ALL-MALE Apostles

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 ]

 

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.

 

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.

 

<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 ]

 

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.

 

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??

 

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 ]

 

<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.