Is there an inherent functional difference between the genders that God created, that gave rise to His choice.
If you believe this, can you give scriptural support for this assertion.
Or did Jesus just follow what was culturally appropriate?
Subsequent Apostles in the early church were also men.
My aim is not to be a protagonist - I am hoping for constructive respectful dialogue.
May His Love cover this thread.
I am a Complementarian (believe that Men and Women have unique roles in the Church). I have argued against Egalitarians a few times on some previous web sites, I don't buy the time dispensation argument that is typically made by Egalitarians..... (That the apostles had to tow the line of what would be considered acceptable for their day and time).
This time also is not that different from our own, when it comes to Roman and major urban centers. Years ago, I made probably a dozen parallels or so between the ancient Roman, Pre Christian world and the postmodern, Post Christian one. There are tons and tons of parallels like multiculturalism, political factions, Christianity under skepticism and suspicion, a mass entertainment industry, organized crime, popular support of pagan/ nature worship, consumer culture etc. The Romans and other major centers actually had a life style that was more modern in its way of life compared to what was typical even for some Americans going back to the early 1900s. E.G. - running water, living in multilevel apartments, fast food and restaurants etc. Medical care, for Roman soldiers and other folks who could afford it was much better than what people got during much of the premodern Christian age even in the US going back to the Cowboy era.
(the link is probably the best advocate of Egalitarianism, if you read who they read and cite that is).
Submission in Context: Christ and the Greco-Roman Household Codes
Jesus and the apostles said and did things that sounded like sedition and sometimes even treason (e.g. - not burning incense to Cesar, being King of the Jews), , and broke taboos etc. Holy Communion was not understood by the ancient Romans, their was an actual rumor for 2 Centuries that the Christians were actually eating the flesh of their leader in the Catacombs! Anyway if Jesus wanted full Egalitarianism then he could have easily done it back then.... Their is a English saying "In for a penny.... In for a Pound....". The Romans already believed the Christians were degenerate seditionists who were bringing on them curses/disasters from their own gods, adding complete social equity would not have been a big deal seeing how they were already bent to destroy them and Christians were already acting like voluntary Socialists in the Early Book of Acts! Not to mention, the Romans already were use to the idea of female clergy since many of their cults had them....
Jesus however
uses the same Typological pattern that was used in the Old Testament, when he preaches the New Covenant to Israel, with the 12 Apostles mirroring the 12 Patriarchs / Tribes.
And he does that also when it comes to the Church Body of 70 disciples, which mirrors the Sanhedrin, going back to Moses, which itself is a reference to Genesis 10 the Exact number of "Nations" / people Groups that existed in the Aftermath of the tower of Babel where God entrusts most of the Nations to the Watcher (Angels), as Biblical Scholar, Michael Heiser describes in the following article.
Psalm 82: Part Two - The Allotment of the Nations to the Watchers - Godawa
And if you go back in Church history that typological pattern was considered a model for the Church, and for good reason if you read saint Paul's epistles which preached that the Gospel "was preached" and exemplified by Israel in the OT. (Romans 9, Hebrews 4).
