[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by John

[*]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?

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.

But whatever we call this group of 12 disciples, e.g. a "pre-church leadership team", the fact remains that it did not include any women.

Originally Posted by John

[*]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.
[*]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.

The Last Supper was likely held at Mary the mother of John-Mark's house (Acts 12:12). Yet at the last Supper, no women are mentioned so there were no women at the Last Supper, not even Mary at whose house it was held it would seem. At least, none sitting around the table with Christ. Probably the women were serving. If there were, this would have been a breach of protocol at the time and the bible would record it. Whenever a woman broke protocol, the bible records it.

It is because women did not participate in the Last Supper that women have been traditionally forbidden from "holy orders". In Christianity, women traditionally have not been allowed to serve bread and wine.

Originally Posted by John

[*]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.

Jesus told his disciples they would sit on 12 thrones and rule the 12 tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28). So no woman would be sitting on thrones it would seem.

This is an argument against a view that God changed His mind in the last days. If God intended in the last days to change His mind about female leadership, then Jesus might have reserved a place for a woman on his leadership team, or reserve a throne for Mary or Martha, for example.

Originally Posted by John

[*]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.

By team I meant leadership team. The 12 disciples were to rule over the 12 tribes of Israel and also had prominent leadership roles in the early church. There were no women on Jesus's leadership team. At the apostle Paul's conversion he did not consult with any female disciples of Christ. He went to see Peter etc.

Originally Posted by John

[*]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.

This is not about that, but about female leadership. It is a mistake to think that just because Jesus spoke to a Samaritan woman that he wants women to be church leaders. Everyone knows that Christianity was an improvement from the state of Judaism in regards to breaking Jewish traditions. However this does not mean that Jesus intended women to function equally to men in all roles such as leadership. I believe God's view of gender equality is when both genders are functioning according to:

1 Cor 11:3 The head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God

Man's view of gender equality is something like this:

"The head of every man and woman is Christ and man is not the head of the woman"

Jesus could have easily chosen 6 males and 6 females, as he had broken tradition many times before. The fact that he did not means he had a good reason for only men to be his future leaders in the church.

Originally Posted by John

[*]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.

Jesus would explain his parables to the disciples. Mark 4:34.

When Jesus explained his parables to his disciples privately, were the women present, asking Jesus questions and having Jesus explain to them?

Probably not. This is in accordance with Paul's words that women were to be in silence and learn from their husbands at home.

If Christ had broken protocol by explaining the parables to the women, then this would have been recorded.

We have examples of Christ speaking to women such as the Samaritan woman, but there are no examples of Christ explaining parables or having theological discourse with his female disciples.

"The church did not start as all male and then later become both male and female. Christ's followers were both male and female from the beginning," and yet women were not chosen as leaders. Second, unlike the all-Jewish leadership, "male leadership was perpetuated by those whom Christ initially taught, trained, and to whom He committed the future leadership of His church."[42]

~ James Allen Borland, evangelical professor of biblical studies and theology at Liberty University and former president of the Evangelical Theological Society.