Gender Roles, the home and the Local Church

[OzSpen]

I've dealt with this issue many many times over the years so forgive me if I can't remember whether I dealt with it here or not.
In 1 Tim 2:12, Paul is dealing with a specific issue there in Ephesus, that was manifesting itself in the home life of new converts. The context of verses 9-15 is about how women should govern themselves in their home settings, not the corporate Church setting. In the home there can only be one head and that head must be, according to scripture, the man. Obviously women were teaching men because women worked with Paul as fellow workers.
I agree with the rest of your post however I don't agree that it's symbolic, just that it is misunderstood according to the context it is given in.

Stan,

I am in support of your view of the openness of women to ministry. i consider it to be sinful the way we have closed down women in ministry (to a mixed gathering) through the centuries, based on improper interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11-14 and 1 Timothy 2.

N T Wright has written an excellent exposition, IMO, of the place of women in ministry in the church in 'Women's service in the church: The biblical basis'.

Billy Graham, the great preacher that he has been, regards his daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, as 'the best preacher in the family' (source).

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

The purpose of a Greek-English interlinear NT is to provide the Greek text in one line with the literal English translation word-for-word in the second line - right under the Greek text.

However, there is no parsing or understanding of the Greek grammar in an interlinear translation.

Benefits of an interlinear translation include:

• One translation of each word of the text. It does not give an interpretation. It does not parse any word. To do that an Analytical Greek Lexicon is of great help (for those of us who sometimes forget conjugations of verbals and declensions of nouns or adjectives).
• It demonstrates how word-for-word from Greek to English is impossible to make sense in many circumstances. It shows how some extra words are needed to make sentences to make sense. Compare any verse of Mounce and ESV or NRSV and you'll see how extra words are needed to make a text flow into a sentence.

Going to an interlinear does not prove much help when one is trying to do exegesis. Knowledge of the Greek grammar is what is needed for that.

Oz

It's a reverse Interlinear.

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

I am in support of your view of the openness of women to ministry. i consider it to be sinful the way we have closed down women in ministry (to a mixed gathering) through the centuries, based on improper interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11-14 and 1 Timothy 2.

N T Wright has written an excellent exposition, IMO, of the place of women in ministry in the church in 'Women's service in the church: The biblical basis'.

Billy Graham, the great preacher that he has been, regards his daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, as 'the best preacher in the family' (source).

Oz

I'll look up Wright's exposition. Thanks.

 

[lforrest]

I'll look up Wright's exposition. Thanks.

Wright makes some interesting points. Such as how in that culture the women may not have known the language being preached, so tended to talk amongst themselves on their side other church. However I can't get over that 1 Corinthians 14 tells women to be submissive. In light of that I question Wright's interpretation of 1 Tim 2.

 

[Wormwood]

see comment below. accidently posted twice.

 

[tommie]

I personally believe that the bible was allowed to be written with God's guidance. He alone wrote the bible with men being the vehicle. He knows what is in the bible and he allowed I Timothy 2:12 to be written. The bible says it, I believe it. All this going back and forth about how to get around the fact of what it says is preposterous in my opinion. Anyone can make anything seem right by doing this kind of stuff. God said women are not to lead men. Jesus Christ : the same yesterday, today and forever......

Now some of you will go to the old covenant to suggest that the old testament tells us to, for example kill a disrespectful child... (that is what the bible says to do).Remember we are now under a new covenant, one that has done away with the old covenant. God loved us (imperfect sinners) so much by that He sent His son to die on a cross to take our sins on himself and be our one and forever sacrifice so that God now looks at us through Jesus and we are seen as sinless if we believe in Him as our savior. This is the God that I follow and He wrote the bible. I will believe it as He wrote it.

 

[Wormwood]

You’ve overlooked that the Bible itself tells us about women taking on pastoral roles. I’m afraid it’s your traditional bias that makes you deny that Paul counts Junia as an apostle

Well, we have a few options here. 1) Paul had unusual and specific (even sexist) commands for Timothy an the church in Corinth due to particular circumstances, 2) Paul contradicts himself and even lied when he said he didnt allow a woman to have authority over a man because he actually did, with Junia, 3) Junia was not an apostle (this was a title by association with Paul's work or the Greek doesnt support this (as Stan has tried to argue)) or 4) Junia was an apostle but she still didnt act as an elder or teach men in the local congregation.

I think the first option is impossible given the contexts, and option 2 seems ridiculous to me for anyone who takes the Bible seriously. Options 3 and 4 are both possible without arguing the Bible or Paul contradicts himself or that God, for some reason, due to a few women in Corinth and Ephesus, made Paul basically lay down a law that no women could teach or have authority (again, pretty sexist and legalistic it would seem if such were the case).

I have already answered your question on paedophilia and bestiality: neither children nor animals have the necessary ability to consent to sexual acts and we know that forcing adult sexuality on sexually immature children does grave psychological harm to children.

You see, the problem is that these arguments are entirely based upon what seems best to you. You, based on ideas of consent and what constitutes psychological harm, alone determine what is right and wrong. What if the animal is in heat and is consenting? What if a woman is consenting to express "love" to me and she is not my wife? It is a dangerous thing to use Biblical concepts and terms (such as love) and stuff them full of ideas very foreign to the Bible.

Stan,

I am in support of your view of the openness of women to ministry. i consider it to be sinful the way we have closed down women in ministry (to a mixed gathering) through the centuries, based on improper interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11-14 and 1 Timothy 2.

N T Wright has written an excellent exposition, IMO, of the place of women in ministry in the church in 'Women's service in the church: The biblical basis'.

Billy Graham, the great preacher that he has been, regards his daughter, Anne Graham Lotz, as 'the best preacher in the family' (source).

Oz

Oz, first, I would say (and I think you know) that simply because a person can do something well doesnt mean it is approved by God. I dont understand this kind of pragmatic argument. The issue is not that women are incapable or ineffective church leaders or teachers. That is not the point.

Also, I would recommend the following:

Headship, Submission and the Bible by Jack Cottrell
Evangelical Feminism by Wayne Grudem

or the following articles

http://jackcottrell.com/notes/women-quietness-silence-1-tim-212-1-cor-1434/
http://jackcottrell.com/notes/is-1-tim-212-a-concession-to-culture/
http://jackcottrell.com/notes/how-feminism-invaded-the-church/

 

[lforrest]

Being that we are Christians It is important to decern the spirit behind the command. If women are to be submissive what is the reason?

Do we look all the way back to Gen 3 and conclude it is part of the curse of the fall? Temptation started from Satan, passed to Eve, then to Adam. And that is how authority was perverted and death gained power. Because Adam submitted to eve, and Eve to Satan.

 

[StanJ]

Wright makes some interesting points. Such as how in that culture the women may not have known the language being preached, so tended to talk amongst themselves on their side other church. However I can't get over that 1 Corinthians 14 tells women to be submissive. In light of that I question Wright's interpretation of 1 Tim 2.

I pretty much agree with what he wrote here. Obviously one of the problems in the early church including Corinth, was a lack of order not just in the corporate settings, but in the everyday life of the church and is why Paul had to write these type of instructions. Which one must recognize about 1Corinthians 14:34-35, is that all recording from previous correspondence that he had from the church at Corinth and in this case, the rhetorical question in verse 36 puts the context of 34 - 35 into proper perspective. Ostensibly Paul was saying that their thoughts on this matter we're not scriptural and did not emanate from God. Paul clarifies his position in verse 37 and gives proper instruction that is directed to brothers AND sisters. One has to either believe that Paul contradicted himself from one verse to the next, or that he countermanded what he quoted as not being the law of God. I prefer, for the reasons already stated, to believe the Paul wasn't contradicting himself but was countermanding the mindset that already existed in the Corinthian Church about women.

 

[StanJ]

Being that we are Christians It is important to decern the spirit behind the command. If women are to be submissive what is the reason?
Do we look all the way back to Gen 3 and conclude it is part of the curse of the fall? Temptation started from Satan, passed to Eve, then to Adam. And that is how authority was perverted and death gained power. Because Adam submitted to eve, and Eve to Satan.

I'm not fully convinced that we need to have or know the reason for the order that God gives us in his word. The fact is that heaven run businesses for years it is imperative that there is an ultimate person of responsibility.
Companies don't have multiple CEOs or Chairmans of the Board. Head ship manifests itself throughout society and as such would be needed within a family as well. How one handled that had ship in terms of what position they are in the order of things, is solely their responsibility. In reality a wife submitting to her husband or a husband loving his wife or children submitting to their parents is all up to them personally and not dependent on who fulfill their responsibilities. If I have a rebellious wife it doesn't mean that do not have to love her. If a woman is married to a man who doesn't appear to have much interest in his leadership role, it doesn't mean that she usurps his leadership role and takes it over herself. She is still mandated to submit to her husband. I agree that it is indeed important that we all learn our roles and responsibilities within the family and within the corporate setting of the church and in that regard, it is solely our responsibility which we will be answerable to God for.

 

[OzSpen]

Wright makes some interesting points. Such as how in that culture the women may not have known the language being preached, so tended to talk amongst themselves on their side other church. However I can't get over that 1 Corinthians 14 tells women to be submissive. In light of that I question Wright's interpretation of 1 Tim 2.

One can be submissive and yet not be silenced. I submit to my boss, but that does not mean I'm forced to be silent on issues on the job.

We know from 1 Cor 11;5 that wives prophesied. They cannot prophesy and be silent at the same time be silent (1 Cor 14:33-35).

Some of God's gifted women teachers (for a mixed audience) have been closed down by pursuing this discrepancy.

I'm convinced that Wright has provided consistent exposition of the biblical text in regard to women in ministry.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Well, we have a few options here. 1) Paul had unusual and specific (even sexist) commands for Timothy an the church in Corinth due to particular circumstances, 2) Paul contradicts himself and even lied when he said he didnt allow a woman to have authority over a man because he actually did, with Junia, 3) Junia was not an apostle (this was a title by association with Paul's work or the Greek doesnt support this (as Stan has tried to argue)) or 4) Junia was an apostle but she still didnt act as an elder or teach men in the local congregation.

I think the first option is impossible given the contexts, and option 2 seems ridiculous to me for anyone who takes the Bible seriously. Options 3 and 4 are both possible without arguing the Bible or Paul contradicts himself or that God, for some reason, due to a few women in Corinth and Ephesus, made Paul basically lay down a law that no women could teach or have authority (again, pretty sexist and legalistic it would seem if such were the case).


You see, the problem is that these arguments are entirely based upon what seems best to you. You, based on ideas of consent and what constitutes psychological harm, alone determine what is right and wrong. What if the animal is in heat and is consenting? What if a woman is consenting to express "love" to me and she is not my wife? It is a dangerous thing to use Biblical concepts and terms (such as love) and stuff them full of ideas very foreign to the Bible.



Oz, first, I would say (and I think you know) that simply because a person can do something well doesnt mean it is approved by God. I dont understand this kind of pragmatic argument. The issue is not that women are incapable or ineffective church leaders or teachers. That is not the point.

Also, I would recommend the following:

Headship, Submission and the Bible by Jack Cottrell
Evangelical Feminism by Wayne Grudem

or the following articles

http://jackcottrell.com/notes/women-quietness-silence-1-tim-212-1-cor-1434/
http://jackcottrell.com/notes/is-1-tim-212-a-concession-to-culture/
http://jackcottrell.com/notes/how-feminism-invaded-the-church/

Wormwood,

Are you suggesting that if a person is a gifted teacher from God that she will not necessarily do it well? This is not pragmatism - doing what works. It is being competent with the exercise of one's gift.

The added problem with 1 Timothy 2 is 1 Tim 2:15 (ESV): 'Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control'. I find this to be the most difficult verse in this passage to interpret.

Oz

 

[Wormwood]

Wormwood,
Are you suggesting that if a person is a gifted teacher from God that she will not necessarily do it well? This is not pragmatism - doing what works. It is being competent with the exercise of one's gift.

No, I am saying that a person can be gifted or talented in an area, but that doesnt mean that they are not to act in an orderly way in respect to both the teaching of Scripture and the desires of God. If God says a woman should not teach men in the local assembly of believers, are we to overwrite God's word because, well, she is good at public speaking? Maybe she should use that gift to teach women? If a person is a gifted leader, does that mean they should usurp the local leadership of the church because they also have that gifting even though they may not be recognized in that local congregation as a leader or elder? If a child is a strong leader and gifted in this area, does this mean the parents should submit to the child's leadership by virtue of their gift? If a worker is more intelligent than his boss, does that mean they should seek to usurp their bosses position because they are smarter than their employer? What if a homosexual or adulterer is a better public speaker than the local preacher. Does that mean the church should yeild the pulpit to the person by virtue of their gift or talent? You get the point.

I find the pragmatism road to be slippery. It is no different to me than the argument that the homosexual should be able to express their sexual desires any way they want because, "This is who I am and what is natural for me." Just because a person has a desire, inclination or even talent in a certain area does not mean that gives them a ticket to act upon that gift/desire/talent in any way they choose. God calls us to honor him first and foremost. Why send Paul, a learned Pharisee to preach to Gentiles and send fishermen to preach to Jews? Why did God choose to save the world through a foolish message? What is more important than our gifts is that we use them in a God-honoring way that seeks his blessing. Simply because something "works" doesnt mean it honors God.

Yes I agree that text is difficult. It seems to me, that whatever Paul is saying (there are a host of ideas as you know), he is tying his argument about women in leadership positions with Genesis. So I find it difficult to see Paul making a cultural or situation-specific directive when he appeals to creation and the fall as his rationale. I would think he would appeal to the problems in those local congregations rather than Adam and Eve!

Its nice chatting with you again

 

[lforrest]

No, I am saying that a person can be gifted or talented in an area, but that doesnt mean that they are not to act in an orderly way in respect to both the teaching of Scripture and the desires of God. If God says a woman should not teach men in the local assembly of believers, are we to overwrite God's word because, well, she is good at public speaking? Maybe she should use that gift to teach women? If a person is a gifted leader, does that mean they should usurp the local leadership of the church because they also have that gifting even though they may not be recognized in that local congregation as a leader or elder? If a child is a strong leader and gifted in this area, does this mean the parents should submit to the child's leadership by virtue of their gift? If a worker is more intelligent than his boss, does that mean they should seek to usurp their bosses position because they are smarter than their employer? What if a homosexual or adulterer is a better public speaker than the local preacher. Does that mean the church should yeild the pulpit to the person by virtue of their gift or talent? You get the point.

I find the pragmatism road to be slippery. It is no different to me than the argument that the homosexual should be able to express their sexual desires any way they want because, "This is who I am and what is natural for me." Just because a person has a desire, inclination or even talent in a certain area does not mean that gives them a ticket to act upon that gift/desire/talent in any way they choose. God calls us to honor him first and foremost. Why send Paul, a learned Pharisee to preach to Gentiles and send fishermen to preach to Jews? Why did God choose to save the world through a foolish message? What is more important than our gifts is that we use them in a God-honoring way that seeks his blessing. Simply because something "works" doesnt mean it honors God.

Yes I agree that text is difficult. It seems to me, that whatever Paul is saying (there are a host of ideas as you know), he is tying his argument about women in leadership positions with Genesis. So I find it difficult to see Paul making a cultural or situation-specific directive when he appeals to creation and the fall as his rationale. I would think he would appeal to the problems in those local congregations rather than Adam and Eve!

Its nice chatting with you again

I find it offensive that you would compare a God given gift to teach with sexual perversion. One comes from God the other does not. Or do you consider the gift of teaching to be a curse?

 

[junobet]

Well, we have a few options here. 1) Paul had unusual and specific (even sexist) commands for Timothy an the church in Corinth due to particular circumstances, 2) Paul contradicts himself and even lied when he said he didnt allow a woman to have authority over a man because he actually did, with Junia, 3) Junia was not an apostle (this was a title by association with Paul's work or the Greek doesnt support this (as Stan has tried to argue)) or 4) Junia was an apostle but she still didnt act as an elder or teach men in the local congregation.

I think the first option is impossible given the contexts, and option 2 seems ridiculous to me for anyone who takes the Bible seriously. Options 3 and 4 are both possible without arguing the Bible or Paul contradicts himself or that God, for some reason, due to a few women in Corinth and Ephesus, made Paul basically lay down a law that no women could teach or have authority (again, pretty sexist and legalistic it would seem if such were the case).

We also have the option to have a fresh look at the Bible, that is not blurred by our church traditions, and see for example that Paul himself describes the deaconess Phoebe as his patron (Romans 16:1-2), that Priscilla taught Apollos (Acts 18:26) and that many house-churches were led by women (Chloe, Lydia, Apphia, Nympha, the “elect lady” 2 John is addressed to). And apparently women were elders until the Council of Laodicea, otherwise there would have been no need to explicitly ban them from higher church offices.
As for Junia: What is an apostle? A “messenger/envoy” of Christ. Who was first commissioned to tell us about the resurrection? Women! (Mk 16:9-10, Mt 28:5-8, Luke 24:5-10, John 20:11-18) Clearly these women are apostles in the actual sense of the word.

You see, the problem is that these arguments are entirely based upon what seems best to you. You, based on ideas of consent and what constitutes psychological harm, alone determine what is right and wrong. What if the animal is in heat and is consenting? What if a woman is consenting to express "love" to me and she is not my wife? It is a dangerous thing to use Biblical concepts and terms (such as love) and stuff them full of ideas very foreign to the Bible.

My argument is entirely based on Biblical passages such as Mark 12:31, Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:36-40, Luke 6:31, John 13:34, John 15:12, Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14, 1 Corinthians 10:24, 1 Corinthians 13, Colossians 3:12-14, 1 Thessalonians 3:12-13, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 4:8, 1 John 3:11, 1 John 4:16, 1 John 4:21, James 2:8 …
This “royal law” (James 2:8) ought to be at the base of all Christian morals, even in moral questions the Biblical authors could not yet have foreseen. It is of course wasted on people who have the warped idea that loving others like ourselves means to forcefeed others on our favourite food, even though we know they hate it and their stomachs can’t take it.

 

[StanJ]

Women! (Mk 16:9-10, Mt 28:5-8, Luke 24:5-10, John 20:11-18) Clearly these women are apostles in the actual sense of the word.

The Greek ἀπόστολος (apostolos), connotes one sent as a messenger or agent, the bearer of a commission, a messenger. Apostles were appointed by Jesus and as such had that personal commission. I don't see anything in Scripture that teaches the commission was transferable by the person being commissioned to any subsequent person. In addition, your point of view about Junia being an apostle is not tenable as I've already shown.

 

[junobet]

The Greek ἀπόστολος (apostolos), connotes one sent as a messenger or agent, the bearer of a commission, a messenger. Apostles were appointed by Jesus and as such had that personal commission. I don't see anything in Scripture that teaches the commission was transferable by the person being commissioned to any subsequent person. In addition, your point of view about Junia being an apostle is not tenable as I've already shown.

I’m glad you agree with me on what an apostle is. That’s why Mary Magdalene is sometimes called “apostle to the apostles”: according to John 20:17–18 she was commissioned by the risen Jesus to inform the disciples of His resurrection, which according to Paul is the very basis of our Christian faith.

As for Junia: you misunderstood my view – looking back I see how I expressed it badly. So let me clarify: I’m sitting on the fence when it comes to what Paul meant by “οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις”. There are some very good arguments for both sides from scholars who are all cleverer than I am.
​
However, if we assume with some of the earliest commentators that Romans 16:7 means that Paul calls Junia an apostle, then she may have been one of the “72 others” who Jesus appoints in Luke 10:1-24. We do know that Jesus had both male and female disciples. And knowing that Jesus held some female disciples in high esteem, why should we not consider that some of these 72 disciples may have been female disciples?

 

[StanJ]

I’m glad you agree with me on what an apostle is. That’s why Mary Magdalene is sometimes called “apostle to the apostles”: according to John 20:17–18 she was commissioned by the risen Jesus to inform the disciples of His resurrection, which according to Paul is the very basis of our Christian faith.

As for Junia: you misunderstood my view – looking back I see how I expressed it badly. So let me clarify: I’m sitting on the fence when it comes to what Paul meant by “οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις”. There are some very good arguments for both sides from scholars who are all cleverer than I am.
​
However, if we assume with some of the earliest commentators that Romans 16:7 means that Paul calls Junia an apostle, then she may have been one of the “72 others” who Jesus appoints in Luke 10:1-24. We do know that Jesus had both male and female disciples. And knowing that Jesus held some female disciples in high esteem, why should we not consider that some of these 72 disciples may have been female disciples?

I'm giving you the definition I'm not agreeing with anything you've said. Mary Magdalene wasn't commissioned, she was instructed to go and tell his disciples a specific thing. Please stop misusing English. She wasn't commissioned to tell his disciples about his resurrection, what John 20 says is; “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
You also continue to harp on Junia when you've been shown that the text does not come close to saying she was an apostle. What you're doing here is practicing eisegesis. Being a disciple of Jesus, male or female, doesn't make one an apostle and that applies today just as it applied in Jesus' day.

 

[junobet]

I'm giving you the definition I'm not agreeing with anything you've said. Mary Magdalene wasn't commissioned, she was instructed to go and tell his disciples a specific thing. Please stop misusing English. She wasn't commissioned to tell his disciples about his resurrection, what John 20 says is; “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
You also continue to harp on Junia when you've been shown that the text does not come close to saying she was an apostle. What you're doing here is practicing eisegesis. Being a disciple of Jesus, male or female, doesn't make one an apostle and that applies today just as it applied in Jesus' day.

You find me at a loss, StanJ: What exactly is it that you take issue with in my post?
I looked up “to commission” in my both my English-German dictionary and the Collins English/English dictionary and both say it means exactly what I thought it meant: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/commission
Or is it that you think I should have been more precise and said that Mary Magdalene was commissioned by the risen Christ to tell the disciples what He told her about His impending ascension? But that would have been pretty hard to do had she not also told them about having seen the risen Christ, don’t you think?
Or is it that you think that only pre-crucifixion commissions count, or that there are only twelve apostles? Why then do Christians generally agree that Paul was an apostle?
And why should you think that mentioning the possibility that some of the 72 others (other than the twelve) that Jesus appoints in Luke 10:1-24 may have been women is more of an eisegesis, than thinking that definitely none of them can have been a woman, when the Bible doesn’t mention these other apostles’ gender at all
As for Junia and how Rom. 16:7 is to be understood: don’t take it up with me, as I said: I think the original text is open for both readings. Take it up with N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, Martin Luther, or Chrysostomos.

 

[StanJ]

You find me at a loss, StanJ: What exactly is it that you take issue with in my post?

I was pretty specific, so what is it exactly you didn't understand?

I looked up “to commission” in my both my English-German dictionary and the Collins English/English dictionary and both say it means exactly what I thought it meant:

Acts 26:12 uses the Greek word ἐπιτροπή (epitropē), which is translated as commission, and as such is properly used in that context and connotation. In John 20:17, the Greek word that you're trying to assert stands for commission is λέγω (legō), which is properly translated as 'said'. Not only have you improperly used the word in English but you have improperly rendered the Greek. I'm not sure exactly how I can put it so that you'll understand it but I'm sure everybody else understands. Jesus's not convey any Authority on to Mary Magdalene which is what the commission is. He simply told her what to tell his disciples and that is not considered a commission. Now it's very obvious that you want to use that word commission to support your argument but as it doesn't then your argument falls well short of whatever goal it was that you were trying to accomplish. I wouldn't think to instruct you in how to properly use the German language so how about you don't tell me how to properly use my mother tongue, and one of two languages that I am fully fluent in, the other being French.

Or is it that you think that only pre-crucifixion commissions count, or that there are only twelve apostles? Why then do Christians generally agree that Paul was an apostle?

You tell me which pre-crucifixion events you consider commissions and I'll tell you whether you're right or not. So far you're 0 for 1.
Yes, Paul was an apostle but again it sounds like you don't understand what I'm saying in plain English and unfortunately I can't speak German in order to explain it any better than I already have.

And why should you think that mentioning the possibility that some of the 72 others (other than the twelve) that Jesus appoints in Luke 10:1-24 may have been women is more of an eisegesis, than thinking that definitely none of them can have been a woman, when the Bible doesn’t mention these other apostles’ gender at all?

Again your comprehension of the vernacular I'm using is a little shaky and I'm not going to continually try to explain myself. If you can't fully engage in the English vernacular in this forum then I think you're pretty much wasting your time, and ours. Disciples are not the same as apostles. I can't make it any plainer than that. There's not a chance that any of the 72 disciples were an apostle, regardless what their gender was.

As for Junia and how Rom. 16:7 is to be understood: don’t take it up with me, as I said: I think the original text is open for both readings. Take it up with N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, Martin Luther, or Chrysostomos.

You actually haven't provided any support or cooperation for your point of view from any of the people you named here and I'm not debating with them and debating with you so unless you can show let the Greek clearly indicated that Julia was an apostle, then your little fantasy is nothing more than just that.