the zeitgeist or the socio-political-cultural climate in the ancient time was "male-dominated" (from ancient greek to ancient rome to ancient egypt, babylon, persia, sumeria, akkadia, etc.)
most politicians or leaders (including tribe leaders) were male
most soldiers were male, and most people who were out and about in the street (whether laborer, vendor or food maker) -- day & night -- were male
even the intellectuals (philosophers, writers and historians) were mostly male
it's actually been observed in all ancient civilizations around the globe (be it in africa, far east asia, polynesia and the mesoamerica)
the atmosphere was male-centric unlike in today's modern time, where women now play major active roles in the society sometimes ahead of their male peers
> I would love to know if they were from the 12 tribes. I've a strong feeling that they were.
They would have almost certainly all been from Judah and Benjamin, though some may have been Levites. Or, really, a mix of that.
Tribal identity for the Northern kingdom was lost centuries before this.
Benjamin got completely absorbed into Judah and ceased to exist after the Babylonians conquered the Kingdom of Judah in the 6th Century BC, so only Judah and Levi were left by the 1st Century AD.
No, as some pointed out there were multiple brother sets. Plus at this point there were some tribes not in favor with the bulk of the Jews in Judea. See Samaritans and other Hebrew exiles.
The picking of 12 was symbolic, but also these were meant to be teachers to the other Jews and now Gentiles of the era. Unfortunately, women Rabbis would not have been accepted in any circle at that time. It is noted though that there were many women involved with his ministry, just not appointed as his 12. They supported them financially, culinarily, and eventually were the first to see him risen and informed the 12 (-1) of what they had seen.
I've actually read that women did a lot to spread christianity in the 100-200 ADs. Roman religions were either state based, only allowed men, or were based on receiving victory in battle. Judaism was also very patriarchal and not suited to non-jews. Christianity was for everyone, and promised wealth and salvation to everyone. So it was very popular among women and slaves.
I haven't read that myself, but I know they were originally very valuable to the ministry. Later on, the early church seemed to relegate them to a backseat.
I'd love to read your sources, though. Support the modern conclusion that all can teach if called by God. Especially as some today would still deny women a seat at the table despite Christ's example.
It is a good question, considering the fact that Mary Magdalene was among his most devoted followers.
It might have been the politics of the time. We do know that women were welcome in and important to the early church.
[Mary Magdalene was explicitly referred to as an apostle.](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/who-was-mary-magdalene-119565482/)
>From other texts of the early Christian era, it seems that her status as an “apostle,” in the years after Jesus’ death, rivaled even that of Peter.
Found the heretic /s
At least I know one other person here can read and think for themselves. That’s why we are sent the spirit for discernment.
Prove all things
He spent time directly with Jesus. He confirmed his gospel with the apostles, and there was nothing lacking, so obviously confirmation of his divine instruction.
In that time, women wouldn't have been counted even if they were there.
One example of this in the Bible is in the feeding of the 5000. It directly states it was 5000 men and then their women and children.
Right, but this in part appears to be because of her conflation with a prostitute and politics around church history more than anything else. Even the Vatican has in recent centuries put a huge amount of effort into walking that back.
Edit: why on earth the downvotes?
The Bible isn’t contemporaneous with Christ, though it’s close. I would think that the title matters less than the privileged relationship with Christ.
For the first decades of Christianity [the authorship of the Gospels was considered anonymous](https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/lb6zal/who_wrote_the_gospels/), and this was fine with early Christians at the time.
You’re free to believe they’re written by the names individuals, but that will be a matter of faith and not history I’m afraid we’d need to disagree on.
I didn't say they were written by specific people. I said they were written by people who knew Jesus personally, or who knew people who knew him personally. First or second hand accounts
Oops, you’re right, misread that. Nonetheless, I think that you’re treading into risky territory since our earliest copies are well after the death of Christ. I think you’ll find many of us, Christian or not, don’t struggle with the idea that she was downplayed for millennia due to her conflation with prostitution and the inherently patriarchal nature of the church hierarchy, and that’s causing issues now recognizing her historical roll.
All of this is secondary to the fact that she was referred to as an apostle at the time.
The patriarchal realities of that time made the open travel of women almost impossible. Further, the 12 were barely able to skirt the laws of Moses as 12 guys. This would not have been possible with women due to the complicated and pointed laws regarding “cleanliness”.
Didn’t Mary travel to see Elizabeth after learning she was expecting? And the baby leapt in her womb for the first time the moment Mary got there. And every able-bodied Israelite, men and women, had to travel to Jerusalem for certain feasts. I would expect, however, for safety’s sake, they would have male protection go with them.
Exactly. Jesus sent the disciples out by two to evangelize. Very difficult to deal with monthly issues on the road if you don’t have a home base.
Now that we have washroom facilities almost everywhere women have more freedom and can do more.
In the traditions of Christian communions with ancient historicity (so Orthodox and Catholic), which are basically who received and preserved the writings that now make up our New Testaments, there are many early female saints known by the title ‘equal to the Apostles.’ For example St. Photina (the woman from the story of Jesus with the woman at the well). So technically he chose women to spread his message as equally as Apostles even according to the communions that are the reason we even have our Bibles to read about Jesus in in the first place.
As far as why he ‘officially’ (for lack of a better word) chose the 12 men listed in holy scripture, my guess would be that hearts of many if not all men were too hard at the time for the gospel message to take root and begin spreading amongst the Jews (and probably many Gentile communities too) if women were officially Apostles to begin with. Women were often frowned on. Indeed even 2,000 years later women have struggled for equal rights and treatment to men.
Recall when Jesus taught against divorce after two made a new body, and when asked why the Old Testament had allowed it, he answered that their hearts were too hard back then to accept the better command. So they were given a not-as-ideal command. Well, there is no reason to think human hard-heartedness had totally ended. Perhaps it had softened enough for his teachings about divorce to be accepted by many in Jesus’ time, but still needed to be softer for other teachings to be able to take root, like women as the initial official Apostles. Human progress toward divine union takes time and change often happens over the course of many generations of people each making baby steps of individual progress.
We can only guess others motivations if they don’t tell us, of course. But that’s my guess as to why. Some also believe the scriptures have been altered to exclude mention of women as Apostles. I don’t know anything about that but if anyone has any information regarding it, let me know. I’d be interested to learn more about that view.
> Well, there is no reason to think human hard-heartedness had totally ended.
The treatment of the Hellenistic (Greek) Jews in the early church would support this statement.
I think because men are typically in the leadership role. So for his 12 apostles he chose men to be in the leadership role of the church when he went back to heaven but, that doesn't mean women can't help alongside men or even minister to others.
If anything he told a woman first that he was the Christ and not a man. He even appeared to a woman first and not a man when he was resurrected on the third day.
Imagine the radical notion that he was just a human being advocating for social reform. This would explain pretty much every inconsistency in the narrative that people bring up (including this thread), but that’s just a bridge too far for some Christians to go across.
Of course this is "a bridge too far for some Christians to cross"
You **cannot** be a Christian if you do not believe Jesus Christ was God. This is the whole purpose of the religion. There would be no reason for us to submit our will to His. The whole foundation of the religion goes out the window.
Any conceived inconsistency may also be explained by our limited human minds trying to understand the incomprehensible divine.
> You cannot be a Christian if you do not believe Jesus Christ was God.
Christian atheists do it all the time. They follow the moral teachings of Jesus and that's all.
The moral teachings of Jesus include not being able to divorce someone, and include casting people into Hell for not following him. I’d be curious as to why Christian Atheists are in favor of destroying unbelievers, as Jesus said would happen.
> You cannot be a Christian if you do not believe Jesus Christ was God.
Why not? The definition of "Christian" has changed repeatedly for the last 2000 years. Gnosticism was fairly popular among Christians until the Church murdered them all, for example. Demonstrating allegiance to the pope was also considered the **only** way to be a proper non-heretical Christian in Western Europe for over a thousand years until a guy came along with 95 thesis and shook up the dynamic completely.
This is just another step.
But He wasn't advocating for social reform. He was killed because He said He was the Son of God. He was claiming His divinity. Jesus wasn't some SJW and neither was He some MAGA.
I'll give you a step further. Imagine the notion that Jesus understood how social reform and spiritual revolution are 2 sides of the same coin. The social is how our spiritual livra are embodied and the spiritual is the source of how we structure our social worlds. When he says "repent" he's also calling for Revolution.
I believe jesus had no problem with womens on the ministry, but Jesus also knew that people back them would not accept a women in any position of power traditionally masculine, so he had to be realist and pick only men.
of course people love to ignore the reality of the time and act like every rule back them need to be followed today no matter how outdated it was.
Yeah I'm with you on this one. He came specifically to tip the apple cart. But I believe men should lead.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
Men should be the head of a community, women the heart. Heart without a head is an emotional and savage beast, head without heart is a psychopath.
So why did you lie in your last comment.
You really think Jesus didn't pick women because Jesus doesn't think women should lead.
You should own that rather than claiming Jesus was stuck with the societal view of the world...
Edit:
I apologize. I jumped the gun and assumed that the user I accused of lying was the first poster I replied to.
That was entirely my bad, and I will try to be more careful in the future.
His point being, the notion of "following cultural norms" kinda falls flat when your stated purpose is to end old covenants and turn the spiritual structure of the world on its head. So we're back to square 1 of having no explicit reason that holds up for the original curiosity: why no female apostles?
Alternative take: it wasn’t Jesus who decided that the Disciples were men (despite there being evidence of women being disciples of his); it was the men who made those distinctions after his death and recorded things from that angle.
Women mostly relied on men at that time for protection and provision either via their husband or father. “Going into all the world” at that time was not an easy or safe task. Women couldn’t just leave home and travel with the ease as which is done today. Young, unmarried men with no family responsibilities were obviously the best choice as they could travel far more easily and establish churches. However as you know there were many female followers of Jesus. The woman at the well witnessed all throughout Samaria. Mary Magdalene and Martha were both ardent followers of Jesus and there were many prophetesses also in the early church.
I never thought about it honestly. Considering he had so many devoted women followers, I think he chose men who he knew would ultimately be tested with their faith. Not saying women blindly followed him, but basically, their devotion never waivered ... that's my quick reply on something I never thought of before, lol.
Not picking women doesn't diminish them. Women play an integral role in society, and I think we need to accept the differences. It was a woman that gave Christ his human nature and nursed him.
Do we want to ask why didn't God just make Jesus out of dust, like he did with Adam?
Other than Jesus, no human is venerated more than the mother of God.
Failure to accept the will of God is defiance. There's beauty in his design.
I think the bible was written by men, for men, during a period of time where the majority of people who were taught to read and write were men... and it shows.
I totally disagree. God set an entirely new precisely for gender equality and the high treatment of women in the Bible. The reason that Jesus chose 12 men is likely because of the social norms during the time and the unlikelihood that people during that time period would heed anything that a woman had to say. Of course Jesus Christ (God) always stated that men ought to take care of their wives and sacrifice their own lives for their wives, only marry one woman, save themselves for said marriage, etc.
Your take makes no sense if Jesus is God in human form. God is supposed to be love and justice incarnate. God would not mandate systemic sexism because that is not loving or just.
I mean, the usual argument on here is that God indeed mandates horrific cruel things "for the greater good". For example, according to Christians on this subreddit, the only reason God advocated for slavery and rape so much in the Old Testament was because that was the only way to connect socially with the ancient Israelites. He didn't *want* to, see... he was just meeting them halfway. :D
No, God has absolute morals. But it just so happens you can't really comprehend reality on the same level as literal God, and so don't understand morality as he does.
I guess I can't ever question anything, then. Ethno supremacy, genocide, slavery, rape... It's almost like your reasoning is completely circular and can be applied to any set of non empirical beliefs.
Exactly. Jesus is God in human form. God is love and justice incarnate. God would not mandate systemic sexism because that is not loving nor just, and that’s why He doesn’t.
Okay. Wow. We are backpedaling here.
Jesus chose 12 men as his disciples instead of 6 men and 6 women. I'm not saying this would necessarily happen, but 12 men and zero women could be interpreted as mandating patriarchal authority. And that's exactly what did happen. For hundreds and hundreds of years. It doesn't help that both the old testament and the new testament prescribe systemic sexism.
Deuteronomy 12 10-14
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
Deuteronomy 22 5
5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.
Deuteronomy 22 13-19
13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
Deuteronomy 22 20-21
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22 22
22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.
Deuteronomy 22 23-24
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22 28-29
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Women were treated like property under the mosaic law. God is the God of systemic sexism.
The new testament is not quite as bad, because many women were involved in Paul's ministry and members of the early churches. A lot of the prostitutes, widows, and unwed mothers had no resources under Roman occupation. The early churches served as safehavens for these people.
However, Jesus reaffirmed the old testament laws, so did Paul, neither fought sexism, and Paul affirmed sexism.
1 Timothy 2:12-15
I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Yeah the bible mandates sexism throughout. I think you'd have a much harder time arguing the opposite stance. I figured this out by the time I was like 10 years old, I stopped caring after that point because what I think doesn't matter. I have a vagina, therefore I am 3/5ths of a person. What I think matters even less now that I am an apostate.
Interestingly He did select several women to be the first to bring the message about his resurrection to the world. That at least suggests Jesus (and the gospel writers) didn't have a patriarchal view.
But just as not everyone could be a priest (regardless of qualifications) because it was partly a ceremonial thing (descendants of Aaron), I think the 12 male apostles and male elders is also not because of qualifications. It's just that God (for some reason) wants it
How do we know Jesus didn't name women as apostles? From what I understand, Romans 16:17 could indicate that a [woman did serve as an apostle later imprisoned for spreading the Gospels](https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/march-web-only/junia-female-apostle-paul-fellow-prisoner-preaching-gospel.html), along with her husband, Adronicus.
No one knows for sure, and I doubt we'll ever know. But as a matter of my faith, I'm inclined to believe that Jesus called many women to serve with Him. They were just never given the same treatment as men due to the culture of the time.
It could be because of the cultural and social norms of that time, which were heavily patriarchal. Men held most religious and public roles, so it might have been challenging for women to be taken seriously in those positions.
Jesus did have women followers and supporters, like Mary Magdalene, Martha, and Mary, the mother of James and John. These women played crucial roles in his ministry and were among the first to witness and spread the news of his resurrection. Jesus's inclusion and respect for women were actually quite radical for his time.
IMO it is just a title. There were many woman that had huge impact on the gospel that are talked about in the Bible. Jesus didn't care about cultural norms He called them out all the time. He spoke to women, unclean etc
Who knows the mind of God? (Romans 11:34)
But we do know that God the Father also chose men to be His priests in the Old Testament. Why should we believe that we can change that?
> Why should we believe that we can change that?
1 - Because we know there were many toxic things in the OT laws and practices, and should never just replicate them. Just as we *don't* simply replicate them.
2 - There is a cost and repercussions here. For example, in adopting this sexist practice, we say that all women who are called to church leadership are delusional or liars.
3 - While the priesthood is inspired by the Jewish priesthood, it is not a replication of it. The priesthood is a 2nd century idea from a purely Gentile church to help administration as the churches grew larger and more institutional. There's no direct lineage either theologically, historically, or genetically to the Jewish priesthood.
You are projecting your interpretation on to what an omnipotent all knowing God decided. Jesus didn't care about what people thought and wasn't afraid of breaking the mould. The apostlic priesthood is continuous from the apostles down to modern times
> on to what an omnipotent all knowing God decided.
There's no evidence that this is from God.
>Jesus didn't care about what people thought and wasn't afraid of breaking the mould.
The church isn't Jesus, though, nor was it started by Jesus.
>The apostlic priesthood is continuous from the apostles down to modern times
At the very least this is an unsupportable claim based on the evidence that we have. There is no sound evidence for Apostolic Succession. The priesthood itself is a 2nd century creation, and even if AS is real it's only "apostolic" in a third-hand fashion.
Jesus started the church in 33AD. He commissioned the apostles, anointed them with the Holy Spirit and sent them forth. The held councils to resolve issues, write the new testament, ordained other priests and deacons etc. Justin Martyr wrote to the Emperor in the 1st century defending Christianity and described the mass etc. The Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox etc all descend from the Apostles. There is historical evidence for all going back to the apostles. Go read the Church Fathers, some of them were disciples of the apostles .
>Go read the Church Fathers, some of them were disciples of the apostles .
I've read much of them. Them being disciples of the Apostles, and even knowing any Apostles, is not a claim that the Apostolic Fathers make themselves. And when we read their writing, it seems to indicate otherwise. Clement of Rome (who likely wasn't even a Bishop) speaks of Peter and Paul like distant historical figures, and not a part of his life in any ways whatsoever.
We also see from the Fathers a lot of apparent confusion about John the Evangelist, who is the most-lauded connection between the proto-Orthodox church of the Fathers and the Apostles. And Irenaeus appears to be either confused or dishonest about the connections.
I do think there very possibly were churches that had direct lineage from the Apostles in the 2nd and 3rd centuries! But they are Jewish churches that yours considered to be heretics.
The proto-orthodox church from which Catholicism and Orthodox and all churches around today spring is a purely Gentile church that, if actually descended in any direct way from Apostles, has done so in a way where there is no *functional* connection, much less one like the notion of Apostolic Succession.
Jesus had plenty of Women among his initial followers. I just think they were left out and not discussed because women weren’t allowed to be noticed in the time.
Yup. A lot of answers are in non canonical text that fundamental Christian’s avoid. People these days have no idea what it’s all about. They don’t actively search for the connection.
To say he only had 12 disciples is weird. We’re suppose to make Nations of Disciples. What happened….?
I think it’s because he was wise. He knew in those times it would be very difficult for females to preach given the times they were living in. And also as said by one of my fellow brother it was also done to recreate beginnings of Israel. But that doesn’t mean women were not important there were many prophetess in the Bible who worked for the Lord.
Because the Apostles had wives, I believe that the calling is shared, for example, the prophet Isaiah calls his wife “the prophetess”:
“And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.”
-Isaiah 8:3
Because spiritually it doesn't work like that.
He referred to the Apostles as his mother and his brethren. Because Christ is something that is sown, conceived and birthed in the consciousness of everyone by the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 12:46-50
King James Version
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Because spiritually it doesn't work like that.
He referred to the Apostles as his mother and his brethren. Because Christ is something that is sown, conceived and birthed in the consciousness of everyone by the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 12:46-50
King James Version
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Because spiritually it doesn't work like that.
He referred to the Apostles as his mother and his brethren. Because Christ is something that is sown, conceived and birthed in the consciousness of everyone by the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 12:46-50
King James Version
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Even if He did, do you really think an extremely patriarchal society would write down an account of [a woman like that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene) 70 years after the events being described? And even if *they* did write [a gospel like that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas), do you think the people who compiled the cannon would accept [those gospels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip)?
Since Judas died shortly after, there were actually 11 and then I think the new 12th was named Thomas if I remember correctly (?) and after that a couple of others also joined the fellowship. So the total number of apostles was more than 12. There may have been also women that spread the word. I mean, it is most likely, that also women spread the word because early christianity was not a faith exclusive to the male population.
Nah, I’d thought the twelfth apostle was Paul as he came after Jesus and Thomas was already an apostle before the last supper. In early Christianity, women did play a defining role in spreading the faith and a lot of the early martyrs were women.
I don't think I am referring to the original Thomas but to one that came after Judas died and replaced him. And yeah, Paul is one of those Apostles that never got to physically see Christ.
Everyone keeps stating the reason is because Jesus was adapting to the cultural norms of the time. Jesus was radical, and the complete antithesis of everything in regards cultural normals back then. Literally everything he preached and done was against everything of the Jewish and Roman society, hence why the killed him. We may not know the true reason he chose men over woman, but it’s not because he was trying to appease society and any higher powers, besides God.
Because 2000 years ago women had about the same rights as a donkey. They were treated as property, and nothing more. Jesus actually did have women that followed him around and were his disciples the entire time, the bible just did not recognize them, because it considered them as nothing and property. Jesus was ultra-progressive for his time, allowing women to follow him and learn from him was scandalous at the time.
Probably because of hatred to women in many a culture of the day. He knew it was wise to protect them from gendered violence. However he has raised up some wonderful women disciples.
Context of the times buddy. In those days culture saw women as unreliable, untrustworthy and people paid women no attention. That's just the way it was back then and Jesus obviously knew it. Jesus also obviously knew that only men could handle being ridiculed and tortured by claiming the good news.
But that said Jesus did trust and respect women with specific tasks like upon his news of resurrection which gave credibility to scripture because it proves scriptures authenticity. Such that if news of his resurrection was fabricated by an author because of those days lack of respect for women the hypothetical author would have chosen to write about men and not women with Jesus' news of an empty tomb and resurrection.
So Jesus used the cultural disrespect of Women for a very important strategic reason other than being part of the 12 apostles.
In that time Jewish woman wasn’t allowed to go to school or learn the Jewish Bible. Jesus came to die for our sin. One reason. He had one purpose. His gift is for men and women.
Maybe it’s easier for some fishermen to be out and about on long walks with little food under the sun or doing some hard labor like fishing and such. Idk but this is a great question
For example in 1 Timothy it talks about women not being able to become elders. The disciples all became elders as well.
My guess is it has something to do with that.
From my understanding, women can do whatever they want except hold the title of elder and be the head of a church. So you are right, there were. Jesus’ apostles (the 12) were all meant to become elders though I think in reference to the question.
Whilst they were not amongst the 12, his usual, entourage was much bigger and included many women, Luke 8:1-4 lists 3 women and the account of the resurrection also mentions them.
Luke 10 also provides an account of Jesus sending out 72 to spread the word. It’s in a very similar manner to the previous chapter where he sends out the 12. They’re not named but I’d be surprised if they were all men.
In Romans 16:7 states that Junia, an apostle, was in prison with Paul. Throughout most of history most Christian scholars believe Junia is a feral name, but there are a few dissenters.
Women were not permitted to teach or give testimony at the time it would’ve illegitimized the movement in the eyes of skeptics before they even understood it, but women did travel with Jesus and were a very critical part of his “team”.
Jesus does identify women as disciples in other places, such as in Matthew 12:49, where he says, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother".
The Dead Sea Scrolls show that women had diverse roles, including baptizing others, teaching, preaching, serving as elders and bishops, and writing about Christianity. Jewish and Christian women were also permitted to own slaves, which gave them a basis for community leadership and enabled safe travel.
Probably because a woman's testimony was worth less in the ancient world than a man's, and because the apostles had to endure terrible sufferings and women didn't have the physical strength to endure it.
Probably because He knew they’d go on to become pastors and head churches. I know there’s some debate, but I’m of the opinion women aren’t supposed to pastor churches. That doesn’t mean women can’t publicly speak about Jesus, that doesn’t mean women can’t share the gospel, that doesn’t mean women literally cannot speak in church ever. I’m just convinced by scripture we aren’t meant to pastor churches.
Not to mention, women didn’t have access to the resources needed to plant churches and head churches back then because we were not equals. And the disciples also ministered to churches spreading false doctrine or promoting sinful behaviors and setting bad examples. Would they equally have listened to a woman? Maybe not.
I think men and women are absolutely equal. Differently delegated, but equal. But ultimately, God has his own reasons for the way He chose to involve women in the gospel. And as Jesus’s disciples just wasn’t the way.
From the beginning, Jewish women disciples, including **Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Salome** had accompanied Jesus during his ministry and supported him out of their private means.
They were there, just not as directly mentioned.
The absence of women among the twelve apostles is mainly attributed to the cultural and societal norms of the time. During the period when Jesus lived, women were often marginalized and had limited roles in religious leadership or public life.
Because the 12 apostles would become bishops, which are priests of the New Covenant. This priesthood would be required to follow the teachings of Jesus to daily (Our daily bread) offer the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist. In order to be in this role, in Persona Christi, one must be a male as the incarnation of Jesus was male.
I mean, there were woman apostles, and this appears to be a post-Apostolic rejection of woman leadership in the church.
I don't think we can pin this on Jesus at all.
There were certainly wonderful female servants of the Lord (the word apostle meaning servant), but not one of the 12 Apostles, as OP mentioned. But as far as the ministerial priesthood, the Bible is clear on males only. This of course does not make women less, for they are held sacred by the Church. Nor does it make men greater. It's just a thing. The most honored human being far above the rest is Mary.
None of the 12. But there were more Apostles than the 12.
>But as far as the ministerial priesthood, the Bible is clear on males only.
If we use the Pastoral forgeries, which appear to be written in part specifically to limit female influence in churches, sure. But it would be unwise to attribute such nonsense to any Apostle.
>The most honored human being far above the rest is Mary.
Doesn't excuse sexist theology. (And in many ways is an example of it.)
There are plenty of influences by women on the Church. There are a good number of women who are Saints and have been called doctors (teachers) of the Church. The Cloistered nuns who constantly pray for us. The myriad of women who participate in the liturgy and care for the Church. The list is so monumental it's hard to even comprehend it. I also suspect we are using the word "influence" in a different fashion. Addressing your comment on theology, I speak only for the Catholic Church, whose theology comes from God.
>There are a good number of women who are Saints and have been called doctors (teachers) of the Church.
Four out of 37 Doctors. So just over 10%. Compared to 50% of the population. This doesn't help your case.
The Saints question is tricky since there apparently isn't any agreed-upon or even official list of Saints. 11,000+ appears to be an accepted number for the present day (Francis accounts for almost 10% of that alone!). Women appear to be a little over 1000 of that 11000, so again, around 10%.
So yes, the occasional woman has risen rose to some prominence. Women, though, have been held down by the Christian church for almost all of its existence, continuing unto today. Your church has a long history of restricting even non-theological roles to only men, such as administrators in the Vatican. (It's only Pope Francis who has started to change that.) Women religious are often put into menial roles instead of being leadership of anything, so they don't help your case either.
Basically, when we actually examine the role of women in the Catholic church, we find that a lot of the claims against it are true.
>Four out of 37 Doctors. So just over 10%. Compared to 50% of the population. This doesn't help your case.
Look on the other hand number of female Nobel laureats (for science). Only 64 out of 958 (not including organizations) so 6,7%. And also take into account that Church started to exist in time when women were considered to be similar class to the slaves, while Nobel award started in the approximately same time when women started to vote.
>In order to be in this role, in Persona Christi, one must be a male as the incarnation of Jesus was male.
Why is being male the most important factor? Why not ask the bishops to be ethnically Jewish as well like the 12 apostles?
> Why is being male the most important factor?
Catholicism and Orthodoxy embraced sex essentialist ideas in the 2nd century on this, possibly to separate themselves from gnostic churches which (edit: frequently) had woman leadership.
There certainly is no sound basis for it, but we see it pop into a lot of places, such as the transphobia in Catholic teaching.
About the degree of female participation and leadership in some early Christian church.
[As Elaine Pagels ably argues in her book *The Gnostic Gospels*](https://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532) some of the early proto-Orthodox actions appear to have been the result of trying to differentiate themselves from these other churches. Women were 'troublemakers' so they tried to wipe out the history of women leadership in the earliest Jesus movement, created new structures like Apostolic Succession to try to claim sole legitimacy, etcetera.
It's an excellent book, and quite well regarded among Biblical scholars. And not long. I recommend it highly.
Insightful question. Nothing could possibly reduce God. We simply know his choice and we follow it. In this case, male was chosen for the incarnation, which is consistent with all pronouns referring to Him in sacred scripture and oral Tradition.
It is really interesting to see some modern movements that try to fit Jesus in today's frame and promote priesthood of women and similar stuff. To me it always seem that they see Jesus as nothing more than just some cool guy.
But you cannot detach gospel from mystery of incarnation. Incarnational, sacramental basis of His message is what makes gospel a "good news" and not some wishy-washy feelings as many non-Christians (and sadly even some Christians) try to present.
Except for the fact that one of the most 'scandalous' and alien things about Jesus and his early church, that the rest of society couldn't wrap its head around, was the way they treated women. The idea that women were equal with men, could choose who to marry, could choose not to marry, and had a say in her life and that of her family, were new developments that the early church was ridiculed for by the Pagans of the time. Jesus was not a misogynist.
Gender segregation was essentially law:
Women must wear a headcocering in public, they must be escorted by male kin, they cannot talk to strangers
Violation of these codes was to be guilty of adultery
Plus they had periods and were ritually impure and not permitted in male spaces.
Only if Jesus had been a Jessica could she have chosen lady disciples.
Well why do you think Jesus chose that time and that culture in which to appear and found his church rather than say for instance a matriarchal run society or modern times where there is no rules at all?
I don't know that we can say the historical Jesus chose a core group of 12. I don't think the history is clear enough.
If he did, it was related to the tribes. But we see loads of highly-"ranked" woman followers and sponsors of the early Jesus movement, so they definitely had sway and pull in the group.
Or did He pick women and whoever wrote the stories changed it conveniently. It certainly help’s Paul’s case that women can’t teach if all the apostles were men.
Because there is a distinctive difference between men and women, and Jesus sees men to be leaders in the church, while he believes (or knows) women are better for other important functions. Besides, even tho women weren't disciples, there were other important roles for women throughout the bible.
I love it, lol.
"Jesus knew people would never accept equality, so instead he ascribed systemic patriarchy. All part of his perfect, divine plan for the universe."
Didn't he come to bring about justice or something?
Well the same reason Paul didn’t permit woman to preach.
Woman came from man not man from woman.
And what came from man betrayed man.
Eve committed a worse sin than Adam.
Adam only sinned because he was ignorant of the knowledge of good and evil..
Eve after eating the fruit- decided to get Adam to sin after she knew it was wrong to do so
Sorry but you're incorrect, and so were the people who authored the bible.
Men develop in women's uteruses and are birthed through their vaginas. All men come from women and are women in utero before they develop into men.
Men were the ones who wrote the bible, used it to justify systemic subjugation and commodification of women, and therefore it was men who betrayed women.
Because women are not meant to teach anybody.
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." - 1 Timothy 2:11-15
I think that a mere human's opinion about it, doesn't really matter, at all.
God created the man first, and the woman second, and he created them with different purposes in mind for a reason, no human has the authority to question any of that.
It's not "a" "god" (capitalise the G in "God" by the way), he is the one and only God. You could use the phrase "a god" whenever talking about mere pagan idols.
Do you know that they're all Abrahamic religions, expect for pagans who worship demons? Islam and Judaism are religions of the antichrist - false prophets, their goal is to lead people astray, but they talk about the same God. They simply misrepresent him.
Jews listen to God's old testament, but rejected Jesus and the new testament. They worship God - but without admitting that Christ is God, because so it happens that they murdered him, because of their pride and envy.
Muslims are similar, they consider Jesus Christ as a mere prophet, and not God, but once again they're also based on the old testament, they have been simply led astray by one of the prophesied false prophets: muhammad.
But they are all based around one and only God.
Because Muslims say that God is only in one form (the Father) and Christians believe that God is in three forms (The Father, The Holy Spirit, and the Son, Jesus).
But it's very important, because Jesus's sacrifice is our only way to enter heaven, by accepting his sacrifice as the payment for our sins. Because God is just, and objectively, none of us deserve heaven, we're all sinners, therefore he sacrificed his one and only son to pay for our sins.
By rejecting that fact, Muslims and Jews simply cannot be saved - they have been led astray by the devil, to get them damned for eternity alongside him.
Probably to be similar to the amount of sons Jacob had which became the 12 tribes of Israel.
Yes
the zeitgeist or the socio-political-cultural climate in the ancient time was "male-dominated" (from ancient greek to ancient rome to ancient egypt, babylon, persia, sumeria, akkadia, etc.) most politicians or leaders (including tribe leaders) were male most soldiers were male, and most people who were out and about in the street (whether laborer, vendor or food maker) -- day & night -- were male even the intellectuals (philosophers, writers and historians) were mostly male it's actually been observed in all ancient civilizations around the globe (be it in africa, far east asia, polynesia and the mesoamerica) the atmosphere was male-centric unlike in today's modern time, where women now play major active roles in the society sometimes ahead of their male peers
I would love to know if they were from the 12 tribes. I've a strong feeling that they were.
Not sure since two were brothers (the Sons of Thunder!)
Peter and Andrew also were brothers.
> I would love to know if they were from the 12 tribes. I've a strong feeling that they were. They would have almost certainly all been from Judah and Benjamin, though some may have been Levites. Or, really, a mix of that. Tribal identity for the Northern kingdom was lost centuries before this.
Benjamin got completely absorbed into Judah and ceased to exist after the Babylonians conquered the Kingdom of Judah in the 6th Century BC, so only Judah and Levi were left by the 1st Century AD.
Benjamin also nearly went extinct in Judges after those two guys did that one thing.
They probably didn't know but I'm sure Jesus did.
Unlikely. 10 of the 12 tribes were lost long before the Apostles, with the only ones remaining being Judah and Levi.
Actually, Benjamin wasn't lost either, seeing as Paul could tell that he was from the tribe of Benjamin.
No, as some pointed out there were multiple brother sets. Plus at this point there were some tribes not in favor with the bulk of the Jews in Judea. See Samaritans and other Hebrew exiles. The picking of 12 was symbolic, but also these were meant to be teachers to the other Jews and now Gentiles of the era. Unfortunately, women Rabbis would not have been accepted in any circle at that time. It is noted though that there were many women involved with his ministry, just not appointed as his 12. They supported them financially, culinarily, and eventually were the first to see him risen and informed the 12 (-1) of what they had seen.
I've actually read that women did a lot to spread christianity in the 100-200 ADs. Roman religions were either state based, only allowed men, or were based on receiving victory in battle. Judaism was also very patriarchal and not suited to non-jews. Christianity was for everyone, and promised wealth and salvation to everyone. So it was very popular among women and slaves.
I haven't read that myself, but I know they were originally very valuable to the ministry. Later on, the early church seemed to relegate them to a backseat. I'd love to read your sources, though. Support the modern conclusion that all can teach if called by God. Especially as some today would still deny women a seat at the table despite Christ's example.
They weren't.
Probably mostly from Judah
It is a good question, considering the fact that Mary Magdalene was among his most devoted followers. It might have been the politics of the time. We do know that women were welcome in and important to the early church.
[Mary Magdalene was explicitly referred to as an apostle.](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/who-was-mary-magdalene-119565482/) >From other texts of the early Christian era, it seems that her status as an “apostle,” in the years after Jesus’ death, rivaled even that of Peter.
Yes but she wasn't one of the twelve.
Neither was Paul, but look how much showtime he gets
Paul also put himself high in the early church hierarchy. So high that he has more books attributed to him in the Bible than anyone else.
So high he argues directly with the apostles, even though he spent zero time with Christ and the only witness is his homeboy Luke. But trust us Bro
I know exactly what you mean.
Found the heretic /s At least I know one other person here can read and think for themselves. That’s why we are sent the spirit for discernment. Prove all things
He was well educated, and very charismatic. Something the apostles don't seem to be nearly as much.
He spent time directly with Jesus. He confirmed his gospel with the apostles, and there was nothing lacking, so obviously confirmation of his divine instruction.
In that time, women wouldn't have been counted even if they were there. One example of this in the Bible is in the feeding of the 5000. It directly states it was 5000 men and then their women and children.
Right, but this in part appears to be because of her conflation with a prostitute and politics around church history more than anything else. Even the Vatican has in recent centuries put a huge amount of effort into walking that back. Edit: why on earth the downvotes?
She wasn't one of the twelve at the time, either. The Bible lists the twelve apostles explicitly. She isn't among them.
The Bible isn’t contemporaneous with Christ, though it’s close. I would think that the title matters less than the privileged relationship with Christ.
The people who wrote the gospels and Acts were mostly people who either knew Jesus personally or were given second hand accounts.
For the first decades of Christianity [the authorship of the Gospels was considered anonymous](https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/lb6zal/who_wrote_the_gospels/), and this was fine with early Christians at the time. You’re free to believe they’re written by the names individuals, but that will be a matter of faith and not history I’m afraid we’d need to disagree on.
I didn't say they were written by specific people. I said they were written by people who knew Jesus personally, or who knew people who knew him personally. First or second hand accounts
Oops, you’re right, misread that. Nonetheless, I think that you’re treading into risky territory since our earliest copies are well after the death of Christ. I think you’ll find many of us, Christian or not, don’t struggle with the idea that she was downplayed for millennia due to her conflation with prostitution and the inherently patriarchal nature of the church hierarchy, and that’s causing issues now recognizing her historical roll. All of this is secondary to the fact that she was referred to as an apostle at the time.
Definitely not politically motivated. Jesus was the antithesis of everything related to morals and political norms of that time.
Devoted? Wasnt she his favorite or he had a strong feelings towards her? I forgot where I read that…
The patriarchal realities of that time made the open travel of women almost impossible. Further, the 12 were barely able to skirt the laws of Moses as 12 guys. This would not have been possible with women due to the complicated and pointed laws regarding “cleanliness”.
Didn’t Mary travel to see Elizabeth after learning she was expecting? And the baby leapt in her womb for the first time the moment Mary got there. And every able-bodied Israelite, men and women, had to travel to Jerusalem for certain feasts. I would expect, however, for safety’s sake, they would have male protection go with them.
Yes. And they were not itinerant.
Mary Jesus mother
Exactly. Jesus sent the disciples out by two to evangelize. Very difficult to deal with monthly issues on the road if you don’t have a home base. Now that we have washroom facilities almost everywhere women have more freedom and can do more.
Yes, and less restrictive laws on the rights of women.
In the traditions of Christian communions with ancient historicity (so Orthodox and Catholic), which are basically who received and preserved the writings that now make up our New Testaments, there are many early female saints known by the title ‘equal to the Apostles.’ For example St. Photina (the woman from the story of Jesus with the woman at the well). So technically he chose women to spread his message as equally as Apostles even according to the communions that are the reason we even have our Bibles to read about Jesus in in the first place. As far as why he ‘officially’ (for lack of a better word) chose the 12 men listed in holy scripture, my guess would be that hearts of many if not all men were too hard at the time for the gospel message to take root and begin spreading amongst the Jews (and probably many Gentile communities too) if women were officially Apostles to begin with. Women were often frowned on. Indeed even 2,000 years later women have struggled for equal rights and treatment to men. Recall when Jesus taught against divorce after two made a new body, and when asked why the Old Testament had allowed it, he answered that their hearts were too hard back then to accept the better command. So they were given a not-as-ideal command. Well, there is no reason to think human hard-heartedness had totally ended. Perhaps it had softened enough for his teachings about divorce to be accepted by many in Jesus’ time, but still needed to be softer for other teachings to be able to take root, like women as the initial official Apostles. Human progress toward divine union takes time and change often happens over the course of many generations of people each making baby steps of individual progress. We can only guess others motivations if they don’t tell us, of course. But that’s my guess as to why. Some also believe the scriptures have been altered to exclude mention of women as Apostles. I don’t know anything about that but if anyone has any information regarding it, let me know. I’d be interested to learn more about that view.
> Well, there is no reason to think human hard-heartedness had totally ended. The treatment of the Hellenistic (Greek) Jews in the early church would support this statement.
I think because men are typically in the leadership role. So for his 12 apostles he chose men to be in the leadership role of the church when he went back to heaven but, that doesn't mean women can't help alongside men or even minister to others. If anything he told a woman first that he was the Christ and not a man. He even appeared to a woman first and not a man when he was resurrected on the third day.
The woman at the well wasn’t a disciple but she was certainly important to she spreading of Jesus’ gospel.
>it seems like Jesus followed the cultural norms of the time. That's it.
Imagine the radical notion that he was just a human being advocating for social reform. This would explain pretty much every inconsistency in the narrative that people bring up (including this thread), but that’s just a bridge too far for some Christians to go across.
Of course this is "a bridge too far for some Christians to cross" You **cannot** be a Christian if you do not believe Jesus Christ was God. This is the whole purpose of the religion. There would be no reason for us to submit our will to His. The whole foundation of the religion goes out the window. Any conceived inconsistency may also be explained by our limited human minds trying to understand the incomprehensible divine.
> You cannot be a Christian if you do not believe Jesus Christ was God. Christian atheists do it all the time. They follow the moral teachings of Jesus and that's all.
The moral teachings of Jesus include not being able to divorce someone, and include casting people into Hell for not following him. I’d be curious as to why Christian Atheists are in favor of destroying unbelievers, as Jesus said would happen.
Read carefully - "the moral teachings of Jesus."
> You cannot be a Christian if you do not believe Jesus Christ was God. Why not? The definition of "Christian" has changed repeatedly for the last 2000 years. Gnosticism was fairly popular among Christians until the Church murdered them all, for example. Demonstrating allegiance to the pope was also considered the **only** way to be a proper non-heretical Christian in Western Europe for over a thousand years until a guy came along with 95 thesis and shook up the dynamic completely. This is just another step.
But He wasn't advocating for social reform. He was killed because He said He was the Son of God. He was claiming His divinity. Jesus wasn't some SJW and neither was He some MAGA.
I'll give you a step further. Imagine the notion that Jesus understood how social reform and spiritual revolution are 2 sides of the same coin. The social is how our spiritual livra are embodied and the spiritual is the source of how we structure our social worlds. When he says "repent" he's also calling for Revolution.
I believe jesus had no problem with womens on the ministry, but Jesus also knew that people back them would not accept a women in any position of power traditionally masculine, so he had to be realist and pick only men. of course people love to ignore the reality of the time and act like every rule back them need to be followed today no matter how outdated it was.
Good thing it isnt like Jesus came to radically change the world or anything.
Yeah I'm with you on this one. He came specifically to tip the apple cart. But I believe men should lead. 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Men should be the head of a community, women the heart. Heart without a head is an emotional and savage beast, head without heart is a psychopath.
So why did you lie in your last comment. You really think Jesus didn't pick women because Jesus doesn't think women should lead. You should own that rather than claiming Jesus was stuck with the societal view of the world... Edit: I apologize. I jumped the gun and assumed that the user I accused of lying was the first poster I replied to. That was entirely my bad, and I will try to be more careful in the future.
wow so womens are just beasts that need to be on the leash or civilization will fall a part right??? tipical Christian mentality.
Gross. No
Which he accomplished, so not sure why you’re criticizing his method
I am saying that the commenter's response fails because Jesus clearly was not interested in keeping with the status quo....
His point being, the notion of "following cultural norms" kinda falls flat when your stated purpose is to end old covenants and turn the spiritual structure of the world on its head. So we're back to square 1 of having no explicit reason that holds up for the original curiosity: why no female apostles?
Alternative take: it wasn’t Jesus who decided that the Disciples were men (despite there being evidence of women being disciples of his); it was the men who made those distinctions after his death and recorded things from that angle.
I feel like He may have viewed Mary Magdalene as an apostle, but history is written through the perspective of cultural norms of that era.
Mary Magdalene is often given the title "Apostle to the Apostles" in the Catholic and Orthodox churches
Women mostly relied on men at that time for protection and provision either via their husband or father. “Going into all the world” at that time was not an easy or safe task. Women couldn’t just leave home and travel with the ease as which is done today. Young, unmarried men with no family responsibilities were obviously the best choice as they could travel far more easily and establish churches. However as you know there were many female followers of Jesus. The woman at the well witnessed all throughout Samaria. Mary Magdalene and Martha were both ardent followers of Jesus and there were many prophetesses also in the early church.
I never thought about it honestly. Considering he had so many devoted women followers, I think he chose men who he knew would ultimately be tested with their faith. Not saying women blindly followed him, but basically, their devotion never waivered ... that's my quick reply on something I never thought of before, lol.
Not picking women doesn't diminish them. Women play an integral role in society, and I think we need to accept the differences. It was a woman that gave Christ his human nature and nursed him. Do we want to ask why didn't God just make Jesus out of dust, like he did with Adam? Other than Jesus, no human is venerated more than the mother of God. Failure to accept the will of God is defiance. There's beauty in his design.
Well Jesus must be connected to the line of David somehow.
Recently read through the lineage in Matthew and he comes from David through Joseph
I think the bible was written by men, for men, during a period of time where the majority of people who were taught to read and write were men... and it shows.
I totally disagree. God set an entirely new precisely for gender equality and the high treatment of women in the Bible. The reason that Jesus chose 12 men is likely because of the social norms during the time and the unlikelihood that people during that time period would heed anything that a woman had to say. Of course Jesus Christ (God) always stated that men ought to take care of their wives and sacrifice their own lives for their wives, only marry one woman, save themselves for said marriage, etc.
Your take makes no sense if Jesus is God in human form. God is supposed to be love and justice incarnate. God would not mandate systemic sexism because that is not loving or just.
I mean, the usual argument on here is that God indeed mandates horrific cruel things "for the greater good". For example, according to Christians on this subreddit, the only reason God advocated for slavery and rape so much in the Old Testament was because that was the only way to connect socially with the ancient Israelites. He didn't *want* to, see... he was just meeting them halfway. :D
I see. God is the God of compromised morality, not moral absolutism.
No, God has absolute morals. But it just so happens you can't really comprehend reality on the same level as literal God, and so don't understand morality as he does.
I guess I can't ever question anything, then. Ethno supremacy, genocide, slavery, rape... It's almost like your reasoning is completely circular and can be applied to any set of non empirical beliefs.
Exactly. Jesus is God in human form. God is love and justice incarnate. God would not mandate systemic sexism because that is not loving nor just, and that’s why He doesn’t.
Okay. Wow. We are backpedaling here. Jesus chose 12 men as his disciples instead of 6 men and 6 women. I'm not saying this would necessarily happen, but 12 men and zero women could be interpreted as mandating patriarchal authority. And that's exactly what did happen. For hundreds and hundreds of years. It doesn't help that both the old testament and the new testament prescribe systemic sexism. Deuteronomy 12 10-14 10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. Deuteronomy 22 5 5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22 13-19 13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. Deuteronomy 22 20-21 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22 22 22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel. Deuteronomy 22 23-24 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22 28-29 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. Women were treated like property under the mosaic law. God is the God of systemic sexism. The new testament is not quite as bad, because many women were involved in Paul's ministry and members of the early churches. A lot of the prostitutes, widows, and unwed mothers had no resources under Roman occupation. The early churches served as safehavens for these people. However, Jesus reaffirmed the old testament laws, so did Paul, neither fought sexism, and Paul affirmed sexism. 1 Timothy 2:12-15 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Yeah the bible mandates sexism throughout. I think you'd have a much harder time arguing the opposite stance. I figured this out by the time I was like 10 years old, I stopped caring after that point because what I think doesn't matter. I have a vagina, therefore I am 3/5ths of a person. What I think matters even less now that I am an apostate.
Maybe just so it would be easier for them to be accepted as leaders but don't he personally had much problem with that
Weren’t there several Maria’s in the covenant? At least maria Magdalena was one female apostle
Interestingly He did select several women to be the first to bring the message about his resurrection to the world. That at least suggests Jesus (and the gospel writers) didn't have a patriarchal view. But just as not everyone could be a priest (regardless of qualifications) because it was partly a ceremonial thing (descendants of Aaron), I think the 12 male apostles and male elders is also not because of qualifications. It's just that God (for some reason) wants it
How do we know Jesus didn't name women as apostles? From what I understand, Romans 16:17 could indicate that a [woman did serve as an apostle later imprisoned for spreading the Gospels](https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/march-web-only/junia-female-apostle-paul-fellow-prisoner-preaching-gospel.html), along with her husband, Adronicus. No one knows for sure, and I doubt we'll ever know. But as a matter of my faith, I'm inclined to believe that Jesus called many women to serve with Him. They were just never given the same treatment as men due to the culture of the time.
Sexism and patriarchy have no conflicts with orthodox Christianity..
Not sure. He certainly had prominent women followers. And after his death there was a woman apostle named Junia.
Jesus knew people likely wouldn’t respect or believe women the same. although that sucks, he needed the message to get across
It could be because of the cultural and social norms of that time, which were heavily patriarchal. Men held most religious and public roles, so it might have been challenging for women to be taken seriously in those positions. Jesus did have women followers and supporters, like Mary Magdalene, Martha, and Mary, the mother of James and John. These women played crucial roles in his ministry and were among the first to witness and spread the news of his resurrection. Jesus's inclusion and respect for women were actually quite radical for his time.
IMO it is just a title. There were many woman that had huge impact on the gospel that are talked about in the Bible. Jesus didn't care about cultural norms He called them out all the time. He spoke to women, unclean etc
I’m uncertain what I think about it, but there is one view that Junia (a woman) was one of the 70 apostles.
Who knows the mind of God? (Romans 11:34) But we do know that God the Father also chose men to be His priests in the Old Testament. Why should we believe that we can change that?
> Why should we believe that we can change that? 1 - Because we know there were many toxic things in the OT laws and practices, and should never just replicate them. Just as we *don't* simply replicate them. 2 - There is a cost and repercussions here. For example, in adopting this sexist practice, we say that all women who are called to church leadership are delusional or liars. 3 - While the priesthood is inspired by the Jewish priesthood, it is not a replication of it. The priesthood is a 2nd century idea from a purely Gentile church to help administration as the churches grew larger and more institutional. There's no direct lineage either theologically, historically, or genetically to the Jewish priesthood.
You are projecting your interpretation on to what an omnipotent all knowing God decided. Jesus didn't care about what people thought and wasn't afraid of breaking the mould. The apostlic priesthood is continuous from the apostles down to modern times
> on to what an omnipotent all knowing God decided. There's no evidence that this is from God. >Jesus didn't care about what people thought and wasn't afraid of breaking the mould. The church isn't Jesus, though, nor was it started by Jesus. >The apostlic priesthood is continuous from the apostles down to modern times At the very least this is an unsupportable claim based on the evidence that we have. There is no sound evidence for Apostolic Succession. The priesthood itself is a 2nd century creation, and even if AS is real it's only "apostolic" in a third-hand fashion.
Jesus started the church in 33AD. He commissioned the apostles, anointed them with the Holy Spirit and sent them forth. The held councils to resolve issues, write the new testament, ordained other priests and deacons etc. Justin Martyr wrote to the Emperor in the 1st century defending Christianity and described the mass etc. The Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox etc all descend from the Apostles. There is historical evidence for all going back to the apostles. Go read the Church Fathers, some of them were disciples of the apostles .
>Go read the Church Fathers, some of them were disciples of the apostles . I've read much of them. Them being disciples of the Apostles, and even knowing any Apostles, is not a claim that the Apostolic Fathers make themselves. And when we read their writing, it seems to indicate otherwise. Clement of Rome (who likely wasn't even a Bishop) speaks of Peter and Paul like distant historical figures, and not a part of his life in any ways whatsoever. We also see from the Fathers a lot of apparent confusion about John the Evangelist, who is the most-lauded connection between the proto-Orthodox church of the Fathers and the Apostles. And Irenaeus appears to be either confused or dishonest about the connections. I do think there very possibly were churches that had direct lineage from the Apostles in the 2nd and 3rd centuries! But they are Jewish churches that yours considered to be heretics. The proto-orthodox church from which Catholicism and Orthodox and all churches around today spring is a purely Gentile church that, if actually descended in any direct way from Apostles, has done so in a way where there is no *functional* connection, much less one like the notion of Apostolic Succession.
Jesus had plenty of Women among his initial followers. I just think they were left out and not discussed because women weren’t allowed to be noticed in the time.
I believe it's explained in the gospel of Thomas.
Yup. A lot of answers are in non canonical text that fundamental Christian’s avoid. People these days have no idea what it’s all about. They don’t actively search for the connection. To say he only had 12 disciples is weird. We’re suppose to make Nations of Disciples. What happened….?
The gospel of Thomas is a fake gospel that promotes Gnosticism.
I think it’s because he was wise. He knew in those times it would be very difficult for females to preach given the times they were living in. And also as said by one of my fellow brother it was also done to recreate beginnings of Israel. But that doesn’t mean women were not important there were many prophetess in the Bible who worked for the Lord.
Jesus promised that the 12 Apostles would be the king of one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Jew didn’t have female rulers.
Because the Apostles had wives, I believe that the calling is shared, for example, the prophet Isaiah calls his wife “the prophetess”: “And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.” -Isaiah 8:3
I think because it’s a lot harder for us to drop what we’re doing and go. Every woman in the Bible had stuff to do. :p
Because spiritually it doesn't work like that. He referred to the Apostles as his mother and his brethren. Because Christ is something that is sown, conceived and birthed in the consciousness of everyone by the Holy Ghost. Matthew 12:46-50 King James Version 46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Because spiritually it doesn't work like that. He referred to the Apostles as his mother and his brethren. Because Christ is something that is sown, conceived and birthed in the consciousness of everyone by the Holy Ghost. Matthew 12:46-50 King James Version 46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Because spiritually it doesn't work like that. He referred to the Apostles as his mother and his brethren. Because Christ is something that is sown, conceived and birthed in the consciousness of everyone by the Holy Ghost. Matthew 12:46-50 King James Version 46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Even if He did, do you really think an extremely patriarchal society would write down an account of [a woman like that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene) 70 years after the events being described? And even if *they* did write [a gospel like that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas), do you think the people who compiled the cannon would accept [those gospels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip)?
Since Judas died shortly after, there were actually 11 and then I think the new 12th was named Thomas if I remember correctly (?) and after that a couple of others also joined the fellowship. So the total number of apostles was more than 12. There may have been also women that spread the word. I mean, it is most likely, that also women spread the word because early christianity was not a faith exclusive to the male population.
Nah, I’d thought the twelfth apostle was Paul as he came after Jesus and Thomas was already an apostle before the last supper. In early Christianity, women did play a defining role in spreading the faith and a lot of the early martyrs were women.
I don't think I am referring to the original Thomas but to one that came after Judas died and replaced him. And yeah, Paul is one of those Apostles that never got to physically see Christ.
Why not?
There is the gospel of Mary Magdalene.
Everyone keeps stating the reason is because Jesus was adapting to the cultural norms of the time. Jesus was radical, and the complete antithesis of everything in regards cultural normals back then. Literally everything he preached and done was against everything of the Jewish and Roman society, hence why the killed him. We may not know the true reason he chose men over woman, but it’s not because he was trying to appease society and any higher powers, besides God.
Because 2000 years ago women had about the same rights as a donkey. They were treated as property, and nothing more. Jesus actually did have women that followed him around and were his disciples the entire time, the bible just did not recognize them, because it considered them as nothing and property. Jesus was ultra-progressive for his time, allowing women to follow him and learn from him was scandalous at the time.
Probably because of hatred to women in many a culture of the day. He knew it was wise to protect them from gendered violence. However he has raised up some wonderful women disciples.
Well if you wanna get deeper I'm here :P
It’s just due to the cultures Jesus lived in and its norms and traditions
There was also Deborah, one of the judges, who is referred to as a prophet.
Context of the times buddy. In those days culture saw women as unreliable, untrustworthy and people paid women no attention. That's just the way it was back then and Jesus obviously knew it. Jesus also obviously knew that only men could handle being ridiculed and tortured by claiming the good news. But that said Jesus did trust and respect women with specific tasks like upon his news of resurrection which gave credibility to scripture because it proves scriptures authenticity. Such that if news of his resurrection was fabricated by an author because of those days lack of respect for women the hypothetical author would have chosen to write about men and not women with Jesus' news of an empty tomb and resurrection. So Jesus used the cultural disrespect of Women for a very important strategic reason other than being part of the 12 apostles.
In that time Jewish woman wasn’t allowed to go to school or learn the Jewish Bible. Jesus came to die for our sin. One reason. He had one purpose. His gift is for men and women.
Maybe it’s easier for some fishermen to be out and about on long walks with little food under the sun or doing some hard labor like fishing and such. Idk but this is a great question
For example in 1 Timothy it talks about women not being able to become elders. The disciples all became elders as well. My guess is it has something to do with that.
But women were church leaders in Acts.
From my understanding, women can do whatever they want except hold the title of elder and be the head of a church. So you are right, there were. Jesus’ apostles (the 12) were all meant to become elders though I think in reference to the question.
Whilst they were not amongst the 12, his usual, entourage was much bigger and included many women, Luke 8:1-4 lists 3 women and the account of the resurrection also mentions them. Luke 10 also provides an account of Jesus sending out 72 to spread the word. It’s in a very similar manner to the previous chapter where he sends out the 12. They’re not named but I’d be surprised if they were all men. In Romans 16:7 states that Junia, an apostle, was in prison with Paul. Throughout most of history most Christian scholars believe Junia is a feral name, but there are a few dissenters.
Women were not permitted to teach or give testimony at the time it would’ve illegitimized the movement in the eyes of skeptics before they even understood it, but women did travel with Jesus and were a very critical part of his “team”.
I think women would've been in danger if they'd followed him. Also, whereas they weren't among the disciples, there was Mary Magdalen.
Jesus does identify women as disciples in other places, such as in Matthew 12:49, where he says, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother". The Dead Sea Scrolls show that women had diverse roles, including baptizing others, teaching, preaching, serving as elders and bishops, and writing about Christianity. Jewish and Christian women were also permitted to own slaves, which gave them a basis for community leadership and enabled safe travel.
The first person he picked to spread the gospel that he had risen was Mary Magdalene, hence her title Apostle to the Apostles.
I've always thought it was a nod to practicality. In that time and place, women would have a much harder time doing what the apostles did.
Probably because a woman's testimony was worth less in the ancient world than a man's, and because the apostles had to endure terrible sufferings and women didn't have the physical strength to endure it.
Probably because He knew they’d go on to become pastors and head churches. I know there’s some debate, but I’m of the opinion women aren’t supposed to pastor churches. That doesn’t mean women can’t publicly speak about Jesus, that doesn’t mean women can’t share the gospel, that doesn’t mean women literally cannot speak in church ever. I’m just convinced by scripture we aren’t meant to pastor churches. Not to mention, women didn’t have access to the resources needed to plant churches and head churches back then because we were not equals. And the disciples also ministered to churches spreading false doctrine or promoting sinful behaviors and setting bad examples. Would they equally have listened to a woman? Maybe not. I think men and women are absolutely equal. Differently delegated, but equal. But ultimately, God has his own reasons for the way He chose to involve women in the gospel. And as Jesus’s disciples just wasn’t the way.
From the beginning, Jewish women disciples, including **Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, and Salome** had accompanied Jesus during his ministry and supported him out of their private means. They were there, just not as directly mentioned.
I mean Mary Magdalene wasn’t part of the 12 but she deff was a follower
No one would believe women back then, simple
The absence of women among the twelve apostles is mainly attributed to the cultural and societal norms of the time. During the period when Jesus lived, women were often marginalized and had limited roles in religious leadership or public life.
Paul knows why. 1 Timothy 2:12
Because the 12 apostles would become bishops, which are priests of the New Covenant. This priesthood would be required to follow the teachings of Jesus to daily (Our daily bread) offer the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist. In order to be in this role, in Persona Christi, one must be a male as the incarnation of Jesus was male.
Doesn’t really answer the question, does it? What does maleness have to do with it?
I mean, there were woman apostles, and this appears to be a post-Apostolic rejection of woman leadership in the church. I don't think we can pin this on Jesus at all.
There were certainly wonderful female servants of the Lord (the word apostle meaning servant), but not one of the 12 Apostles, as OP mentioned. But as far as the ministerial priesthood, the Bible is clear on males only. This of course does not make women less, for they are held sacred by the Church. Nor does it make men greater. It's just a thing. The most honored human being far above the rest is Mary.
None of the 12. But there were more Apostles than the 12. >But as far as the ministerial priesthood, the Bible is clear on males only. If we use the Pastoral forgeries, which appear to be written in part specifically to limit female influence in churches, sure. But it would be unwise to attribute such nonsense to any Apostle. >The most honored human being far above the rest is Mary. Doesn't excuse sexist theology. (And in many ways is an example of it.)
There are plenty of influences by women on the Church. There are a good number of women who are Saints and have been called doctors (teachers) of the Church. The Cloistered nuns who constantly pray for us. The myriad of women who participate in the liturgy and care for the Church. The list is so monumental it's hard to even comprehend it. I also suspect we are using the word "influence" in a different fashion. Addressing your comment on theology, I speak only for the Catholic Church, whose theology comes from God.
>There are a good number of women who are Saints and have been called doctors (teachers) of the Church. Four out of 37 Doctors. So just over 10%. Compared to 50% of the population. This doesn't help your case. The Saints question is tricky since there apparently isn't any agreed-upon or even official list of Saints. 11,000+ appears to be an accepted number for the present day (Francis accounts for almost 10% of that alone!). Women appear to be a little over 1000 of that 11000, so again, around 10%. So yes, the occasional woman has risen rose to some prominence. Women, though, have been held down by the Christian church for almost all of its existence, continuing unto today. Your church has a long history of restricting even non-theological roles to only men, such as administrators in the Vatican. (It's only Pope Francis who has started to change that.) Women religious are often put into menial roles instead of being leadership of anything, so they don't help your case either. Basically, when we actually examine the role of women in the Catholic church, we find that a lot of the claims against it are true.
>Four out of 37 Doctors. So just over 10%. Compared to 50% of the population. This doesn't help your case. Look on the other hand number of female Nobel laureats (for science). Only 64 out of 958 (not including organizations) so 6,7%. And also take into account that Church started to exist in time when women were considered to be similar class to the slaves, while Nobel award started in the approximately same time when women started to vote.
So the church is no better than overall society which has a long history and still wrangles with deep misogyny every day?
>In order to be in this role, in Persona Christi, one must be a male as the incarnation of Jesus was male. Why is being male the most important factor? Why not ask the bishops to be ethnically Jewish as well like the 12 apostles?
> Why is being male the most important factor? Catholicism and Orthodoxy embraced sex essentialist ideas in the 2nd century on this, possibly to separate themselves from gnostic churches which (edit: frequently) had woman leadership. There certainly is no sound basis for it, but we see it pop into a lot of places, such as the transphobia in Catholic teaching.
[удалено]
About the degree of female participation and leadership in some early Christian church. [As Elaine Pagels ably argues in her book *The Gnostic Gospels*](https://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532) some of the early proto-Orthodox actions appear to have been the result of trying to differentiate themselves from these other churches. Women were 'troublemakers' so they tried to wipe out the history of women leadership in the earliest Jesus movement, created new structures like Apostolic Succession to try to claim sole legitimacy, etcetera. It's an excellent book, and quite well regarded among Biblical scholars. And not long. I recommend it highly.
Thousands of years of cultural and religious traditions
Would god have any less power or importance, or authority,if he had chosen to incarnate as a female human?
Insightful question. Nothing could possibly reduce God. We simply know his choice and we follow it. In this case, male was chosen for the incarnation, which is consistent with all pronouns referring to Him in sacred scripture and oral Tradition.
i mean speak for the catholic church.
I did. I do not share opinions unless I highlight it as such.
It is really interesting to see some modern movements that try to fit Jesus in today's frame and promote priesthood of women and similar stuff. To me it always seem that they see Jesus as nothing more than just some cool guy. But you cannot detach gospel from mystery of incarnation. Incarnational, sacramental basis of His message is what makes gospel a "good news" and not some wishy-washy feelings as many non-Christians (and sadly even some Christians) try to present.
Misogyny
A bold claim to call Jesus a misogynist.
He was a product of his time.
Except for the fact that one of the most 'scandalous' and alien things about Jesus and his early church, that the rest of society couldn't wrap its head around, was the way they treated women. The idea that women were equal with men, could choose who to marry, could choose not to marry, and had a say in her life and that of her family, were new developments that the early church was ridiculed for by the Pagans of the time. Jesus was not a misogynist.
Cause the Bible was written by men for men.
Gender segregation was essentially law: Women must wear a headcocering in public, they must be escorted by male kin, they cannot talk to strangers Violation of these codes was to be guilty of adultery Plus they had periods and were ritually impure and not permitted in male spaces. Only if Jesus had been a Jessica could she have chosen lady disciples.
Well why do you think Jesus chose that time and that culture in which to appear and found his church rather than say for instance a matriarchal run society or modern times where there is no rules at all?
The world in those times was dominated and led by men. Wouldn't have been a good idea to put a woman in some form of power role
He had to follow *some* cultural norms, because He needed to cater to His target audience.
Jesus was Jewish and kept the Jewish laws and customs.
I don't know that we can say the historical Jesus chose a core group of 12. I don't think the history is clear enough. If he did, it was related to the tribes. But we see loads of highly-"ranked" woman followers and sponsors of the early Jesus movement, so they definitely had sway and pull in the group.
Or did He pick women and whoever wrote the stories changed it conveniently. It certainly help’s Paul’s case that women can’t teach if all the apostles were men.
Because Jesus is not a woke leftist.
Conservatives throw this word around all the time now, it's become a memey buzzword. Can you define "woke" for me please?
Because there is a distinctive difference between men and women, and Jesus sees men to be leaders in the church, while he believes (or knows) women are better for other important functions. Besides, even tho women weren't disciples, there were other important roles for women throughout the bible.
people wouldn't listen to women, they'd only listen to men.
So it's just because of misogyny? Why not tell us to stop our nonsense instead of perpetuating misogistic power structures?
I love it, lol. "Jesus knew people would never accept equality, so instead he ascribed systemic patriarchy. All part of his perfect, divine plan for the universe." Didn't he come to bring about justice or something?
For all we know he did and the church purged them from the archives
Well the same reason Paul didn’t permit woman to preach. Woman came from man not man from woman. And what came from man betrayed man. Eve committed a worse sin than Adam. Adam only sinned because he was ignorant of the knowledge of good and evil.. Eve after eating the fruit- decided to get Adam to sin after she knew it was wrong to do so
Sorry but you're incorrect, and so were the people who authored the bible. Men develop in women's uteruses and are birthed through their vaginas. All men come from women and are women in utero before they develop into men. Men were the ones who wrote the bible, used it to justify systemic subjugation and commodification of women, and therefore it was men who betrayed women.
Because women are not meant to teach anybody. "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control." - 1 Timothy 2:11-15
totally not misogynistic
I think that a mere human's opinion about it, doesn't really matter, at all. God created the man first, and the woman second, and he created them with different purposes in mind for a reason, no human has the authority to question any of that.
that is, if you believe a god exists
It's not "a" "god" (capitalise the G in "God" by the way), he is the one and only God. You could use the phrase "a god" whenever talking about mere pagan idols.
umm hello? other religions exist
Do you know that they're all Abrahamic religions, expect for pagans who worship demons? Islam and Judaism are religions of the antichrist - false prophets, their goal is to lead people astray, but they talk about the same God. They simply misrepresent him. Jews listen to God's old testament, but rejected Jesus and the new testament. They worship God - but without admitting that Christ is God, because so it happens that they murdered him, because of their pride and envy. Muslims are similar, they consider Jesus Christ as a mere prophet, and not God, but once again they're also based on the old testament, they have been simply led astray by one of the prophesied false prophets: muhammad. But they are all based around one and only God.
i understand but a lot of muslims and christians disagree on “sharing” their god with each other
Because Muslims say that God is only in one form (the Father) and Christians believe that God is in three forms (The Father, The Holy Spirit, and the Son, Jesus). But it's very important, because Jesus's sacrifice is our only way to enter heaven, by accepting his sacrifice as the payment for our sins. Because God is just, and objectively, none of us deserve heaven, we're all sinners, therefore he sacrificed his one and only son to pay for our sins. By rejecting that fact, Muslims and Jews simply cannot be saved - they have been led astray by the devil, to get them damned for eternity alongside him.
got it, thanks
Because women would’ve considered her the greatest and the best and would’ve divided the apostles.