Christ’s Choice of the Twelve and the Ordained Ministry

From AnglicanWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article belongs to The Case for the Historic Male Priesthood: Scripture, Tradition, and Anglican Order. It presents the traditionalist argument while distinguishing the biblical evidence from disputed conclusions drawn from it.

Introduction and scope

Christ’s selection of twelve men is a principal starting point for the traditional Christian argument that priestly and episcopal ministry should be reserved to men. Luke describes a deliberate choice following a night of prayer: Jesus selected twelve from his disciples and named them apostles. The list contains men alone.[1] The disputed question is what follows for subsequent ecclesiastical office. The narrative does not itself append a rule specifying the sex of every future presbyter or bishop.

Traditionalist interpreters understand the choice within a larger account of apostolic foundation and ecclesial continuity. The Church receives her ministry from Christ; she does not possess unlimited authority to reconstruct it. Advocates of women’s ordination dispute the inference that the Twelve’s sex establishes an enduring qualification. Both positions must explain how an unrepeatable founding event relates to a continuing ministry.

This article examines that connection. It does not establish the history of every ancient ministry or decide the status of particular contemporary ordinations. Those require the separate evidence considered elsewhere in the series.

The traditional argument

The traditional argument combines three propositions: Christ intentionally constituted an apostolic body; that body supplied the foundation for continuing pastoral ministry; and its male character belongs to the pattern transmitted, rather than to its incidental circumstances. The first proposition has direct narrative support. The second requires comparison with apostolic appointments and early ecclesiastical testimony. The third is the principal contested theological judgment.

A representative official formulation appears in the Roman Catholic declaration Inter insigniores, dated 15 October 1976. Sections 2–4 connect Christ’s choice, apostolic practice, and the Church’s obligation to preserve the received ministry. The declaration argues that Christ’s freedom in his dealings with women makes an explanation based solely on social conformity inadequate. This is an official Roman Catholic doctrinal argument, not an Anglican formulary or a binding judgment upon Anglican provinces.[2]

The argument does not require women to possess less holiness, intelligence, courage, or capacity for discipleship. On the traditionalist account, eligibility for a particular office and personal excellence are different questions. The claim concerns the form of a ministry received from Christ. Its force depends on demonstrating that this form includes a continuing restriction by sex.

Primary biblical evidence

A deliberate and symbolic foundation

Luke 6 distinguishes the larger company of disciples from the Twelve. Membership was conferred through Christ’s choice rather than simply through personal initiative.[1] Luke 22:28–30 and Matthew 19:28 connect their number with the twelve tribes of Israel. Their corporate identity therefore has a scripturally expressed symbolism: they represent the renewed people of God.[3]

This symbolism strengthens the claim that the selection was theologically significant. It also introduces a limit: the number twelve has an explicit explanation that the candidates’ sex does not receive in these passages. A responsible argument should acknowledge that difference. The narrative records male selection; its enduring significance must be established by interpretation rather than by an explanatory statement attributed to Jesus.

The Last Supper associates the apostles with Christ’s command to repeat the memorial action. Matthew’s final commission addresses the eleven disciples and commands teaching and baptism, with a promise extending to the end of the age.[4] Traditionalists see here an enduring ministry issuing from a foundational commission. Nevertheless, neither passage supplies a complete ordinal. The extension of those commands through the Church requires a theology of transmission.

The replacement of Judas

Acts 1 places women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, within the praying community. When Judas’s place is filled, the proposed candidates are Joseph Barsabbas and Matthias. Peter’s stated requirements concern companionship during Jesus’s ministry and witness to the resurrection; the selection restores the Twelve.[5]

Traditionalists regard the selection of another man, within a community explicitly including women, as evidence of continuity with Christ’s choice. Its immediate subject, however, is this particular apostolic vacancy. Companionship from John’s baptism cannot be a qualification for bishops in subsequent centuries. The passage therefore requires discrimination between qualifications specific to the founding witnesses and features understood to continue.

Paul supplies another safeguard against equating all apostleship with membership in the Twelve. In 1 Corinthians 15 he distinguishes appearances to the Twelve from Christ’s appearance to himself, while claiming apostolic status.[6] The Twelve are central, but they do not exhaust every New Testament use of apostolic language.

Continuing pastoral ministry

Acts 14:23 describes the appointment of elders in local churches. Acts 20:17–28 describes the Ephesian elders as overseers charged with tending God’s Church.[7] These passages supply a connection between apostolic mission and continuing local oversight. They should not be made to state that every apostle was simply a later diocesan bishop or every elder a presbyter within an already completed threefold structure.

An early witness is 1 Clement, the Roman church’s letter to Corinth, conventionally attributed to Clement. Chapters 42 and 44 connect ministers’ appointment with the apostles and provide for succession in their ministry. Chapter 44 also speaks of presbyters. The immediate controversy concerns the displacement of ministers, not a proposal to ordain women.[8] Its relevant contribution is a principle of received and continuing ministry; it is not an explicit adjudication of the present debate.

Christ’s treatment of women

The same Gospel tradition that identifies male apostles gives women substantial roles. Luke 8 names Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna among the women accompanying and supporting Jesus’s ministry. Luke 10 presents Mary listening at his feet and records his defence of her choice.[9] These are positive descriptions of discipleship, material support, and learning; the texts do not describe these women’s ordination.

John 4 records the disciples’ surprise at Jesus’s conversation with the Samaritan woman. Her testimony brings others to him. John 20 gives Mary Magdalene a commission to carry his message to the disciples and records her proclamation that she has seen the Lord.[10] Women’s witness cannot therefore be dismissed as irrelevant to the Gospel’s transmission.

For traditionalists, the conjunction is significant: Jesus accepted women’s discipleship and testimony while choosing men for the Twelve. That supports an argument for differentiated ministries. It does not establish a prohibition upon every form of women’s public speech, instruction, or leadership. Nor does it justify an undifferentiated portrait of ancient Judaism as uniformly hostile to women: the Gospel episodes establish particular actions and reactions, not a complete social history.

The strongest opposing interpretation

A substantial opposing argument accepts the male composition of the Twelve while disputing its application to later office. It reasons that the Twelve’s representative role belongs to the restoration of Israel and that the wider New Testament evidence must determine who may exercise subsequent ministry. The question is whether selection for one foundational role prescribes eligibility for every later role related to it.

In a 2004 conference paper, Anglican New Testament scholar N. T. Wright expressly acknowledges the selection of twelve men. He places alongside it women’s resurrection witness, Mary’s discipleship, and women’s activity in the apostolic churches. He understands these as evidence against a general exclusion from authoritative ministry. His presentation is a scholarly theological intervention, not a synodical decision; he also acknowledges that the topic was not his principal research field.[11]

The opposing case need not assert that Jesus was simply unable to resist contemporary expectations. Its stronger form holds that his choices had several purposes, including Israel’s renewal, and that an enduring exclusion requires evidence beyond the composition of that initial group. Modern clergy do not inherit every personal or historical feature of the Twelve. Traditionalists must therefore explain the criterion by which sex continues while other features do not.

This objection identifies the argument’s central logical task. It cannot be answered merely by repeating the list of names. Equally, evidence that women proclaimed the resurrection does not by itself establish that they exercised every function later associated with priestly or episcopal ordination. Neither side should substitute a general category of “ministry” for a demonstration about particular offices.

Traditionalist response and remaining disputes

Traditionalists answer that the offices must be considered within the whole apostolic inheritance. Christ’s foundational choice establishes a presumption; subsequent scriptural qualifications and the Church’s reception are offered as evidence that its male character continues. The detailed arguments from teaching and oversight belong to Women, Teaching, and Authority in 1 Timothy 2 and The Qualifications of Bishops and Presbyters. This is a cumulative argument, not a deduction from the sex of twelve individuals alone.

The distinction between witness and office matters here. John 20 genuinely commissions Mary to announce a message; it does not narrate a presbyteral ordination. Conversely, calling an activity “witness” cannot serve as a reason to minimize its authority or its indispensable place in the narrative.[10] The question is which ecclesiastical functions the evidence establishes, not whether women mattered to the apostolic mission.

St Vincent of Lérins supplies a framework for evaluating continuity. Commonitorium 2 joins scriptural authority with catholic interpretation and appeals to universality, antiquity, and consent. Chapter 23 allows growth in understanding while rejecting transformation of the faith into something else.[12] These chapters do not discuss women’s ordination. Their application requires showing that male eligibility belongs to the received apostolic deposit rather than to changeable discipline. Reception, Consensus, and the Burden of Proof examines that task.

Relevance to Anglican doctrine and order

The historic Anglican Ordinal places the three orders within continuity from apostolic times. Its preface appeals to Scripture and ancient authors and states an intention to continue those orders. This supports a theology of reception, though the preface does not present an extended argument about women’s ordination.[13]

Article XX acknowledges ecclesiastical authority while limiting it by Scripture and requiring coherent interpretation. Article XXIII requires an authorized calling to public preaching and sacramental ministry.[14] An Anglican defence of male orders must therefore argue both scriptural warrant and continuity. Neither historical practice alone nor a province’s procedural authority automatically answers every doctrinal question.

Four judgments must remain distinct. Biblical authority concerns what Scripture permits or requires. Sacramental validity concerns whether the purported order is conferred. Canonical legality concerns compliance with applicable law. Ecclesiastical recognition concerns another church’s reception of those orders. The argument from the Twelve bears directly upon the first and, through additional theological premises, upon the second. It does not independently establish the law of a particular province or another jurisdiction’s policy of recognition.

Taken independently, Christ’s choice is a substantial foundation for the traditionalist case, because it concerns the origin of the ministry rather than a later preference. Its sufficiency remains disputed. The defensible traditionalist claim is that the choice demands explanation within the apostolic pattern; its enduring application must be demonstrated through the connected biblical and ecclesiological evidence.

Related articles

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Luke 6:12–16, King James Version. Biblical citations in this article refer to the passages themselves; English wording was checked in the KJV.
  2. ↑ Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inter insigniores, 15 October 1976, sections 2–4.
  3. ↑ Luke 22:14–30, KJV; Matthew 19:28, KJV.
  4. ↑ Luke 22:14–20; Matthew 28:16–20, KJV.
  5. ↑ Acts 1:12–26, KJV, especially verses 14, 21–26.
  6. ↑ 1 Corinthians 15:3–9, KJV.
  7. ↑ Acts 14:23 and 20:17–28, KJV.
  8. ↑ Clement of Rome, First Letter to the Corinthians, chapters 42–44; translated by John Keith, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 9, edited by Allan Menzies (1896), reproduced by New Advent.
  9. ↑ Luke 8:1–3 and 10:38–42, KJV.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 John 4:27–42 and 20:11–23, KJV.
  11. ↑ N. T. Wright, “Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis”, conference paper, St John’s College, Durham, 4 September 2004; introduction and section 3, “Gospels and Acts”; republished online 12 July 2016.
  12. ↑ Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, chapters 2 and 23; translated by C. A. Heurtley, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 11 (1894), reproduced by New Advent.
  13. ↑ Church of England, Book of Common Prayer, “The Form and Manner of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons”, preface to the Ordinal.
  14. ↑ Church of England, Articles of Religion, Articles XX and XXIII.

Further reading and external sources

  • Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, chapters 2 and 23: a patristic framework for continuity and development, rather than a treatment of this ordination question.
  • Articles of Religion, especially XX and XXIII: Anglican formularies concerning church authority and authorized ministry.
  • Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Inter insigniores, sections 2–4: an official Roman Catholic presentation of the traditional argument.
  • N. T. Wright, “Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis”, section 3: an Anglican scholarly argument supporting women’s ministry and ordination.
Retrieved from "https://www.anglicanwiki.org/index.php?title=Christ’s_Choice_of_the_Twelve_and_the_Ordained_Ministry&oldid=3827"