ALL-MALE Apostles

David Cooke Jr · Jan 25, 2002

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.

rlvaughn · Jan 25, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
...Jesus would not appoint women apostles back then because it was impractical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This might be a good way to state a third position. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No thanks necessary. I have no personal differences with anyone here, though I disagree with a lot of people. You all can't help being wrong

. Besides, if I don't understand the other side of the issue I have only strawmen to argue against.

One thing that I am trying to bring out is that this still doesn't seem to be a consistent application of Jesus as the criterion for interpretation and application of scripture. If we make this a practical and common sense matter, it seems that we would still (in 2002) exclude 99.9% of the cases of women in the ministry. Maybe I can't look at it objectively since I'm on the other side of the fence, but you seem to also recognize there are practical problems related to women in ministry.

I'm adding a third explanation 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.
3. Jesus made a practical decision based on the times in which He lived.
and a possible fourth:
4. Jesus chose the twelve as individuals (and, therefore, their gender is not relevant).

The application of these might be:
1. No females in leadership roles.
2. No females in leadership roles if it is socially unacceptable.
3. Females in leadership roles as practicality allows.
4. Females in leadership roles with no exclusions nor exceptions.

Do the four explanations fairly represent positions held by some who call themselves Baptists? Are the four applications consistent with the four explanations? Should others be added?

Promise · Jan 25, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<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.

David Cooke Jr · Jan 28, 2002

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
I'm adding a third explanation 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.
3. Jesus made a practical decision based on the times in which He lived.
and a possible fourth:
4. Jesus chose the twelve as individuals (and, therefore, their gender is not relevant).

The application of these might be:
1. No females in leadership roles.
2. No females in leadership roles if it is socially unacceptable.
3. Females in leadership roles as practicality allows.
4. Females in leadership roles with no exclusions nor exceptions.

I think explanations 3 and 4 are the most likely, although I think application 3 makes much more sense than application 4. What I mean is that there are probably many missions and pastoral applications where one gender is prefferable to the other, or one gender is mandated given the circumstances. I think if Jesus were sending apostles to Afganistan or a similar place he may need to send our "sister" preachers or missionaries in order to most effectively preach the gospel to the women and children of the area. To reach the men, of course he'd send our brothers.
As for other possible explanations, we don't have to assume that only men can be preachers even if we assume only men could be apostles.
BTW, I'm not sure if James2 and promise were referring to me (I don't consider myself liberal even though some have called me that), but it doesn't stick in my craw that Jesus chose only male aplostles (regardless of which list you use-I seem to recall that the gospels don't all use the same list). After all, HE chose them. Who am I to think that I could do better? I think the only question is whether he would choose all male apostles today. You know, in today's time he might have females in one country, but not in another. Who (on earth) can say for sure?

rlvaughn · Jan 28, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by David Cooke, Jr.:
I think explanations 3 and 4 are the most likely, although I think application 3 makes much more sense than application 4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just a note to be sure I am clear. What I meant by the applications was to show that a person who holds explanation 1 of Jesus choosing only men, might apply it as I show in application 1, while someone holding explanation 2 might apply it as application 2, etc.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for other possible explanations, we don't have to assume that only men can be preachers even if we assume only men could be apostles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>While technically you are correct that one does not have to make this extension, I think it is mostly likely they will. Similarly, one doesn't have to assume women can be preachers even if we assume the place of women was uplifted by Jesus and the church. All sides must apply their interpretations of this matter in light of their interpretations of the entire New Testament. There is quite a bit of difference in the way you and I approach the interpretation of the New Testament (although I approach a number of things differently from other "conservatives" with whom I tend to generally agree). I have mentioned (in another topic) briefly the method I use much more extensively than most. I interpret the New Testament commands in light of practice of the New Testament church as guided by the inspired apostles. I do not suggest others do not, but not generally to the extent that I do. So while many fundamentalists and conservatives see an example as 'one way' to do it, I often see an example as 'the way' to do it. I believe mine is a more consistent approach than that of some. For example, a number of fundamentalists will agree that preachers ought to be men because Jesus chose only men, but will not agree that the church ought to be THE teaching institution for Christian doctrine and practice because Jesus instituted only the church and commissioned her to teach.

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

Michael Wrenn · Jan 28, 2002

Promise,

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

TomVols · Jan 28, 2002

Michael wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<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."

tyndale1946 · Jan 28, 2002

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 ]

David Cooke Jr · Jan 29, 2002

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
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!

Actually, without females there would be no lineage, would there?

Just pointing out the obvious dependance.
Luke and Matthew both list the lineage of Jesus, although they don't match up exactly.
I will point out, though, that Matthew does list females along the way (see Mt 1:3,5-6, and 16).
Something occurs to me looking at these geneologies-if Mary was good enough to raise our Lord then why can't another female "raise" us in the Gospel? Just a thought.
But to directly address Brother tyndale1946's post, just like who is Jesus' ancestor is often a matter of who one wants to recognize or acknowledge (they will exist as such whether we list them or not), who is his successor at the pullpit is in my view a similar matter: Will we recognize those who are carrying on the line? If they are chosen by God, whether or not we recognize their call is secondary.

Glory Bound · Jan 29, 2002

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?

David Cooke Jr · Jan 29, 2002

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).

Daniel David · Jan 29, 2002

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.

tyndale1946 · Jan 29, 2002

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 ]

rlvaughn · Jan 29, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Glory Bound:
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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>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.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>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).

Glory Bound · Jan 29, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<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:<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.

Daniel David · Jan 29, 2002

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.

rlvaughn · Jan 29, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Glory Bound:
Is the "ignorant and unlearned men" quote referred to in scripture?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Acts 4:13 - "Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus."
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Paul stayed within the social guidelines.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This probably needs much more attention than we have given it thus far in this discussion. That Paul (and Jesus) stayed within the social guidelines is not a constant. With the matter of the slavery recorded in Philemon, he made no attempt to change the social order. But in the matter of the circumcision of Titus, for example, he did not follow the guidelines (Gal. 2:1-5). One might see the matter as a difference between social guidelines and religious issues (when social it didn't matter, but when religious it did), or as a difference between legal matters (slavery) or social custom (circumcision). This might be worth spinning off into a whole new topic - when and why did Jesus and the apostles follow the established order and when did they challenge it (e.g., Jesus constantly challenged the established rule of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but seems to have not challenged Roman governmental authority)?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>My question seems relevant - what would Paul think about allowing women to take leadership roles in the church today - even as pastors?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If we can establish that Paul did not conform to social order in the realm of church authority and practice, it would be evident that what he did then he would still do now. So perhaps that is the prevailing question. The only way we can establish what he would think will be to establish how he did think in common situations.

Teknon · Feb 2, 2002

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.

rlvaughn · Feb 2, 2002

Teknon, the point of this topic is to discuss the impact of Jesus choosing only men to be the apostles. The background behind this is that some Baptists on this board use a method of interpreting the Bible which they call making Jesus the criterion for interpreting scripture. In practice, this effectively marginalizes passages such as I Timothy 2, usually holding them to be temporary or societally based. But as you can see from this discussion, this method of interpetation forces them to say that even many of Jesus' actions were societally based. Hope this helps you understand a little about the discussion.

FaithRemains · Feb 2, 2002

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.

ALL-MALE Apostles

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member