’s say that Junia was an apostle. What would that mean? Well, it would mean that Junia (based on the definition of apostolos) was sent, by someone in authority, to deliver a message. This could be as simple as being a witness of Jesus’ ministry (sharing the gospel with others) or it could mean being a traveling evangelist, or it could mean that Junia was a local church leader as in 2 Corinthians 8:23.
Some believe the admission that Junia was probably a woman and likely an apostle is problematic, because Paul told Timothy that he doesn’t allow a woman to teach or assume authority over a man. They consider this a universal statement of the way God wants things to be. Others believe that Paul’s instructions to Timothy were prescriptive and not universal. As evidence that God uses women in positions of spiritual and political authority over men, they cite the many women of the Bible who taught men, and ruled over them…including some women that Paul mentions specifically. Having studied the issue broadly, I can’t conclude that Paul was speaking of all women, in all situations. Judah didn’t only have kings, for example. Athaliah ruled for six years. Deborah was a prophet, and Judge over the nation of Israel. Huldah was a prophet. Anna worked in the Temple, and taught people, both men and women, about the Messiah. You may read a bit more about that here: Does God Use Women in Ministry?.
Hat tip to David, who sent in this question.
Adrian asked a question that I’d never heard before:
If Noah had obligate carnivores (carnivores that must eat meat to thrive) on the ark, what did they eat? I have asked other people and they give me a cliche answer of ‘God told them to eat grass’ or something along those lines. But I don’t think they could survive for 40 nights and 40 days on strictly grass. Since they would die of malnutrition in a short period of time. Thanks in advance.
Thanks, Adrian. The first step to clearing up any confusion is to actually go directly to the source material in question. In this case, it’s the Bible…specifically, Genesis 6. Go read the events surrounding Noah’s ark and you’ll see that Noah was instructed by God to do very specific things. Here’s a quote (verses 19-22):
You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them. Noah did everything just as God commanded him.
They were on the ark to be kept alive, so Noah brought along not just animals, but food as well. I’m not sure why those other people you asked weren’t able to just look it up, but there you go. Easy peasy.
Dr. William Lane Craig is one of modern Christianity’s leading minds. He’s a philosopher, a theologian, an apologist, and a teacher. He regularly debates some of the leading skeptics and atheists in the world, and has garnered the respect of virtually everyone in his field. His ministry, Reasonable Faith, is a great resource for all kinds of useful articles and videos related to Christianity.
In this video from Reasonable Faith, Anselm’s Ontological Argument is presented. Anselm of Canterbury wrote that God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”, and believed that if it’s possible that a ‘maximally great’ being exists, then that being must exist. See what you think.
Some people doubt that Jesus actually existed. They claim that some first-century men made up a story, and that a bunch of people were fooled into believing it. I’ve heard from a lot of skeptics of Christianity, and there’s a fair number who claim that Jesus never actually existed. There are many reasons why this is silly, but we tend to believe what we want to believe.
Bart Ehrman is a well-known New Testament scholar. He’s also an agnostic atheist…that is, he acknowledges he doesn’t know whether God exists, but he doubts that God exists. His books have been popular, as his doubts encourage other doubters. His arguments are regularly parroted by those who wish to discredit Christianity, which is why I’m posting this video. If you agree with Ehrman’s conclusions about Christianity, you should also agree with his conclusions about whether Jesus really was an actual person.
There is no scholar in any college or university in the western world who teaches Classics, Ancient History, New Testament, Early Christianity…any related field who doubts that Jesus existed.
Bart Ehrman