• Blameless? No.
• Husband of one wife? No.
• Of good behavior? No.
• Not greedy of filthy lucre? No.
• Patient? No.
• One having his children in subjection? No.
• Of good report of them that are without? No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical I understand that how we define "church" matters here. To me, if a church is a gathering of believers, then the 12 disciples were a church. Judas would be a tare sowed by Satan.

Judas would be a tare sowed by Satan.

Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?" (John 6:70, NASB)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical If the meaning of sexism meant misogyny then I have no problem with that. The topic however usually reverts to "women can't be leaders" but the two matters are different issues. I note that your post started off talking about misogyny but then reverted to matters of women in church leadership. If "women can't be leaders" is the same as misogyny then Jesus was sexist for choosing only 12 male church leaders and in not allowing Mary, a woman, to touch Him after His resurrection, but allowing Thomas, a male disciple, to touch Him. Therefore in the first church, the group of 12 disciples, the voices of women were not heard and no woman was involved in the decision making of the church. The Last Supper, Jesus shared only with his closest 12, and the women close to Jesus did not participate nor were they invited. One would think that if Jesus was truly a social reformer, intending to bring in equality between the sexes, he would have included at least one woman on his team and would not be shy about doing so. He had no problem being persecuted for meeting with tax collectors and prostitutes, yet he never reversed hundreds of years of Jewish tradition. Still, there were many women close to Jesus and loved by Jesus, Mary, Martha, etc. The thing is, they did not have to be included in high level decision making, and furthermore, they were happy about that and did not complain about it. That kind of woman that God prefers is described in 1 Peter 3:4 You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God.

1. A better translation of Jesus’ words to Mary, I think, would be those in the New American Standard Bible (“Stop clinging to Me”). As to Thomas, Jesus requested that he do more than simply touch Him, according to the meanings of the Greek words. My understanding, then, is that Jesus did not want Mary to keep clinging to Him, not that He didn’t want her to touch Him at all. As to Thomas, Jesus requested that he do much more than simply touch Him, but even to go so far as to insert or thrust his hand into His side.
   
   
2. Trying to support some kind of male favoritism on Jesus’ part by comparing His interactions with Mary and Thomas as regards touching is, to me, a strange argument, especially when the definitions of the words are taken into account: Mary, a woman who loved Jesus intensely, was clinging to Him Who had returned from death, and Jesus was ready for her (a woman) to take the news of the gospel to the disciples (as the first one Jesus chose to carry the good news—even to men). As to Thomas, he is often known today as “doubting Thomas,” because he wouldn’t believe the gospel even though others were telling him that Jesus had actually appeared to them. As a side note, I don’t think that the Bible records that Thomas actually touched Jesus in any kind of way. After all, he wouldn’t need to when Jesus was standing right in front of him with the wounds.
   
   
3. I found the parts about Jesus and the church very difficult to follow. It’s not at all clear what was meant by the church, especially with regard to its inception. My understanding of church is that it had not begun by the time that Jesus chose the twelve. If so, then Jesus did not choose twelve church leaders, male or female. Also, all of the twelve He chose were not church leaders, I believe, then or later. I don’t think that many of them were leaders in a church, even though we don’t know all that much about them. Even if the church in general was meant, what about Judas?
   
   
4. The fact is that women as well as men spoke to Jesus (their voices were heard), and He spoke to them. The assertion that the voices of women were not heard is, to me, absurd in the extreme. In addition to women conversing with Jesus, women were heard in the church as well, regardless of when it started. Even if what was meant about the church is that it began as late as Pentecost, the voices of women were heard there—prophesying, right along with the men. I simply cannot go too far with this point, since I cannot imagine anyone actually believing this assertion—even the one who wrote it.
   
   
5. The second paragraph begins with “Therefore.” It is unclear to what this word connects and what sense it makes in the presentation. When I try to make sense of the argument, here is what I come up with: “If women can’t be leaders is the same as misogyny” (false), “then Jesus was sexist for choosing only 12 male church leaders” (false) and in not allowing Mary, a woman, to touch Him after His resurrection (false), but allowing Thomas, a male disciple, to touch Him (false). (The part about Thomas could be true, except that Jesus didn’t allow him to touch; He commanded him to see and to put into. Plus, we don’t know if he did or not. I might be niggling too much here, so I will just concede that this last one could be deemed true.) In my reading, then, since all (or almost all) of the statements made are false, then the “therefore” introduces what cannot be; thereby undermining the whole argument.
   
   
6. To put the twelve disciples in apposition to the first church, as if only they are the first church, is false on two counts: the church was not yet (in my opinion), and the church was larger than just the twelve. One can read the sentence this way: “Therefore, in the first church, the one consisting of only the twelve disciples, the voices of women were not heard ….” I’ll just state that it is difficult for me to take seriously what was written when presented in such a fashion.
   
   
7. If the church was not yet in existence with Jesus and the first twelve disciples (as many or most believe), then there were no affairs of the church to discuss or decide—for males or females. If the church was in existence, how can anyone know who was in which meetings or what was discussed, including whether or not it was high level?
   
   
8. Regarding the Last Supper being mentioned, seemingly as a supportive example of male favoritism on the part of Jesus, it occurred before the crucifixion, not to mention before the resurrection. In other words, I believe that this was pre-church; if anyone believes otherwise, then they can ignore my comments about church timing.
   
   
9. The statement that “the women close to Jesus did not participate” in the Last Supper is not something that is knowable and certainly not something that the Bible supports so as to be stated emphatically. I realize that the Bible does not mention any women being at the Last Supper; by the same token, it does not state that women were not there. (Does the presentation acknowledge this by leaving the door open for women to be there who were not “close to Jesus”?) Many realize that the Bible does not mention every detail about an event and that the gospels themselves present different perspectives of the same events with different details. My understanding of Jewish tradition causes me to think that women might have been there in at least a serving capacity, even if they were not mentioned. If so, then, they would have been participating, contrary to what was stated. In addition, my understanding is that the Jewish Passover was for the whole family as a remembrance and continues so to this day as the Seder. Surely the suggestion is not being made that the Lord’s Table communion, in remembrance of Jesus, should just be done by Christian men.
   
   
10. The presentation suggests that the male disciples were involved with high-level decision-making with Jesus, making the males sound really important somehow. Although definitions of “high level” probably differ, I cannot recall an instance of anyone, male or female, being involved in what I would label high-level decision-making with Jesus. Maybe there was, and I just cannot think of one. My main point is that the Son of God did not really need anyone to be involved in such. I do recall Peter making a few runs at being involved in decision-making with Jesus, and it didn’t turn out well for Him—except, of course, he probably learned some valuable lessons from trying.
    
    
11. Here’s what I believe about the statement, “One would think that if Jesus was truly a social reformer, intending to bring in equality between the sexes, he would have included at least one woman on his team …”: First, Jesus was much more than a mere social reformer. Second, His mission cannot be boiled down to bringing in equality between the sexes. Third, He did include women “on his team.” Therefore, for me, these phrases are flawed and carelessly presented. To bring Jesus down to the level of a mere man and to bring down His mission to just bringing in equality between the sexes, as this writing did for me, is inadvisable, even when couched in such a hypothetical as was used.
    
    
12. Next, we have this statement: “He had no problem being persecuted for meeting with tax collectors and prostitutes, yet he never reversed hundreds of years of Jewish tradition.” (The statement seems to argue against itself.) The very fact that He met with such persons was a reversal. I am not well schooled in Jewish traditions of that day; but, from what I’ve read and heard, many rabbis during the intertestamental period (hundreds of years) were extremely chauvinistic, which would have carried over into the time of Jesus. I think that Jewish women were treated basically like property and were supposed to be, more or less, seen and not heard. After reading what was written, the first thing I thought about was Jesus speaking privately to the Samaritan woman at the well. This was so radical that, when His disciples returned, they marveled that He was speaking to a woman! In addition, during His dialog with her, He revealed that He was the Messiah, and I think that this was the first time the Bible records Him doing so with anyone—male or female. This brought salvation to a town filled with people with whom Jews were to have no dealings. He was definitely operating outside the bounds of traditional Jewish culture, and I imagine that just this one episode would have, at a minimum, reversed the attitudes of the disciples and the townspeople. If you think about how this kind of news travels, I imagine that just this one discussion with a sinful Samaritan woman reversed many people’s traditional views.
    
    
13. The following sentence also has a problem: “Still, there were many women close to Jesus and loved by Jesus, Mary, Martha, etc.” In my reading of this, there were many unnamed women who were close to Jesus, and these women were loved by Jesus, Mary, Martha, etc. Who were these unnamed women who were close to Jesus? Mary, Martha, and their like are, apparently, ruled out. It is, therefore, impossible to know who these many women were, since the ones who might normally be thought of as being close to Him have been taken out of consideration, along with others like them (with an “etc.”). In this conundrum that has been created, maybe the only way out would be for Mary, Martha, etc. to have loved themselves.
    
    
14. According to the presentation, females of that day were happy with their lot, implying, I think, that today’s Christian females should be happy with theirs. Without getting into how anyone might claim to know the thoughts and feelings of females living over two thousand years ago, I might point out what can be known and was not mentioned: There is evidence that not all the males who lived back then were happy with their situations. The Bible shows us at least two males who were involved in jockeying to improve their positions in Jesus’ kingdom, and Christ was not positively impressed. He ended up His talk about it this way:
    

    Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:42–45, NASB)

    The next example that comes to mind is this: After the resurrection and after Jesus’ appearances to His disciples, Peter (even after having gone through the boasting before, and the bitterness after, his denial of Jesus) still had the effrontery to question Jesus with, “What shall this man do?” with regard to John. Apparently, this level of involvement in decision-making was “above his pay grade,” because Jesus told him to more or less mind his own business and focus on following Him. Wouldn’t we all, both males and females, be better off taking this advice (which was actually a command)?