10-1-7. Women And Jesus
Charles Ryrie concludes his research with this telling statement: “...equally clear is the fact that Christianity stands in sharp contrast to the treatment of women in ancient Greece and Rome” (16). Again, the point is driven home that the attitude of Bible-based religion to women was not influenced by the surrounding cultures. Therefore the commands for women not to lead public worship stand for all time, seeing they were not the result of local pressures.
The fact that Jesus chose twelve male disciples must be a significant indicator of which gender he wishes to see leading his church. That he did not just do this for cultural reasons is proved by the fact that the twelve (male) disciples will be the twelve rulers over the house of Israel in the future Kingdom; their place of importance during the three and a half years ministry of Christ will be reflected in their future role in the Kingdom (Mt. 19:28; Rev.21:14).
The point has been made by many writers that the teaching of Christ concerning women was in sharp contrast to the accepted values of the surrounding Roman world concerning them. Jesus would not have compromised on principles; he would not have inwardly believed in the total equality of men and women, as some feminists claim, yet chosen twelve male disciples, or declined to allow women to teach in his church, just out of deference to the surrounding culture. True Christianity has ever been a religion of contrast with the world and the philosophies around it. Lightfoot (17) comments on Christ’s attitude towards women: “To contemporaries it must have appeared in the light of a social revolution”.
Jesus was highly sensitive to the gender division. He did not just ignore it. The parable of the mustard seed which a man planted is followed by that of the leaven which a woman hid in the meal (Lk.13:18-21). Likewise in Lk.15:3-10 Jesus speaks firstly of the joy of a man finding a lost sheep, and then of the joy of a woman on finding a lost dowry coin. He spoke of the lilies of the field which do not physically exert themselves in labour, as men must do, but also who do not spin (women’s work). Christ spoke of the second coming as finding two men in the field and two women grinding at the mill. This parallelism of attention between men and women can be profitably followed through the Gospel records: Lk. 8:14,15 cp. Lk. 8:16,17; Lk. 11:5-8 cp. 18:1-8; Lk. 4:24-27; Mt. 24:43-51 cp. 25:1-13; 24:40,41; Mt. 13:31-33 cp. Lk. 13:18-21. This approach contrasts sharply with the male-centred teaching approach of the contemporary rabbis and other religious leaders (19). Thus his parables were consciously designed to appeal to both men and women. Luke particularly seems to rejoice in observing how the Lord treated men and women in parallel. Both Martha and the male ruler lack one thing (Lk. 10:41,42 cp. 18:22); there are two parables on answered prayer for men and women (Lk. 11:5-8 cp. 18:1-8); the men of Nineveh and the queen of the South are paired (Lk. 11:29-32); justice is for both male and female servants (Lk. 12:45,46); both men and women would be divided (Lk. 12:51-53); a woman and a man are both healed on the Sabbath (Lk. 13:10-16; 14:1-6); a ‘daughter of Abraham’ and a ‘son of Abraham’ are healed (Lk. 13:16; 19:9); the woman loses a coin, a man loses a sheep (Lk. 15:4-10). Indeed, a profitable study could be made of how the Old Testament prophets liken God to both male and female figures in tandem- e.g. “The Lord goes forth as a might man… I will cry out like a woman in travail” (Is. 42:13,14).
The following are further examples of where Christ’s teaching concerning women was contrary to local culture:
- In the surrounding culture, a woman followed the religion of her husband (18). Christ cut right across this by saying that following him was a totally individual matter.
- The Rabbis taught that a man should not salute a woman in a public place (20). For Jesus to talk to the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn.4) was therefore an indication of his studied disregard of local tradition concerning women when it clashed with spiritual principles. The incident was “a strange innovation on Rabbinic custom and dignity” (21). The Talmud taught: “Six things are a disgrace to a disciple of the wise: He should not…converse with a woman in the street” (Babylonian Talmud: Berakoth “Benedictions” 43b). A woman could only be alone with two men, never with one, and this was within a town; outside a town, she had to be in the presence of three men (Babylonian Talmud: Kiddushin “Betrothals” 81a). But the Lord spoke to her alone. A woman could even be divorced for speaking to a man. “What conduct transgresses Jewish custom? If she…speaks with any man” (Mishnah: Ketuboth “Marriage Deeds” 7:6). There can be no doubt that the Lord didn’t pay unduly regard the prevailing view of women. The fact that He didn’t give them equal roles in His church indicates that His reason for this was more fundamental than just conformity to the surrounding culture.
- Local Jewish culture stressed that the place of the woman was about domestic matters rather than spiritual ones (22). Yet in the incident of Martha and Mary, Christ commended Mary for neglecting her domestic duties in order to concern herself with spiritual development (Lk.10:38-42). She sat at his feet, as if a student at the feet of a rabbi. When we read that Mary sat at the Lord’s feet (Lk. 10:39), it’s easy to forget that to sit at the feet of a Rabbi [and the Lord was called ‘Rabbi’] meant to be a disciple of that Rabbi. And women… couldn’t be disciples of a Rabbi. It was all radical stuff.
- The Rabbis in Christ’s time were split into two schools on the question of divorce. One school taught that divorce was available for any reason, whilst the other said that it was only for sexual impurity. The question was put to Jesus as to when he thought divorce was possible. It seemed that he was going to be forced to take sides with one of the two contemporary attitudes. But he cut clean through the whole thinking of first century Israel by basing his argument on the principles of Eden: God created man and woman, and joined them together; therefore, he reasoned, the ideal standard is that there should be no divorce for any reason, including adultery. This is a cameo of the teaching of Christ; through radical and fundamental recourse to the Old Testament, his teachings cut right through all the conceptions and expectations which were present in the mind of first century Jewry as a result of their cultural conditioning. Modern feminism is now part of the cultural conditioning of the late twentieth century. Those who have a fundamentalist approach to Scripture and the teaching of Christ will realize that real Christianity cuts right through this. In the time of Jesus, Roman law allowed women to divorce their husbands; some of the women of Herod’s family got divorces like this (23). Jesus was aware of this, and commented upon this local social attitude, roundly condemning it: “If a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery”. If Jesus was so unafraid to challenge local cultural attitudes towards women, why did he not say that women should teach and lead in his church, if this is what he really believed?
Thus the point is established that Jesus was revolutionary in his attitude to women. He was unafraid to challenge their accepted place in society. The words he spoke were God’s words, and were uninfluenced by the surrounding social situation. Yet despite this, Jesus chose twelve male disciples, and later seventy male preachers to witness to the ecclesia of Israel. The command to go and teach all nations was given to a band of men, although this is not to say that sisters are not bidden witness worldwide too. The Gospel records emphasize the place of women, both in responding to the call of the Gospel, and also in their practical assistance to the men in their work of teaching and witness to the ecclesia of Israel. A whole band of women ministered to Jesus throughout his ministry (Lk.8:3; Mt.27:55 cp. Mt.8:15; Mk.1:31). The emphasis given to this group is surely evidence as to what the role of women is in Christ’s church. Again, we see that this ‘support role’ of women to the man as presented in the Gospels is in accord with Bible teaching both in the Old Testament and later in the New about the place of women.
Notes
(16) Ryrie, op. cit., p.13
(17) Joseph B. Lightfoot, Sermons Preached on Special Occasions (Macmillan), p.224. See too Alfred Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (Religious Tract Society) and W.M.Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire (Hodder & Stoughton)
(18) A.Allworthy, Women in the Apostolic Church (Heffer & Sons), p.4. “It is becoming for a wife to worship and to know only the gods that her husband believes in” (Plutarch: Moralia, 140D).
(19) A whole host of supporting points in this connection will be found in C.G.Montefiore, Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (Macmillan)
(20) Aboth, I, 5
(21) Montefiore, op. cit., p.47
(22) Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Eerdmans)
