Why did Jesus choose 12 men.

[ViaCrucis]

Zero Scripture ???

1 Cor 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.

Recall verse 16, that such things as head coverings are neither apostolic nor ecclesiastical custom. After all, in Jewish custom things are reversed--men are to have their heads covered in prayer, but no such expectation is placed upon women.

The entire passage here between 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is somewhat strange, it falls sandwiched between the Apostle's discourse about the Lord's Table and avoiding false worship and, again, about the Lord's Table and the proper reverence of the Eucharist.

It kind of begs the question: What is Paul talking about, and why does he shift gears to insert this whole parenthetical statement about head coverings/headship?

Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to remember what the Apostle says in verse 16. And, further here, to be very careful, if we assume that verse 3 somehow presents a kind of hierarchical arrangement the result is some form of Subordinatism--which is heretical.

So it is worth asking, what does it even mean to speak of "being head" here? How is God the Father the head of Christ? How is Christ the head of every man? And thus, how is the husband the head of the wife?

I wonder if we might not have some clue, here, in verse 12, "for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God."

The Son is certainly from the Father, by His eternal generation.
And by Christ all things were made, including Adam.
And from Adam Eve was made.

Though I would submit here that, at least in part, St. Paul is subverting the expectations of his audience. It's why by the time he gets to verse 16 he points out that such things are not the apostolic and ecclesiastical custom. It's not exactly the only time the Apostle plays on his audience's expectations only to subvert them, he does this same thing in Romans chapters 1&2.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

One thing I have noticed is that when a married woman takes a pastoral role in the church there is confusion regarding leadership in the family.

The moment things become about power there's already a problem in the family dynamic.

The moment the husband thinks he's the boss, it's dysfunctional already. The husband isn't the boss, he's a partner. And is tasked with submitting to and loving his wife and children, and being a servant to his family in humble and lowly imitation of Christ who gave His life for the Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

Recall verse 16, that such things as head coverings are neither apostolic nor ecclesiastical custom. After all, in Jewish custom things are reversed--men are to have their heads covered in prayer, but no such expectation is placed upon women.

The entire passage here between 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is somewhat strange, it falls sandwiched between the Apostle's discourse about the Lord's Table and avoiding false worship and, again, about the Lord's Table and the proper reverence of the Eucharist.

It kind of begs the question: What is Paul talking about, and why does he shift gears to insert this whole parenthetical statement about head coverings/headship?

Nevertheless, it seems worthwhile to remember what the Apostle says in verse 16. And, further here, to be very careful, if we assume that verse 3 somehow presents a kind of hierarchical arrangement the result is some form of Subordinatism--which is heretical.

So it is worth asking, what does it even mean to speak of "being head" here? How is God the Father the head of Christ? How is Christ the head of every man? And thus, how is the husband the head of the wife?

I wonder if we might not have some clue, here, in verse 12, "for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God."

The Son is certainly from the Father, by His eternal generation.
And by Christ all things were made, including Adam.
And from Adam Eve was made.

Though I would submit here that, at least in part, St. Paul is subverting the expectations of his audience. It's why by the time he gets to verse 16 he points out that such things are not the apostolic and ecclesiastical custom. It's not exactly the only time the Apostle plays on his audience's expectations only to subvert them, he does this same thing in Romans chapters 1&2.

-CryptoLutheran

You are mistaken regarding Orthodox Jewish beliefs. This article may assist your understanding - Sheitel - Wikipedia

 

[bekkilyn]

One thing I have noticed is that when a married woman takes a pastoral role in the church there is confusion regarding leadership in the family.

Typically, someone in a pastoral role is still living in the same house with the rest of their family, and can continue to give input when decisions need to be made or help out with household tasks or whatever it is they normally do in that family, so not sure why there would be confusion.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You are mistaken regarding Orthodox Jewish beliefs. This article may assist your understanding - Sheitel - Wikipedia

I'm not referring to wigs though, but to head coverings, such as the kippah.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No, rather, no matter what happens in the 'real world' (all society),
there is ALWAYS opposition to the Lord's Words. Men (society/ the world/ the flesh/ uncircumcised hearts) are unable to please the Creator and society is always pernicious - only the remnant is ALIVE and HEALING.

When something goes awfully wrong in the real world, there's often a misinterpretation of the Lord's Words.

========================================================
No again,
when true Christians in China DO what the Father in Heaven Says to DO, as Jesus Instructs us disciples,
they are persecuted, arrested, mocked, beaten, robbed, imprisoned, and martyred.
If you happen to see true Christians DO what the Father Says to DO, in any country practically if not actually, you will likewise see them like sheep led to the slaughter....
and put to death daily....

RE "... no place in that society" ... the Bible says all society is pernicious (evil, wicked, death dealing),
not a good place , not kind, not healing, and not leading to truth - rather attempting to drag everyone down to destruction and to keep /prevent/ anyone from finding Yahweh's Kingdom in Jesus.

If all Christians actually did according to the correct interpretation of the Bible, our world today would be a paradise, there would be no crime, no poverty, no injustice, and we'll be living among the stars by now (our technology would be far more advanced and ignorance would have no place in that society).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

One thing I have noticed is that when a married woman takes a pastoral role in the church there is confusion regarding leadership in the family.

I noticed something more difficult to realize also - whenever anyone went along with that paradigm, and it was not God's Plan, Purpose or Will, rather was opposed to His Direction,
then there is confusion and lack of discernment about Truth in many things or even in everything.

 

[Carl Emerson]

It kind of begs the question: What is Paul talking about, and why does he shift gears to insert this whole parenthetical statement about head coverings/headship?

I am guessing this will not go down well but here goes...

3But 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. 4Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

The woman is to have a 'symbol of authority on her head because of the angels.'

It has been my view and experience that if a man in marriage ceases to love his wife - his prayer will be blocked. This is supported in scripture.

If a women ceases to respect her husbands leadership she will miss out on the blessing of angelic protection. This can have serious consequences as it is when the husband does not love his wife.

Now we have folk here wanting to vehemently deny the truth of male leadership in marriage because of abuses.
This is not surprising.
What we need to see though is a return to righteous loving leadership through the husband in marriage and in that case there will be no lack of respect reciprocated by the wife.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Sorry, mostly right till this... but here, no.
The husband could live as righteously as anyone did in the Scripture,
and his wife still not respect him
(remember King David's wife who was made barren , her womb closed by Yahweh,
for disrespecting King David?)

A husband, and a wife, and anyone single, to be a disciple/follower of Jesus, must be holy, regardless of how they are treated by anyone.

What we need to see though is a return to righteous loving leadership through the husband in marriage and in that case there will be no lack of respect reciprocated by the wife.

 

[bekkilyn]

In case anyone is wondering what this supposed "biblical marriage" we are all supposed to return to looks like:

(Women had even less status in areas of Greece, so this description of Rome is actually pretty liberal by comparison, but the family structure is the same.)

Ancient Roman Family Life

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am guessing this will not go down well but here goes...

3But 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. 4Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

The woman is to have a 'symbol of authority on her head because of the angels.'

It has been my view and experience that if a man in marriage ceases to love his wife - his prayer will be blocked. This is supported in scripture.

By all means, please show Scripture that says prayers can be blocked.

If a women ceases to respect her husbands leadership she will miss out on the blessing of angelic protection. This can have serious consequences as it is when the husband does not love his wife.

And you base idea this on...?

Now we have folk here wanting to vehemently deny the truth of male leadership in marriage because of abuses.
This is not surprising.
What we need to see though is a return to righteous loving leadership through the husband in marriage and in that case there will be no lack of respect reciprocated by the wife.

I deny the error of male superiority, and the idea that as Christians our inter-personal relationships should be dominated by the same ungodly and wayward principles as we see in the world. Our relationships are based not on power but sacrifice. We come to one another in weakness. As fellow servants.

Men love glory and abhor the cross. This should not be.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Carl Emerson]

Sorry, mostly right till this... but here, no.
The husband could live as righteously as anyone did in the Scripture,
and his wife still not respect him
(remember King David's wife who was made barren , her womb closed by Yahweh,
for disrespecting King David?)

A husband, and a wife, and anyone single, to be a disciple/follower of Jesus, must be holy, regardless of how they are treated by anyone.

I agree but the issue you raise occurs when there is an unequal yoke.

 

[Carl Emerson]

By all means, please show Scripture that says prayers can be blocked.



And you base idea this on...?



I deny the error of male superiority, and the idea that as Christians our inter-personal relationships should be dominated by the same ungodly and wayward principles as we see in the world. Our relationships are based not on power but sacrifice. We come to one another in weakness. As fellow servants.

Men love glory and abhor the cross. This should not be.

-CryptoLutheran

1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as a delicate vessel, and with honor as fellow heirs of the gracious gift of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

The woman is to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels.

So there are consequences if either partner loses respect for the other.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I'll tell you what doesn't seem right: to disqualify 53% of the church from earning positions of leadership solely on the basis of gender based primarily on their interpretation of one verse, 1 Tim 2:12, which most likely doesn't even refer to church leadership at all.

I agree it doesn’t seem right. But if there are things aren’t clear shouldn’t we just say we don’t know? I mean it really isn’t that hard for me. I honestly don’t know what Paul meant. I choose to treat people equally period. I never claimed to be right about what scripture says Or doesn’t say. Now if it’s 100% clear then obviously we have no problem. But a lot of places people are just getting so emotional about it that they are literally going with what they think. This is a problem because we don’t all think the same. And we would do fine to go with what we think if at the same time we weren’t claiming to know what Jesus or Paul was implying when it doesn’t say in scripture.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Yes. That is, for example, why we have Creeds, and why we have communities of teaching and interpretation (the Church).



What you are seeing is people looking at the whole picture - the whole of Scripture, the whole of what we know about the history of the Church, the whole of what we know through reason and the ongoing work of the Spirit within us - and saying, how do we put all of that together so that it makes sense and is life-giving?

Sometimes it doesn't make sense to take one or two verses, and interpret them in a way clearly opposed to St. Paul's own practice and words in other parts of Scripture. So, if Paul says in one place that women should be silent, but elsewhere clearly allows women to speak, pray, prophecy, teach, lead, etc... clearly that injunction to silence can't be the whole story. Interpreting it as if Paul meant all women, everywhere, forever is clearly not correct.

If that makes sense?

Makes perfect sense but I think sincerity calls for a person to admit they are unsure if they aren’t certain. If each of us are putting our heads together and come to a consensus we still could very well be wrong. And that’s ok. The problem is if we claim to know when we do not know. That is a problem. If I’m not certain what Paul meant because of differing scriptures why is it so hard to say I don’t know? Sure, go with what you think is best but being honest and letting others no I’m not sure seems best. Because the truth is we really don’t know if we’re making assumptions.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Stick to Scripture.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

It's not just assumptions though when you look at the historical context and the actual family structure of the time period and the issues that Paul was specifically addressing the churches. And then there is also the fact that there are actual female leaders of the churches that he personally praises, which he wouldn't do if he disapproved of female church leadership and just wanted women to stay home and make babies all day.

However, I do agree with you in the sense that there can be multiple ways of looking at various passages of scripture, but the problem is that there are plenty of people who believe that only their own interpretation is correct and that if you don't fully agree with them, then you are going against God. These are typically the very same people who are trying to use scripture as a weapon to put restrictions on other people and make themselves into obstacles to others who are attempting to respond to God's call on their lives.

Here is what I think. If your (and I'm using universal your, not you personally) interpretation of scripture does harm to other people, then it's not coming from God. Women have been physically and emotionally abused, raped, and even tortured and killed because of these harmful interpretations when there are other interpretations that are far more consistent with scripture's overall message that does harm to no one, but instead upholds the gospel (GOOD news) for everyone rather than good news for half and continued bad news and enslavement for the other half.

And when that bad news message isn't even considering the historical and cultural context of the times, and contradicts practically everything that Christ taught, something is seriously wrong with that interpretation.

Thank you! I get so worried posting sometimes that an argument will start but you have helped me with this and I’m thankful. Everyone else has been awesome as well! All
Love!!!!

 

[Carl Emerson]

Gregorikos said...

I'll tell you what doesn't seem right: to disqualify 53% of the church from earning positions of leadership solely on the basis of gender based primarily on their interpretation of one verse, 1 Tim 2:12, which most likely doesn't even refer to church leadership at all.
I agree it doesn’t seem right. But if there are things aren’t clear shouldn’t we just say we don’t know? I mean it really isn’t that hard for me. I honestly don’t know what Paul meant. I choose to treat people equally period. I never claimed to be right about what scripture says Or doesn’t say. Now if it’s 100% clear then obviously we have no problem. But a lot of places people are just getting so emotional about it that they are literally going with what they think. This is a problem because we don’t all think the same. And we would do fine to go with what we think if at the same time we weren’t claiming to know what Jesus or Paul was implying when it doesn’t say in scripture.

My response...
There are many verses that confirm this fact, not just one.
God does not treat the wife and husband in marriage the same.
They have different functions physically and spiritually.
Who are we to say what is fair.
He chooses 12 men to lead the church.
He loves and values all alike but has the prerogative to distribute gifts as He wills and appoint who He wills.
No man or woman should assume to be His counsellor.

 

[Lily76_]

maybe because of the 12 tribes of Israel

 

[Paidiske]

I agree it doesn’t seem right. But if there are things aren’t clear shouldn’t we just say we don’t know? I mean it really isn’t that hard for me. I honestly don’t know what Paul meant. I choose to treat people equally period. I never claimed to be right about what scripture says Or doesn’t say. Now if it’s 100% clear then obviously we have no problem. But a lot of places people are just getting so emotional about it that they are literally going with what they think. This is a problem because we don’t all think the same. And we would do fine to go with what we think if at the same time we weren’t claiming to know what Jesus or Paul was implying when it doesn’t say in scripture.

Ok, so, you don't know.

What then? If you don't know, and don't want to come to a conclusion, must women be excluded from leadership at home and in the church indefinitely?

Or can those of us who are certain go ahead with living our lives despite your uncertainty?

Makes perfect sense but I think sincerity calls for a person to admit they are unsure if they aren’t certain. If each of us are putting our heads together and come to a consensus we still could very well be wrong. And that’s ok. The problem is if we claim to know when we do not know. That is a problem. If I’m not certain what Paul meant because of differing scriptures why is it so hard to say I don’t know? Sure, go with what you think is best but being honest and letting others no I’m not sure seems best. Because the truth is we really don’t know if we’re making assumptions.

Nobody is saying that a person who is unsure may not say so. Of course they may.

But not everyone is unsure. I'm very confident in my position. I don't need to back away from that confidence because not everyone shares it.