Jesus was routinely controversial and counter-cultural. So why didn’t He confront the misogyny and patriarchy of His day when He chose His disciples? It was a perfect opportunity. But He didn’t choose a single female. The absence of female disciples is seen as an indication that it was not His will that women be in leadership. But, can the absence of an action signify anything? After all, He did not confront culture on the issues of slavery and polygamy. If it was His will that women be elevated to places of leadership, why were there no female disciples?
Well, first of all, there were female disciples.
“‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.'” Matt. 12:48-50
In a Middle Eastern cultural context, a speaker who gestures to a crowd of men cannot say, “Here are my brother and sister and mother,” but would say, “Here are my brother, and uncle, and cousin.”(1) This text affirms that Jesus is gesturing toward his disciples whom he addresses with male and female terms.
“Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.” Luke 8:1-3
Jesus was traveling through cities with a group of men and women. This implies that they were spending night after night in strange villages. Though today’s standards are more relaxed than they were in the 1st century, even in contemporary Middle Eastern cultures, this social scene isn’t possible. If women travel with a group of men they must spend the night with relatives.(2) It’s highly unlikely that all these women had relatives in each town through which they traveled. Despite the fact that this is so counter-cultural, Luke, a man, admits it in his writing. He doesn’t try to hide it. Furthermore, he tells us that these women were paying for the movement out of resources that were within their own control. The pronoun “many” is the feminine derivative and refers to “many women.” These many women, who were disciples of Jesus, were funding Jesus ministry and traveling with Him as His disciples.
But, he didn’t have any named female disciples. Women were not among those he called. Yes he did have at least one name female disciple…and while she wasn’t called, he affirmed her place as His disciple even though she was stepping outside the culturally accepted role of women.
In Luke 10, we read that Jesus entered the house of Martha, and “she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching.” To “sit at the feet” of a rabbi meant that one was a disciple of that rabbi. Mary had neglecting to fulfill the role of a woman and taken the role of a man! Luke says Martha was “distracted with much serving.” This isn’t about Martha wanting help cutting up the vegetables or setting the table. In her Middle Eastern culture, she is upset over the fact that her sister is seated with the men and has become a disciple. Mary is not in her God-ordained role! And Martha is horrified! “How dare she! Women are not supposed to be disciples! That’s for men, not for women!! What will everyone think??!! Someone needs to remind her where she belongs!” Indignant, Martha appeals to Jesus, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone?” In other words, “Don’t you care that she’s not staying in her place…in the kitchen….rather than out here with the men?!” But, Jesus says that Mary has chosen the good and it won’t be taken from her. In a culture that believes teaching women the law was akin to teaching them obscenity(3), Jesus defends Mary’s choice to be His disciple, sit at His feet and learn. He affirms her decision to go against culture, step outside her expected role as a woman, and do that which was culturally viewed as a “man’s place.”
OK, yes, Jesus did have female disciples. But…they weren’t named among “The Twelve.”
No, they weren’t. But it had nothing to do with denying women a place in leadership roles. While Jesus was counter-cultural and controversial, confronting everything amiss in the culture was not what He was on earth to do. A large majority of the times He confronted culture it was a confrontation against the Old Covenant system, the religious leaders and their hypocrisy. His purpose was to establish a New Covenant and a New Kingdom, one which fulfilled the type and shadow of the Old Covenant and Old Kingdom. That kingdom was founded upon the 12 tribes of Israel. The 12 named disciples corresponded to the 12 tribes. Jesus was making a prophetic statement to the Jewish people, and specifically the religious leaders. To the Jews, the number 12 represented the government of God’s kingdom. Jesus was establishing a new government…a new kingdom. This new government, new kingdom, was to be a fulfillment of the types and shadows found in old one. Down to the very last detail.
“By selecting these men, whom the Bible refers to as ‘the Twelve,’ He was saying to the rabbis and Pharisess that He was creating a ‘new Israel.’ Even as the twelve tribes crossed the Jordan River from the wilderness and conquered Canaan, settling in the land and establishing the ancient kingdom of Israel, so would these Twelve–representing the new message of salvation in Jesus Christ–establish a new and enduring kingdom that would endure forever.”(4)
John uses this prophetic imagery in his description of the New Jerusalem:
“It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates…and on the gates the names of the twelve sons of Israel were inscribed….And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” Rev. 21:12,14
By choosing men, and not women, to serve as His disciples, He was not making a sexist statement, nor was He denying women a future role in the building of His kingdom. He was, as He often did, using prophetic symbolism as a means to reach the Jews with His message. And that message was that He was sent by the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to call them to a new and living way of salvation. The establishment of His Kingdom and the inauguration of the New Covenant was the fulfillment of the types and shadows found in the establishment of the Old Kingdom and the Old Covenant. Just as Old Jerusalem was founded on the 12 patriarchs, the New Jerusalem was founded on the 12 disciples.
Furthermore, this New Kingdom had a new credential system. There was no place in this new kingdom for hierarchy. Forever expunged was the man-made notion that sons were the only ones to receive an inheritance or have authority in the name of the father. In this Kingdom, no longer would race, socio-economic status, or gender determine one’s place, “...for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith….there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female…”(Gal 3:26, 28)
We are all sons…we are all chosen…we are all of Israel. We are all disciples who have been commissioned to serve, vested with the authority of the King, and mandated to go and make disciples.
Endnotes:
1. Bailey, Kenneth E. 2008. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 192.
2. ibid. p. 193
3. Mishnah Sotah 3:4
4. Grady, J.Lee. 2006. 10 Lies the Church Tells Women. (Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House), p. 50