To do just that, I'm going to share some insights that are not often thought about, or worse, are purposely not mentioned by those making a case against women being in leadership based on the original twelve. It might be wise to begin by reminding all of us that there IS NO recorded restriction in the gospels concerning women in leadership either. That in and of itself is not sufficient to draw a hard conclusion since building a biblical position from silence, on anything, is never wise, but it's worth mentioning.
You would think that with their culture the way it was in regards to women, as seen in the fact that women were not permitted to teach men in the Synagogue, [Or to testify in a court of law for that matter.] and they CERTAINLY were not permitted to travel around with a Rabbi in an itinerant ministry, it would have to be of great significant that women were permitted to do BOTH by our Lord. You do recall that it was to a woman that Jesus gave instructions at the tomb when He said, "Go to the brethren, and say to them, I'm ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God." [John 20:11] That smacks of teaching to me, at least as some would define it in our day.
Then, Luke 8:1-2 also clearly states this, "And the twelve were with him AND certain women, who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, [several are named] and MANY OTHERS." This passage is reporting how Jesus went into cities and villages with His followers which included a list of women who ministered with their substance. This traveling ministry was certainly an "in your face" kind of thing in that day regarding the place of women.
Talk about a contradistinction, there you have it. Our Lord's view of the value of women in ministry was far removed from one that did not permit such things. To say otherwise may be giving too much weight to a simple fact that one was not named in the original twelve. Maybe He was keeping the beginning of His ministry [this is pure speculation of course] close to the Jewish illustration of the tribes of Israel! Who knows!! But to say that fact shows that women are NOT to minister or teach men is way beyond the pale I believe.
Then don't forget that the narrative in the gospels also includes the two incidents of Anna's proclamation of Christ to all present in Luke 2, which would have included men, as well as, the incident of the woman at the well in John 4 proclaiming to EVERYONE in her city the same Christ who knew all things about her. These two incidents evidence that what was transpiring in the message and ministry of Christ was also breaking down racial barriers as well as gender barriers. The woman at the well was giving her message to people outside Judaism remember. [Samaritans]
One other thing needs to be said. What I'm about to draw attention to is not the gospel material, obviously, but it is so close it bears mentioning. Remember the book of Acts opens [You recall Luke wrote the Acts narrative also] with the 120 disciples in the upper room and another list of women is said to be with them. [Acts 1:14] Then, the scriptures tell how "they" cast lots and appointed Matthias to take the place of Judas among the apostles.
There appears to be no reason to think the women didn't have a voice or say in that decision. I won't make the same mistake as do those who oppose women in leadership based on no women being among the twelve and advocate that because of silence. But to say they DIDN'T have a voice in the decision of Matthias is to reflect the culture around that young church rather than the practice of our Lord Himself, as has been pointed out. I think it safe to think they did.
If you think otherwise, you would need to also explain how in Acts chapter two when the Holy Spirit filled those members of that young church on the day of Pentecost and they began to speak in other tongues [languages] and the crowd thought them drunk, Peter stood to explain what they were seeing and he said "They are not drunk...this is what was spoken of Joel....that your sons AND DAUGHTERS will prophesy...." [Acts 2:14-17]
So the ladies could be present but not participate? I think the scriptures speak of a different thing entirely and this is JUST the gospels and two chapters of Acts.
[My wife and I just returned from an all day driving trip where we discussed this post a great deal. She reminded me that it seems to her that Pentecost may have very well been a dividing line where the Holy Spirit drew a clear line in the sand, with regards to women in ministry, that may not have been as clear in the gospels in the context of Israel. Though, of course, it was abundantly clear Jesus viewed them differently. But since Pentecost, boy, things have been quite different concerning God's purpose for women in the New Covenant. I think she may be on to something.]
All this said, I know there are two places [1 Tim 2:12/1 Corinthians 14] that could be seen as telling a different story. I have my view on what those two passages are saying and what they mean, but you CAN'T honestly look at those without holding what has just been said in mind. If you do you would not be letting scripture interpret scripture. But that's a post for another day.
Today, I simply want to register my thoughts that the narrative of the gospels will not permit me to think that the fact that there were no women among the original twelve is sufficient, by itself, to hold that Jesus believed that women could not teach, lead and minister, as can men. Jesus revealed Himself to have a totally different idea than that.