ALL-MALE Apostles

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by rlvaughn, Jan 18, 2002.

  1. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    25
    I have lifted my following quote from the "Women Pastors" discussion as a jumping in place for this new discussion. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fact that Jesus chose 12 ALL MALE apostles is not the only fact I know about Jesus, but it is a fact (unless by your textual criticism you have determined it to be a myth). It should not be taken lightly and should be given proper consideration. Did Jesus find it important that all the "chosen" representatives be of the male gender? Were there no qualified women available? Was He not the visionary "social revolutionary" who bucked the status quo, but rather one who conformed to the social standards of the day? Was there some other reason that He chose ONLY apostles of the MALE gender?? It seems to me that choosing any of these options creates somewhat of a dilemma for your theology. Maybe you have a different answer. If so I'd like to see you deal with the issue, rather than just run to a case where a woman can be named as a disciple. I don't think anyone here has denied the importance or existence of female disciples.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Those who say they use Jesus as the criterion for Bible interpretation are saying that women should be pastors. For example, David said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I feel that since Jesus radically opposed the custom of the day by treating women equally (healing, feeding, talking to them, etc.), that he was saying women are equal, and would allow them equal access to the pulpit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nevertheless, Jesus DID NOT allow women equal access to the apostleship. But David, and others, feel that He, by treating women equally, establishes a precedent for treating them equally as pastors. I would be interested in details of how you deal with the whole facts of Jesus' ministry, especially relating to the case of the 12 ALL MALE APOSTLES.

    [ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]
     
  2. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    The queston is what the bible is before you can answer, to me the bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God. So I would have to go by what is in it.
    I think a woman can do anything a man can do but be a pastor (bishop) or a deacon.
    I believe the bible teaches a social structure on earth, I don't think the man is more or less than a woman, just different roles from each other here on earth.
    You said David has his view, which he should have but we will never see it the same because of our view of what the bible is. I know from much prayer and study to this point that the Holy Spirit has not taught me the same views as he has, and others with that view. All we can do is pray that the Holy Spirit will teach us the same doctrine and views.
    Remember we are to treat our wife as Christ treated the church, I know I fall short. Be willing to die for her, love her all times, she is our equal, just different roles.
     
  3. Kathy

    Kathy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If you consider this verse (and the surrounding verses), it is obvious that men and women are NOT equal. Perhaps they were prior to eating the fruit, but this is from God and is her punishment, so to speak, for disobedience...

    Kathy
    &lt;&gt;&lt;

    [ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: Kathy ]
     
  4. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    25
    Thanks for the comments thus far. I am so hoping that Joshua Villines, Daniel Payne, and David Cooke will give us their take on why Jesus decided to choose only males for the positions of apostleship. I'll be lurking around, drinking coffee (yuk!), and waiting for them. [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    If you accept the clear teaching literally, there is no doubt. Pastors/Apostles were male. Females had certain limited roles in the organization of God's church.

    This is not popular any longer. I was amazed at my wife's office manager (a devout Missouri Synod Lutheran but still trusting - in faith - to her baptism) who gave me a pamphlet from their church.

    It said that only men could be officers. Only men could vote. Married men's votes counted as 2, as they represented their wife.

    Interesting take. They said that if women were allowed leadership roles, men would (by nature of us choosing to watch NFL playoffs rather than do much else) let the women do it all. And that was NOT what God's Word taught.

    So that group and I may have some differences in theology, but in understanding the clear, simple, unadulterated message of the Word in this area, we are in 100% agreement.

    Thanks for opening this thread. Will watch it carefully to be sure of its beneficence.
     
  6. Joy

    Joy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kathy, if I could just clarify your statement just a little. God created men and women to be equal in value but different in function. We clearly had different roles right from the beginning even before the fall. I think our curse wasn't that we were forced to bear children, but that it would be painful.

    (So as not to hijack this conversation-more on that in the ladies forum under the thread "Eve." )
     
  7. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of the verses used by liberals to substantiate female pastors and apostles is Romans 16:7 " Junia,...... who is of note among the apostles." They say that Junia was a woman but I find nothing to indicate this claim. Also it says she/he was of note among the apostles, but not that she/he was an apostle.
     
  8. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    25
    Even if this could be proven, Jesus Himself did not choose any women. And at least Daniel and David believe Paul, Peter, etc. could be quite mistaken. ;)
     
  9. JAMES2

    JAMES2
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Boy doesn't it just stick in the liberal's craw that the Apostles were ALL MEN. Fact is, Jesus picked all men and no amount of liberal whinning can change that fact.
    James2
     
  10. Karen

    Karen
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
    Even if this could be proven, Jesus Himself did not choose any women......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Well, for the sake of discussion, Jesus did not choose any non-Jews either. The argument could be considered that Jesus chose more gradual changes in society than we would have wanted. The disciples wanted Him to be the conquering Messiah now, we often do not understand why He did not immediately overturn slavery, infanticide, and all the other abominable practices of the Roman culture.
    This sounds unrelated I know to original question. But the point I am trying to make is that God overturns some things gradually, while we want Him to do it dramatically NOW.
    So, MAYBE, Junia and other women were introduced as apostles gradually.
    It took a while for the apostles, also, to recognize that the Gentiles really were included, too. We would have preferred a short paragraph stating so in the Bible.

    My view is that the Bible is inerrant and authoritative. But our understandings of it are not and often reflect the culture we come from. Study and prayer attempt to discern what God intends. If my subjective feelings and yours are different, one or both of us are wrong, but that may never be resolved on this earth. (This assumes the disagreement is over an essential issue to the faith, not just a preference where we can both be right while doing it differently from each other.)

    Karen
     
  11. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    25
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, for the sake of discussion, Jesus did not choose any non-Jews either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is at least one difference - there were no Gentiles among the disciples of John the Baptist or Jesus' early disciples from which to choose. BUT we do know for a fact that there were women and Jesus chose not to choose them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The argument could be considered that Jesus chose more gradual changes in society than we would have wanted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That argument is worth consideration, but I think the total evidence is that Jesus did not come to change society, but to change the people that make up society. When people change, society will change. The job of the church is not to confront society, but to change it one individual at a time. And yes, the apostles and early church did have some problems in their thinking to overcome in taking the gospel to the Gentiles. But it is interesting to note that they had a specific charge to tackle that one (e.g., Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1;8)!

    OK, looks like so far we have two possible explanations of why Jesus chose apostles only from the male gender:
    1. Only men were allowed to hold the position.
    2. Jesus was not ready to confront the social mores of the His day.

    [ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]
     
  12. Joy

    Joy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,637
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus did not choose any Jews, because He was still primarily working with the Jews and not the Gentiles. This happened when Peter was given the vision of the unclean animals, and was instructed to start giving the Gentiles the gospel. Then later, Paul was instructed to be the Apostle to the Gentiles.
     
  13. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    25
    Joshua Villines, David Cooke, and Daniel Payne - <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally spoken by Delmar on "O Brother, Where Art Thou":
    Come on in, boys, the water's fine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I can't imagine you fellers haven't seen this topic. Right now we have two suggested reasons as to why Jesus chose only males. I was expecting you all to give us some reasons. Hope I won't be disappointed. :(
     
  14. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    25
    2. Jesus was not ready to confront the social mores of the His day.

    This seems to be the only other offering concerning Jesus' choice of apostles. This does not seem to be a viable solution to the question of why Jesus chose only apostles of the male gender. It certainly does not appear to coincide with the general mindset of those who believe women should hold the offices of pastor, deacon, etc. Am I missing something??
     
  15. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    25
  16. David Cooke Jr

    David Cooke Jr
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm late for court but I will add a little to this for my 2 cents. I'm no biblical scholar, but for me the fact that Jesus chose all male apostles 2000 years ago in Palestine doesn't necessarily mean he intended for his ministers to remain all men (and jewish men, at that). From a practical standpoint, wouldn't women have been stoned to death if they became his apostles? How could these women travel alone or with another man (who may or may not be married) and where could they stay together? The idea of a jewish woman hanging out with the male apostles-well, people would think she was a prostitute. You get the idea. I feel like that the very radical way that Jesus uplifted the station of women was a sign to us that they can also serve as ministers despite the fact that there's no direct scriptural reference where God says "ordain women". Paul might disagree with me but he disagreed with Peter, too, and Peter spent alot more time with Jesus (Peter didn't have to wait for the Gospels to be written, he saw scripture living right in front of him).
    Baptists have been saying one thing in the local church and then doing another for a long time. Women Missionaries from conservative baptist organizations have been baptizing our converts overseas for a long time. And they will continue to do so I bet, even in the SBC where the same women won't be ordained because of the BF&M.
    If you disagree with me, fine, you've got scriptural support and you have a right to believe what you want. But this is what I think.
     
  17. David Cooke Jr

    David Cooke Jr
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm late for court but I will add a little to this for my 2 cents. I'm no biblical scholar, but for me the fact that Jesus chose all male apostles 2000 years ago in Palestine doesn't necessarily mean he intended for his ministers to remain all men (and jewish men, at that). From a practical standpoint, wouldn't women have been stoned to death if they became his apostles? How could these women travel alone or with another man (who may or may not be married) and where could they stay together? The idea of a jewish woman hanging out with the male apostles-well, people would think she was a prostitute. You get the idea. I feel like that the very radical way that Jesus uplifted the station of women was a sign to us that they can also serve as ministers despite the fact that there's no direct scriptural reference where God says "ordain women". Paul might disagree with me but he disagreed with Peter, too, and Peter spent alot more time with Jesus (Peter didn't have to wait for the Gospels to be written, he saw scripture living right in front of him).
    Baptists have been saying one thing in the local church and then doing another for a long time. Women Missionaries from conservative baptist organizations have been baptizing our converts overseas for a long time. And they will continue to do so I bet, even in the SBC where the same women won't be ordained because of the BF&M.
    If you disagree with me, fine, you've got scriptural support and you have a right to believe what you want. But this is what I think.
     
  18. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    25
    Looks like you got in 4 cents worth ;) . Seriously, David, I hoped you would give your opinion on this issue, as I am trying to see how those in favor of women pastors, etc. would look at the issue. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
    ...for me the fact that Jesus chose all male apostles 2000 years ago in Palestine doesn't necessarily mean he intended for his ministers to remain all men (and jewish men, at that). From a practical standpoint, wouldn't women have been stoned to death if they became his apostles? How could these women travel alone or with another man (who may or may not be married) and where could they stay together? The idea of a jewish woman hanging out with the male apostles-well, people would think she was a prostitute. You get the idea. I feel like that the very radical way that Jesus uplifted the station of women was a sign to us that they can also serve as ministers despite the fact that there's no direct scriptural reference where God says "ordain women".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dealt with the fact of all Jews (there were as yet no Gentile disciples) and all males (there were women disciples) not being an equal comparison in an earlier post. I think your idea fits fairly into what I categorized as "Jesus was not ready to confront the social mores of the His day," with the additional information that this was based not on harm that might come to Him, but on harm that might come to His disciples. I'm not sure on what you're basing the idea that women apostles would have been stoned. I don't really see that. Would society have opposed women apostles? Probably. Would they have stoned them? I don't see why. I do understand your point of a woman travelling with a man not her husband. But I could see this even as a present day objection. It that was legitimate then, might we not legitimately object to a women pastor today on similar grounds. But must we understand that there was no way to bypass such problems had He specifically desired a woman apostle. Perhaps He could have ordained a woman and her husband, so they could travel together; or perhaps He could have sent women out two-by-two without male apostles. In other words, it seems that had Jesus so desired to endorse a woman in a leadership role, He could have either challenged the social mores, or planned it in such a way it would have been less objectionable. I also think I see an inconsistency in explaining why Jesus, the criterion, would not challenge the status quo then, and then turn around and use the criterion as the basis to challenge the status quo today. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Paul might disagree with me but he disagreed with Peter, too, and Peter spent alot more time with Jesus (Peter didn't have to wait for the Gospels to be written, he saw scripture living right in front of him).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The first part may be true in a sense, though Paul claimed to have been taught directly by the (resurrected) Lord. Yet, if I'm not mistaken, it was Paul, not Peter, who was correct in the disagreement to which you refer (eating with Gentiles). ;)
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Baptists have been saying one thing in the local church and then doing another for a long time. Women Missionaries from conservative baptist organizations have been baptizing our converts overseas for a long time. And they will continue to do so I bet, even in the SBC where the same women won't be ordained because of the BF&M.
    If you disagree with me, fine, you've got scriptural support and you have a right to believe what you want. But this is what I think.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is contradictory or inconsistent in my opinion also. But I would resolve it by sending no women as missionaries. You would resolve it by ordaining women pastors. But it may not be contradictory in the minds of some because they see missionaries and settled pastors as a different kind of role. I think they are wrong, but the inconsistency may be my applying my theology to their application. Their theology may fit their application. Or they may just be putting up with a contradictory situation.

    [ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]
     
  19. David Cooke Jr

    David Cooke Jr
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just to clear something up-I don't believe that "Jesus was not ready to confront the social mores of His day". Just the opposite, I think that he attacked them with a wrecking ball, lifting the status of women, children, lepers, gentiles, and every type of outcast in the process. Additionally, he exposed the legalism of the day as both insufficient and overbroad. Putting his ministry in context, what Jesus did was nothing short of revolutionary, to say the least. Jesus healed people's souls. I think with the wonderful gift of salvation, we underestimate the loving grace that he bestowed upon people with just his healing words-when he called a sinner "daughter" or "son", he called them a person, a creature worthy of love and respect, and many of these poor neglected souls were dying to be acknowledged, much less loved.
    Maybe I'm wrong about the role of women in the church-as Fred Craddock says, I have yet to walk all the way around God and take pictures. But the magnitude of what our Lord did in lifting the status of the oppressed is so great, I would be shocked if he did not intend for women of sufficient calling to be his ministers. Just how I see it.
     
  20. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    25
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
    Putting his ministry in context, what Jesus did was nothing short of revolutionary, to say the least.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is one of the problems I see with your position. If Jesus was "nothing short of revolutionary", why would He stick with the old staid system of all male leadership? To realize that Jesus was not afraid to tackle the out-of-the-ordinary and yet see He chose only male apostles should be at least reason to proceed with caution.

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>OK, looks like so far we have two possible explanations of why Jesus chose apostles only from the male gender:
    1. Only men were allowed to hold the position.
    2. Jesus was not ready to confront the social mores of the His day.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Since you do not feel you idea really fits into number 2, as I have stated it, could you form a succinct sentence that you feel sums up your view? One possibility, but it may be too biased to represent what you are saying, is to say that Jesus choosing all male apostles is irrelevant. That does seem to represent what some people think.
     

Share This Page

Loading...