ALL-MALE Apostles

I don't think its irrellevant that Jesus chose all men-it is relevant, just not determinative of our discussion. Your contention seems to be that IF Jesus was ready to confront the norm THEN he would necessarily apoint women as apostles. I don't think that is the case.
Given what I know (which is limited I admit), Jesus would not appoint women apostles back then because it was impractical. It would defy common sense to send women out on the road by themselves to do this work where they could be raped, robbed, etc., like he did his male apostles.
And who would listen to them, really? What good would it do? (Think about it-2000 years later many of his followers, including me, prefer a male pastor, even though they believe that women can and should do the work if they are called by God).
Sure, Jesus could have sent a married couple as apostles, but who would listen to a woman back then? Yes, it would have brought home Jesus' message of the value of all peoples and genders as children of God, but doing so may have eclipsed his larger message, the Kingdom of God is here, take up your cross and follow me, etc.
"The way" was ridiculed in its earliest days in Rome as "the religion of women and slaves". Even from the beginning, outsiders could see that this "way" uplifted the station of the oppressed as children of God. And I think that is central to Jesus' teaching.
By the way, I appreciate the tone of our discussion, and the fact that you respect my opinion even while disagreeing with it. Thank you for being so gracious.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JAMES2:
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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Way to Go I certainly agree with you on this one James.

 

Promise,

And throwing the charge of "liberal" at everything one disagrees with is one way of hiding ignorance.

 

Michael wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And throwing the charge of "liberal" at everything one disagrees with is one way of hiding ignorance.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So is calling anyone who disagrees with you a "fundamentalist."

 

Here is something to consider the 12 Patriarchs were all men... So were the heads of the 12 tribes... Now I've heard said the Old Testament is the New Testament consealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. The natural lineage which is male goes all the way to Jesus Christ... There isn't a female in it! The Apostles are all male and the spiritual lineage goes all the way to Jesus Christ and there is not a female in it!

I know why that is just the way it is, no matter what we think. Men will make a minister of who they will and who they want but according to God that is not his plan.

Maybe their are female pastors and minister and deacons in your church but not mine. There has never been one In the Old Line Primitive Baptist Church as far as other baptist churches I don't know! To say that women belong where according to scriptures it is not so brings confusion and we know God is not the author of that!... Brother Glen

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

Wasn't it true in Jesus' day and before, that while boys were educated, girls were not? Could this possibly be a reason that women of the day were not considered for such positions?

Also, regarding the social norms of the times. I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, but I would like to provide another example of changing social norms.

I've been reading the book of Philemon, in which Paul sends the escaped slave Onesimus back to his master Philemon. While slavery was accepted in those days, in our society today it is abhorred. Would Paul TODAY send Onesimus back with a letter to Philemon, or would he admonish Philemon for owning slaves in the first place?

 

GloryBound,
what an excellent point!
You know, if it weren't for the book of Philemon, there might not even be an SBC (thinking back to the denomination's formation and reasons for it).

 

God only chose male apostles because He is a God of order and not confusion. God called Adam to rule the cosmos. God called Noah to provide an ark. God called Abraham and Isaac to establish a family that represented God. Jacob had twelve sons and one daughter and God determined to established twelve tribes that were led by...males. God chose males to reign over that nation. God chose male prophets to rebuke and encourage His people.

It is not that females are inferior or intellectually incapable compared to a man. It is obvious though that God established the role of a man as an authoritative one.

When Jesus came on the scene, He continued with the plan of the Father. He had many female followers. Just for the sake of argument, He could have made them apostles and sent them to minister to other women. He didn't though. Why, because He determined that the role of an apostle was exclusively for a man.

Also, the false dichotomy between Jesus and Paul is lame and overused by liberals. It is as though that is all they say and then jump to their position. Very sneaky but it is still false. Another lame reason given is that Jesus elevated the role of women. Therefore, we should also. Jesus elevated women from the status of a dog that some men (Pharisees primarily) held onto to that of equality in essence. Jesus did not ever confuse or twist the roles, EVER. Further, the Scripture makes it plain where Jesus stood on the issue of women in ministry. To take it further would be to bring confusion. Jesus did not elevate the position of women from one who follows all of the N.T. to the modernist/feminist position that is so dominant today.

 

I agree with what preachtheword said and not only that but man has completely reversed the order of things. This is nothing against the Women on these boards but their place is in the home raising their children. That happens to be the order of the structure of the family unit that God instituted.

Man over a period of years has reversed this in my lifetime and I'm only 55 years old. No telling what kind of man I would have become had I not a stay at home mother.

Now someone has the idea that Women belong in the pulpit. Why not put them in the pulpit as the home and the order of things in it has been reversed.

We in this century have created a do nothing God, a God of our making. We wanted a king that fits our beliefs not the one of the bible. We are not satisfied with the scriptures our ancestors read, we want something we can understand. We want to stucture our living according to the changes of mankind and the heck with the word of God.

I remember when everything was closed on Sunday and it was a day of worship. Now Sunday is the day for the big buck and the day of worldly entertainment. Those who forget God do and sometimes it's Gods children. I've been guilty of it, I admit it and it sure isn't right.

Some of you who are my age on this board remember what I'm talking about some don't.
I know I've stepped on a lot of toes but think about this... So goes the Church... So goes the family... So goes the country. We have had fair warning for too long and as we go about changing Gods order of things someday the payment is going to be due.
I just pray to God I'm not around when he brings judgement on his children because they could have done something about it and didn't. Make no mistake about we are overdue!... Brother Glen

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
I don't think this will go too far, since the males that Jesus chose for apostles were themselves considered "ignorant and unlearned men." If He bypassed uneducated women only to choose uneducated men would in itself be telling.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is the "ignorant and unlearned men" quote referred to in scripture? I know they were unremarkable, but how unlearned was Matthew, the tax collector? Besides, I think my real point was society at the time considered women inferior, as well as unlearned. Who would look to a woman for information?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
What Paul would do today can only be the source of endless suppositions, and is besides pointless in regard to a society that has no slavery. WHAT WE DO KNOW is that, in a society that did have slavery, Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon. He did not challenge social order, though he did make an appeal for Onesimus as a brother and not a servant (vs. 15-19).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just my point. I see the difference between a society THEN that allowed slavery is in contrast to a society NOW that abhors slavery. Paul stayed within the social guidelines.

Society TODAY recognizes women in secular leadership positions. Society THEN did not recognize women in these positions.

My question seems relevant - what would Paul think about allowing women to take leadership roles in the church today - even as pastors?

By the way, I'm just asking questions here. I don't have any hard and fast feelings on this issue either way - although I tend to go along with the men as pastors concept. But I'm open minded.

 

Just another thought, how concerned was Paul with the social concerns of the day? I would say that they really didn't play a big role in his decision making and actions. Philemon would be a good example. Paul was more interested in the glory of God, the salvation of sinners, the growth of believers, and pursuing Christlikeness, than he was in picketing and protesting social evils. Is slavery wrong - YES. Is abortion wrong - YES. The list would continue. Paul was not dictated to by the culture. When possible he used it to his advantage. The kingdom of God continues regardless of what men do. Frankly, it wouldn't matter what culture said about women. We have the scripture and know what God says and what we should do.

 

Am I missing the whole point here or have I missed a post that included the message of 1 Timothy Chapter 2? Unless I completely miss read the Context of this chapter, Paul taught that a woman was never to usurp authority over a man.

 

Jesus had many women followers and did not discourage them. Look at Luke 10:40-42. Women were at the cross, women discovered the empty tomb. So why then did he choose only male apostles? He had the opportunity to choose a female but he didn't. This tells me that Jesus intended only males to be in leadership roles.