Not so random, no.
But that’s my point. Why are you looking at it as that he picked men as his apostles to mean that only men for the rest of eternity here on earth can be priests?
That may not have been his criteria.
There may have been other thinking behind his decision at that very moment in time.
It makes sense that he looked out at the group…saw that perhaps the women were in a difficult position having to have their periods every month (no convenient, portable tampons back then) or going through difficult pregnancies…and saw that it would be rough, unhealthy, dangerous for them to travel around to preach in harsh environments not knowing where they’d sleep or eat or whatever.
Also, he may have thought at the time that people will listen more to men than to women–since women held no positions of authority back then and were told to keep their mouths shut (as per that one biblical quote by…Paul, is it?). If that was the case, then that was a good choice. If I was hiring for apostle jobs, I may have done the same then–THEN, as per the surrounding conditions and culture.
But the set-up is completely different today, two thousand years later.
Most priests sleep in comfortable homes and go to a safe church to preach.
Women vote and are doctors and lawyers and politicians and in positions of authority, and people will listen to their wisdom.
Women today go out and fight wars.
His decision at the time may have been based on pure practicality of that specific era and we are misinterpreting it to mean something way different.
If he meant only men to be priests, you don’t think he would have been wise and clear to specify such an important point?
