I agree that women should be ordained.
I think Jesus meant for it to be so.
I think the biblical canon is probably lacking many books and stories that would have shown more female involvement and leadership, but these were not included in the official canon centuries later for various reasons.
Take the fragment that was found recently, quoting Jesus talking about Mary M, telling the other male disciplines she is “worthy” of the job.
In the catacombs in Rome, several paintings on the walls show women as priests wearing albs and as deacons.
Many NT scholars agree that in early Christianity in the first few centuries, women took leadership roles and gave out the Eucharist at home with their families.
But as the heirarchy and structure of the church was established, they were left behind. Perhaps it was Paul’s infamous words in his letter decades later about women not talking in church that snuffed them out.
And if Jesus did only choose men for apostles that one day, it may have been for other reasons.
Maybe he was worried for the women’s safety, that men would not accept listening to a woman (Paul!!!) and would stone them. He may have thought the road was too difficult for them. Or that it would be hard for them to be pregnant and preach at the same time. Or maybe on the day he chose the Apostles, there were no women nearby. The point is, he didn’t say why …so it could have been anything. And if it was the reasons above, these obstacles no longer exist…and no where, no time, did he say it was only to be men, and forever.
As many have pointed out, Jesus exalted women higher than most did in that day. After Jesus died, Mary Magdalene did go off and preach for the rest of her life. She was, in essence, a priest/preacher. Who knows what he would have done had he lived longer.
Why didn’t he make Mary his mother an Apostle? Well, maybe she didn’t want to be one, we don’t know. In that one scene in Mark 3 , she has many of Jesus’ brothers around her to take care of. She was needed at home. Also in that scene, he and Mary seem a bit at odds…
People have argued that the priest needs to be male because he is representing or embodying Jesus. Well, why would the sex parts be important here? There is nothing physical or sexual that a priest does in his duties that are gender-specific. It’s not as though the priest must impregnate a woman or anything. It is the soul and spirit that is important here.
I assume the women were present at that last Passover meal and partook of the bread and wine. I think all four gospels say he went for the meal with his “disciples” not apostles…and that includes women. Passover dinner is a very important ritual…Jesus was very Jewish…it’s not like he’s going to send the women out into the night on Passover.
When he gives out the bread and wine, the bible says it was to his disciples…not his apostles, even tho just the 12 Apostles are mentioned in other moments to differentiate just them.
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
The two Marys–his mother and Magdalena, were with him from start to finish–at birth and at death–as women often do. Mary Magdalena even helped to fund his ministry. They did not run when Jesus was to be crucified, as the other male disciples did. They never denied him or betrayed him.
Surely, these two strong, wise, unflinching women in his life have earned their stripes enough for all women.