Chapter 1 The Gospel and the World of Jesus: Wives and Mothers

Chapter 1

The Gospel and the World of Jesus: Wives and Mothers

Two contrasting figures appear at the opening of the Christian era: an old man and a young girl.¹ In separate narratives, Luke’s literary artistry draws attention first to one and then to the other.

He is Zechariah, resident of Jerusalem, the centuries-old religious center of Judaism. A priest whose knowledge of divine things has been seasoned with the years, Zechariah is astounded by an angel’s proclamation that he and Elizabeth would give birth to a son.

She is Mary, resident of Nazareth, a small village removed both in distance and in spirit from Jerusalem. A young teenager whose knowledge of God has been fostered by deep insight into the Scriptures, Mary is astounded by the angel’s greeting. Yet she listens intently to his annunciation that she, a virgin, would bear God’s Son.

Zechariah doubted,² but Mary believed.³ Perhaps the symbolism is unintentional on Luke’s part, but it is there nevertheless: the old era, long past with the close of the Old Testament, receives its final reprise with the incredulity of a man. The new era, about to be proclaimed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, begins with the faith of a woman.

Mary, the Mother of Jesus^*

It would be too much to say that ancient Near-Eastern patriarchalism, which embraced even the people of God, ended with Zechariah, or that Mary symbolized the new woman in ministry.⁴ The Old Testament did contain positive teachings and examples regarding women, and Mary and other women of her times would therefore have had outstanding models of faithful women of God.

Mary and Her Mother. Detail from The Virgin Mother and Child with St. Anne and John the Baptist by Leonardo Da Vinci (1452–1519). National Gallery, London.

Perhaps Mary’s poetic nature responded to the invitation of Miriam, Moses’ sister, to the Hebrew women to “sing to the Lord” in celebration of the Exodus from Egypt (Exod. 15:20–21). Miriam, described in that passage as a prophetess, appears in what seems to be a leadership role in Micah 6:4, where God says, “I sent Moses to lead you, also Aaron and Miriam.”

Deborah was likewise called a prophetess. Even before she led the Israelite troops to a significant victory and before Barak refused to assume leadership, Deborah “was leading Israel” (Judg. 4:4).

Another prophetess, Huldah, was chosen above her contemporaries Jeremiah and Zephaniah to declare God’s will for the people when the law was rediscovered in the temple (2 Kings 22:8–20; 2 Chron. 34:14–28).

Mary’s biblical models probably also included Esther, who risked her life for her people at a time when God seemed to be silent (the name of God does not even appear in the Book of Esther). King Xerxes’ favorite, Vashti, had been discharged because she would not let him use her by having her display her beauty in public. The king also decreed that all women in his realm should respect their husbands. He then found Esther, and she became Vashti’s successor. The narrative goes on to trace the various ways in which Esther skillfully used her official and personal relationships with the king to bring good both to her cousin and guardian, Mordecai, and to her people Israel.

Surely, as Mary listened to readings from Genesis, she reflected on the figure of Sarah, that good woman who was a victim of ancient Near Eastern customs, and on Ruth, celebrated for her devotion and faithfulness. There were dark figures of women in the Old Testatament as well. Their stories need not be recounted here, but even in the lives of some of them Mary could find encouraging evidence of the grace of God. One need think only of the prostitute Rahab, who chose to facilitate the invasion of Joshua and his forces against her own pagan city (Josh. 2:1–21; 6:22–25).

The noble wife of Proverbs 31 certainly was an exemplary figure for Mary. In addition to running the household and caring for her family, as one might have expected from a woman of her generation, she involved herself in various profitable commercial ventures. She had “strength and dignity,” spoke with wisdom, and gave “faithful instruction” (Prov. 31:25–26).

If there is any doubt about Mary’s acquaintance with the Old Testament, that should be dispelled by a study of her song, the Magnificat. It catches not only the spirit but also the vocabulary of Hannah’s prayer at the dedication of Samuel. The parallels are obvious as each of these women, though in very different circumstances, celebrated God’s gift of a son.

The intertestamental period must have had its heroes for Mary also—women as well as men. The towering figures of this era, especially the Maccabeans, who revolted against foreign pagan oppression, have become more honored with the passing of the years. But certainly in Mary’s time there were many traditions—some were factual, some legendary—about the brave people who resisted violence and moral evil. It would be surprising if Mary had not known of these. The story about the outstanding woman of the times, Judith, is an example. It features Judith as a beautiful and devout widow. When her city was under attack, she won her way into enemy headquarters and next to Holofernes, the leader. She killed him and brought his head back to her people. Would Mary not have learned stories like this—even those that were pious legends? Judith seems to be an expression of ideals drawn, at least in part, from the outstanding Old Testament women mentioned above, with additional dashes of heroics that remind us of such characters as the redoubtable Jael and the woman who dropped a millstone on the head of Abimelech in the rowdy days of the judges (Judg. 4:21; 9:52–53).

While the book of Judith specifically intends to show how God worked through weak vessels, nevertheless, Judith is portrayed as a woman of great strength. This applies also to her faith. She sought to live in accordance with laws of ritual purity, and she was faithful in prayer. She is also a model of wisdom. In spite of her questionable use of her beauty and deceitful shrewdness,⁵ her story obviously commended itself to the writer’s contemporaries and their descendants. As a result, the figure of Judith stands as a model that was greatly admired. She is

Judith With the Head of Holofernes. One of the celebrated women of Jewish tradition. Matteo di Giovanni (c. 1430–1495). Photograph by Michael Cavanagh. Indiana University, Kress Study Collection.

consistently depicted as superior to the men with whom she is associated…The author may be saying that God’s power is operative through the weakest of human agents. Nonetheless, Judith is no weakling. Her courage, her trust in God, and her wisdom—all lacking in her male counterparts—save the day for Israel.⁶

Another woman celebrated in the apocryphal writings and perhaps known to Mary was Susanna. The story of her faithful obedience to God is preserved in one of the additons to the Book of Daniel. In yet another apocryphal work, named after the pious Jewish figure Tobit, Mary would have found a rather different citation of a model. In one of Tobit’s frequent expressions of praise to God, he lauds God’s gift of Eve to Adam as his helper and support.⁷ He apparently attributed to Eve a certain amount of moral strength that Adam needed.

Mary would therefore have had several models of faithful women both in Scripture and in the intertestamental stories. The Magnificat shows that as a young woman she had a firm grasp on the nature of God and his work in history and in her own life.⁸ Mary speaks there of God’s greatness, holiness, mercy, deeds in history, and faithfulness to his covenant. Her reference to the needed reversal of the fate of rich and poor shows her sense of social justice. Mary has been the object of both excessive adulation and unnecessary belittling. But the portrait in Luke’s birth narratives and the further unfolding of her experiences in the Gospels reveal a woman who both loved God and needed to grow in faith.⁹

Mary’s Growth as a Woman of God

Mary’s growth was of a most unusual nature: she had to come to terms with the unique nature of her Son. She had to recognize that his apparent brusqueness (e.g., “Didn’t you know…” [Luke 2:49] and the address “Woman,…” [John 2:4 and 19:26 KJV]) communicated, not disrespect or insubordination in his relationship to her, but rather the difference in their ultimate relationship. In that respect they were not so much mother and son, but woman and divine Savior.

Mary’s faith could have been severely shaken if Joseph had taken the customary action when she told him she was pregnant. Jewish custom provided for a legal betrothal as a halfway step between what we now call engagement and the consummation of marriage. The law also mandated divorce as the only way to sever this relationship. Joseph’s choice was not whether to divorce Mary or not, but how to do it. He decided on a quiet divorce to avoid bringing Mary into public disgrace. Thus, even though the New Testament opens with a pending divorce (a remarkable fact in itself), the woman is treated with tender consideration. Joseph thought that what seemed to be right must be done—but with the least harm to the woman. While Joseph could be faulted for thinking as a man and apparently assuming Mary’s guilt, there was no other alternative at hand. A virginal conception could hardly have come to mind as an option.

Matthew does not say whether Joseph communicated his doubts to Mary, but if he did, it must have been unspeakably difficult for her. But even after that difficulty was resolved by Joseph’s complete acceptance of her pregnancy, she was to experience further tensions. When Jesus stayed behind in the Jerusalem temple at the age of twelve, Mary’s frustration erupted in the words “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you” (Luke 2:48). Her question betrays both a mother’s natural anxiety and a lack of understanding. Jesus’ reply in the following verse—“Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” (or, “about my Father’s business?”)—implies that she should have gained a sense of his special filial relationship to God the Father. This is the first clue we have that, in spite of the remarkable insights she showed in the Magnificat, Mary needed time to absorb the implications of her Son’s person and mission.

At the wedding in Cana, Mary was apparently trying to “mother” Jesus, giving rather direct hints that he should do something about the need for more wine (John 2:3). His response has been the subject of much discussion.¹⁰ The question “What have I to do with you?” (v. 4) seems to us like a distancing of himself from his mother. But it is important to realize that in the idiom of the time it could mean “some refusal of an inopportune involvement, and a divergence between the views of the two persons concerned.”¹¹ That is to say, Mary needed to learn that Jesus was on a unique and lonely mission. It was a mission he alone understood. Mary was to learn more about it as time went on.

But we must still face the term “woman.” Why both here and at the cross (John 19:26) did Jesus use a term of address that elsewhere he used only in speaking with the semiforeign Samaritan woman (4:21) and the formerly demon-possessed Mary Magdalene (20:13)? Probably the character of these women in the Gospel of John has nothing to do with it. The fact is that no other woman appears in conversation with Jesus in John’s Gospel. Therefore, the simple term “woman” is really the only address we find on the lips of Jesus. It does not seem to carry any negative overtones, as it would today.

Mary as a Disciple

Mary had to learn to follow him as a disciple, rather than possessing and directing him as his mother. But this spiritual relationship did not obliterate her need of a human relationship. At the cross she was committed to

Jesus and Mary Studying the Torah. From Wallace, “The Boyhood of Christ,” Harpers Magazine, 74:439 (December 1886), 11.

John’s care, as a member of the new spiritual family.

She must enter the family of faith in full recognition of who she is as a sexual being. She will not lose that sexuality for some spirituality in the community of belief. Rather, she will assume her old role of motherhood and her new role as witness, prophetess and proclaimer of God’s word in relationship to believers.¹²

This view of Mary as a disciple in progress fits in with the picture we have of Jesus’ family in the Synoptic Gospels. His brothers did not believe in him before the Resurrection. In fact, they attempted to take control of him at one point, saying “He is out of his mind.”¹³ The fact that this occurs in Mark immediately before the charge that he was in collusion with Satan communicates the idea that no one understood him. Although Mary is not mentioned in this passage, there is no indication that she countered the opinion of her other sons. The positive element in this otherwise dismal picture is the statement of Jesus that his true relatives were those who did God’s will (or, according to Luke, who heard and did the Word of God).¹⁴ Jesus’ seemingly curt response to an unnamed woman in a crowd should be seen in the same way. She had called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you,” and he replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”¹⁵ This is a not a put-down of either the woman or of his mother. Jesus is simply affirming the tremendously important truth that human relationships are not as important as spiritual responsiveness. There is no reason to think that Jesus would have responded any differently to a man. In fact, he responded in a similar way to the man who wanted him to arbitrate in a matter of inheritance.¹⁶

In summary, Mary appears in the Gospels as a woman who is highly esteemed, acts like a normal mother, is spiritually more responsive than others but needs to grow as a woman of faith. She is neither exalted above normal womanhood nor looked down on as though her lapses in spiritual understanding had some connection with her being a woman.

Other Women Who Were Associated With Jesus

There are over forty references (not counting repetition in the parallel passages) to women in the Gospels, either in narratives or in the teachings of Jesus. These include allusions to Old Testament events or metaphors (such as Rachel’s weeping and the appellation “Daughter of Zion”), parables (the wise and foolish virgins, the woman who used leaven), women as a class (mothers, victims of lust and divorce), or strong characters in the narrative (Jesus’ mother, Mary and Martha). The following selections illustrate these.

Elizabeth and Anna

The next two women in the narrative of Luke are the aged Elizabeth and the venerable Anna.¹⁷ Luke accords respect to both. His description of Elizabeth parallels his description of her husband, Zechariah.¹⁸ It does not seem to have been necessary for Luke to include all he said about Elizabeth, since the narrative proceeds to focus on Zechariah. Nevertheless, when he mentions that Zechariah descended from the priestly line, he immediately says, “His wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron” (1:5). It could be said that the reason for mentioning this is to show that John the Baptist was in the priestly order on both lines. However, Luke goes on to say that both of them were “upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations blamelessly” (1:6). He did not need to use the word both, but its occurrence emphasizes the fact of Elizabeth’s spiritual character. It is hard to think of a higher commendation of spiritual excellence than the one Luke used here to describe Elizabeth. He added that she had not been able to have children, a deficiency that was, of course, in Jewish society a matter of deep regret and embarrassment. The narrative goes on to show how God responded to the devout life of Elizabeth and her husband by giving them a son who would be the forerunner of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Anna seems to have functioned in two roles. One is related to Luke’s concern to root Christianity in Judaism. This concern regarding Jewish roots is seen in many ways. The opening scene of Luke’s Gospel is set in the Jerusalem temple. There is a reference to Jesus’ circumcision and then to the Jewish rites of purification for Mary, Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem at the age of twelve, and his custom of attending the synagogue; all these show fidelity to Judaism. Luke also emphasizes Jesus’ deliberate progression toward Jerusalem.

Anna’s other role may relate to the fact that Jewish law required two witnesses to validate a claim. Given Luke’s concern to validate Christianity as the legitimate heir of Judaism, and with his care to provide certainty regarding the facts of Jesus’ life (Luke 1:4), the prophet Simeon and Anna seem to have fulfilled this requirement as they testified to Jesus’ messiahship.¹⁹ But, if this is the case, there is something remarkable here. One of the witnesses is a woman even though the testimony of women was not acceptable in that society. There is something else striking about the mention of Anna. Luke tends to introduce women and men in pairs in his narrative. Therefore, whether or not this reference to two witnesses is a means of validating Jesus’ messiahship on the basis of Jewish custom, it certainly is an example of a pairing of male and female. Luke makes no attempt to lift her out of the customary family role of women, since he identifies her in relationship to her deceased husband. But we should not overlook the fact that he introduces her at the beginning of the passage in terms of her own ministry as a prophetess: “There was also a prophetess, Anna.”²⁰ The Old Testament referred to only three women as prophetesses. But here at the point of transition from the old age to the new age, a woman stands out as a devout servant of God to whom he entrusts a revelation concerning the coming of his Son.

Mary and Martha

Luke’s picture of Mary sitting at Jesus’ feet in the posture of a disciple²¹ has been called perhaps the “strongest and clearest affirmation on the part of Jesus that the intellectual and ‘spiritual’ life was just as proper to women as to men.”²² It is generally agreed that Jesus went far beyond the rabbis of his day in permitting this woman to assume the role of a disciple. This is certainly implied by Luke in portraying her as sitting “at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said.”²³ Such a posture is described in the rabbinical literature (e.g., “Let thy house be a meeting-house for the Sages and sit amid the dust of their feet and drink in their words with thirst”),²⁴ and Paul said that he was instructed “at the feet of Gamaliel” (KJV).²⁵ It is clear that this is more than a posture of worship, as people so commonly think.

There is no evidence that Mary (or Martha) accompanied Jesus on his travels as other women did, but this does not preclude their being disciples. While the disciples of rabbis in the early centuries of this era did sometimes travel with their teachers, this was not a condition of learning. Paul seems to have understood the new freedom Jesus gave women, since he himself went beyond the usual rabbinic restrictions and permitted women to learn.²⁶ The fact that he wanted the women to learn quietly is so often stressed that it may be overlooked that he took the large step of permitting learning, against the customs of his day.

The account of Mary and Martha is, however, much more than just an example of a woman learning. It is full of vivid description and personal interaction. First of all, it was Martha who welcomed Jesus as a guest. There is not a word about Lazarus, who, according to John 11, also lived there. In that chapter of John, it is Martha who takes initiative rather than Mary, a characteristic that appears here also. The picture of Mary sitting and learning at Jesus’ feet is followed by a graphic description of Martha’s agitation. Luke says that Martha was “distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, ‘Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!’” (10:40).

Luke makes no effort to hide Martha’s anger. The verb that Luke uses to describe her being distracted could very well be used to describe someone we would today consider a “workaholic.” She was, literally, a driven woman. Her anger is understandable. No doubt many homes and many friendships have been strained by a person who feels compelled to be constantly active in Christian work to the neglect of ordinary family and household responsibilities. In this case, Martha did not even attempt to hide her feelings from Jesus, as one might expect she would do with a guest. Quite on the contrary, she opened the entire matter to him and asked him to intervene. Aída Besançon Spencer, in her vivid description of the scene, makes the following point:

Nevertheless, Martha’s indignation was perfectly understandable in the light of her culture. A Jewish woman’s primary role was that of homemaker. She was exempt from rabbinic training and received no merit from learning the law. Should not Martha’s request that Mary help her in service supersede Mary’s desire to learn?²⁷

Jesus’ response was to address Martha directly concerning her own attitude: “Martha, Martha, you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her” (10:41).

Martha at the Tomb of Lazarus

Jesus’ conversation with Martha at the tomb of Lazarus²⁸ is remarkable not only for its content but because Martha’s christological confession is virtually identical to that of Peter at Caesarea Philippi.²⁹ This is seen in a comparison of the Greek words:

su ei ho christos ho huios tou theou (Martha)

su ei ho christos ho huios tou theou tou zontos (Peter)³⁰

In English this reads literally:

“You are the Christ, the Son of God.”

“You are the Christ, the Son of God the living.”

The importance of this must not be minimized. “In this scene the most important role of discipleship according to Johannine theology, that of proclamation of Jesus’ true identity, is given to a woman.”³¹ An even stronger evaluation is this statement:

By giving his audience a story in which a woman is the recipient of one of Jesus’ most profound and direct statements about Himself, and in which a woman makes a heartfelt and accurate response to Jesus’ declarations, the Fourth Evangelist intimates that women have a right to be taught even the mysteries of the faith, and that they are capable of responding in faith with an accurate confession. In short, they are capable of being full-fledged disciples of Jesus.³²

Martha seems to have a status as a spokesperson in John similar to that of Peter in the Synoptics. Certainly her role is greater than his in the fourth Gospel.

Mary’s Anointing of Jesus at Bethany

One of the major themes in the Gospels is the lack of understanding and lack of faith of the disciples. The refusal of Peter to believe the first prediction of Jesus’ passion, which came immediately after the great confession he gave at Caesarea Philippi of Jesus’ deity and messiahship, illustrates this dramatically.³³ It was not until after the Resurrection that the disciples were able to understand that the Cross had to precede the crown. But one disciple did seem to understand. Six days before Jesus’ final Passover, Jesus went to the familiar home at Bethany where Lazarus, Mary, and Martha lived. Martha (typically) served, and Lazarus was at the table. Mary took “about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.”³⁴ When Judas Iscariot complained that the perfume had not been sold and the money given to the poor, Jesus responded, “It was meant that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial.” The wording in Matthew is even more specific: “She did it to prepare me for burial.”³⁵ It is hard to escape the conclusion that this woman had a deeper understanding of the impending cross than did Jesus’ male disciples.

The importance of what she did was underscored by Jesus himself when he said, “I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”³⁶ It is hard to imagine that any early Christian (or contemporary one, for that matter) would invent a saying that seems to direct attention away from Christ and to the woman. Obviously Jesus is the object of her ministration and the central figure in the narrative. But at this crucial point, Jesus directs attention to a woman. It is right, then, and in accordance with Jesus’ own statement, that the retelling and rereading of this incident a few days before Jesus’ crucifixion should direct our attention not only to him but also to her.

Women Who Traveled With Jesus

A number of women traveled with Jesus and “were helping to support them out of their own means.”³⁷ A cursory reading of this passage could overlook the fact that there were many others traveling with Jesus besides the three named women: “…and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene), from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna, the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others.” The gender of “many others” in the Greek text is feminine, so there is no mistaking the fact that these were women. Luke further specifies that they “were helping to support them [presumably Jesus and his disciples] out of their own means.” This is quite a different picture from that which most people have of the sheltered, dependent Palestinian women of the first century.

This fact is of extraordinary significance. In Judaism, women were exempt from learning the Torah. They might learn a great deal informally, as they did through synagogue teaching, but a woman would not on her own enter into an association with a rabbi to become his disciple. Further, women were not to be in close association with men, and it would be unheard of for women to travel with a rabbi. In addition, the idea of a woman assuming fiscal responsibility and having discretionary power over her own funds is an ideal that, in biblical literature, is found only in Proverbs 31.

It is not known how many of these women were married. One of them was, but presumably Mary Magdalene was not. This scene of traveling men and women, however, is a reminder of Jesus’ words about the cost of discipleship. He said that everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children for his sake will receive many times as much in return. This statement is found in several locations in the Gospels.³⁸ In Luke’s account the word “wife” occurs, but the word “husband” does not occur in any of the accounts. In another passage, Jesus spoke about those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom.³⁹ Putting all of this together, it is clear that Jesus signaled the disruption of the close-knit interdependent family. From now on there would be those—initially, primarily men, but, already in Jesus’ own lifetime, women as well—who were willing for at least some period of time to be away from that family structure.

While it may seem that the idea of celibacy, which is certainly involved here, is a restrictive mode of life, in Jesus’ day it was quite the opposite. The expected norm was for men and women to be married and raise children. By teaching celibacy as a legitimate (though not a higher) mode of life, Jesus was freeing people from the responsibilities of marriage, freeing them to serve him. This was to have profound effects in the centuries to follow, with later generations exalting the idea of the celibate life. This is not to suppose that the married people—for example, Cuza’s wife Joanna among the group of traveling women disciples—necessarily broke with their families in order to accompany Jesus on his itinerant ministry. This traveling group of women thus testifies to the advance in Jesus’ ministry over Jewish limitations of women. The inclusion of this in Luke also testifies to his appreciation of Jesus’ position in this regard.

Women to Whom Jesus Ministered

The Widow of Nain

Among the women Jesus helped in his earthly ministry, one whom Luke describes is a widow of the town called Nain. While the actual miracle was the raising of her son, the focus is on his mother. The son is described as “the only son of his mother, and she was a widow.”⁴⁰ The word translated “only” is the same word that is translated “only begotten” in the King James Version of John 3:16. Interestingly, except for John 3:16 (though there also it applies in some sense), every time that word appears in the Greek New Testament or in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, it refers to someone who was deeply loved and was either dead or in mortal danger. It adds a touch of pathos to this passage. The woman was left entirely alone when her son died.

In describing Jesus’ pity for her, Luke notes that when the Lord saw her, his heart went out to her and he said, “Don’t cry.” This could hardly be a demeaning gesture, though it does appear as if Jesus was reproving her for her grief. (See excursus on Luke’s view of women, page 49.) In the context, however, it is clear that Jesus was preparing her for the extraordinary event that would follow.

An additional factor in the understanding of this event is that Nain was around the other side of the mountain from Shunem, where Elisha had raised the son of the notable woman there. It seems inescapable that Luke’s mention of this raising of a woman’s son is intended to bring the other miracle to mind and to emphasize a theme found elsewhere in Luke, that Jesus came as a prophet (though more than that) in a manner that recalls the ministries of Elijah and Elisha.

The Woman Who Was a “Sinner”

The next women mentioned by Luke was a “sinner.”⁴¹ This means, in the vocabulary of the day, a person who lived a sinful life. After the woman had anointed Jesus’ feet with her tears and perfume, the host, who was a Pharisee, reflected, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.” The man was, of course, wrong on three counts. He assumed that Jesus was not a prophet, as Jesus apparently did not know who the woman was. He also assumed that had Jesus known that she was a sinner, he would not have allowed her to do what she did. Since Luke mentions that “he said this to himself,” we know that the man assumed Jesus would not know his thoughts. Far from putting down women by singling out one who was sinful, Luke is contrasting the attitude of Jesus to such a woman with that of the Pharisee. (Ultimately, of course, there is a contrast between the Pharisee’s attitude to Jesus and the forgiven woman’s attitude.) Also the conclusion of the episode features the woman’s faith—a faith that their host obviously lacked. The concluding focus, then, is not on her weakness or sinfulness but on her commendable faith.

A Woman With an Awkward Disability

Another woman whom Luke describes had been “crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all.” Jesus declared her free from her infirmity and put his hands on her, and she straightened up immediately and praised God.⁴²

There are two remarkable aspects in this account. One is that Jesus was willing to incur criticism for healing a woman on the Sabbath. The fact that she had been in this condition for eighteen years meant that there was no urgency about the healing. It was deliberately done on the Sabbath and can be seen as part of Jesus’ program of setting the oppressed free.⁴³ In Luke’s understanding this is a facet both of the true Sabbath and of the Jubilee year referred to in Luke 4:19.

The second remarkable aspect is the concluding statement of Jesus. After saying that Satan had kept her bound during those eighteen years, Jesus wiped out the indignity of those long years and bestowed dignity on her by calling her a “daughter of Abraham.”⁴⁴ The idea of being a son of Abraham was common enough. Jesus used that term in reference to Zacchaeus a few chapters later in Luke. But Jesus with this one modification of the phrase—from “son” to “daughter”—raises this formerly pitiful woman to a new status. Ben Witherington says:

In our context, we may note the specific contrast between the label “hypocrite” that Jesus places on the synagogue ruler and those who agree with him, and the title of daughter of Abraham He gives to the woman. Again we see a woman not only being used as a positive example as she praises God, and even given a positive title, but also being defended at the expense of the males and in particular the synagogue ruler who objects to Jesus’ actions.⁴⁵

The Widow and Her “Mite”

In his parable of the judge and the widow (cf. p. 44), Jesus portrays a widow, not to stress her weakness, though she was needy, but to show the result of her firm persistence. Another widow appears in the familiar narrative of the “widow’s mite.”⁴⁶ Although Luke here portrays a woman characterized by weakness, a woman existing at the poverty level and without the protection and support of a husband, she becomes an example of faithful stewardship. She is not presented as an object of sympathy but of admiration.

The Woman at the Well

The contrast between the learned Jewish rabbi Nicodemus, with whom Jesus conversed in John 3, and the Samaritan woman, with whom he conversed in John 4, is striking. Nicodemus is a male, a professional Bible scholar, and presumably of impeccable morality. But the immoral Samaritan woman unexpectedly also demonstrates an interest in matters of religion.

One of the major points of interest in this narrative is that Jesus spoke alone with a woman, in contrast to the rigorous care that the Jews usually took not to have any close contact with women. Second, Jesus shared a drinking cup with a Samaritan. Third, he entered into a theological discussion with her. Fourth, he uncovered her sin, but he did not reject her because of that. Fifth, he discussed worship with her, never implying that she could not be a suitable worshiper. Finally, the woman became a witness through

The Widow Giving Her Mite With the Blessing of Jesus. Sixth-Century Mosaic. S. Apollinare nuovo. Alinari—Art Resource, New York.

whom many believed in Christ. There is no hint that her female sex in any way hindered Jesus’ ministry to her.⁴⁷

Of all the narratives recording Jesus’ conversation with women, this one contains the most conversational content. The scene is a town called Sychar, which was located in an area that Jews avoided if at all possible. Relations between Jews and Samaritans had been troubled for years; there had even been bloodshed. It was customary for the Jews to cross the Jordan and proceed north or south on the east side of the river, recrossing after Samaria had been passed. In this case Jesus “had” to go through Samaria. We are not told why; some have suggested it was due to divine intention for the sake of meeting this woman. Jesus’ humanity is apparent as he, tired, sat down by the well.

Midday was not a normal time for women to draw water, and some have thought the Samaritan woman was trying to avoid observation by others because of her reputation. That reputation does not appear at the beginning of the account. Rather, there was a conversation about water. The woman referred to the hostility between Jews and Samaritans, and Jesus responded with a comment about the “gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink.” The conversation is rich with allusions. The woman’s inability to understand about “living water” had nothing to do with her sex. It is doubtful that anyone would have understood Jesus’ symbolic language; certainly the learned Nicodemus, in the conversation recorded in the immediately preceding chapter, did not understand what Jesus meant by spiritual birth.

Interpreters have often commented on the gentleness with which Jesus spoke as he introduced the delicate matter of the woman’s marital relationships. He led into a forthright comment that she had had five husbands and was not at the moment married to the man with whom she was living. Her calling Jesus a prophet and then introducing the matter about which of the conflicting claims by Jews and Samaritans concerning the legitimate place of worship was correct has often been considered a diversionary tactic. Whether it was or not, it is interesting that she introduced a theological matter and was not afraid to confront Jesus regarding his views as a Jew.

Jesus’ response was to speak with her about the very heart of true religion, the worship of God in spirit and in truth. Jesus prefixed his comment with a description of the nature of God as spirit. The woman’s response is surprising. While the Jews were expecting a Messiah, the Samaritans expected one they called a Taheb. They held that someone would come who corresponded to the prediction in Deuteronomy 18:18 (of a prophet like Moses). However, according to the Gospel of John, the woman spoke, not of the Taheb, but of the Messiah. The author simply inserts parenthetically “called Christ” by way of explanation. Jesus then identified himself as the Messiah.

The conversation was interrupted at that point by the return of the disciples. John significantly comments that they were “surprised to find him talking with a woman” but that “no one asked ‘What do you want?’ or ‘Why are you talking with her?’” This points up the fact that Jesus once again broke with rabbinic attitude by conversing, this time alone, with a woman. It also implies that the disciples did not question Jesus’ morals or wisdom in this respect.

The next part of the passage is highly important. To begin with, although the woman became a “missionary” to the townspeople, her message was not as clear as might appear on the surface of the text. The first part is clear: “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did.” She was quite open in her attitude to her past and present and also to the perception of Jesus. But the next words convey her uncertainty: “Could this be the Christ?” The question in the Greek (introduced by the particle, mēti) suggests considerable uncertainty. While one might like to celebrate this woman’s bold confidence in Christ, something else is indicated that could be even more significant. Far from believing easily, or, to put it in crass terms, being gullible, as some might (wrongly) expect a woman to be, this woman was cautious about her conclusion. It is not that she was a doubter, for it is remarkable that any Samaritan would on the basis of one conversation even entertain the possibility that the speaker was the Jewish Messiah! She had ventured into the area of faith, willing to break with her own tradition but not rushing headlong and wide-eyed into something she did not understand.

Two early paintings of Jesus Christ and the Woman of Samaria. Left: In this painting (Cemetery of Calixtus, Rome), Jesus is pictured above the woman. Above: In this somewhat later painting (Catacomb Via Latina, Rome) Jesus and the woman are on the same level Both are wearing an early version of the dalmatic, which symbolized status in the Christian community. Does this indicate changing perceptions of the woman in the early church? Alinari—Art Resource, New York.

This caution did not lessen the import or effect of what she said. John reports, “Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony.” This is similar to Jesus’ words later, when, in the Upper Room after the Last Supper, he said to the Father, “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their [i.e., the apostles’] message.”⁴⁸

But what about the following words of the Samaritan people to the woman: “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world”? Does this minimize the testimony of the woman? Raymond E. Brown comments on the people’s remark: “Yet this is scarcely because of an inferiority she might have as a woman—it is the inferiority of any human witness compared to encountering Jesus himself.”⁴⁹

Peter’s Mother-in-Law

Peter’s mother-in-law had a fever while Jesus was visiting at Peter’s home.⁵⁰ The seriousness of the illness is not stated. The incident occurs in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, with little modification. Matthew and Mark say that Jesus touched her, an act that was characteristic of Jesus. In this case, since she was a woman, it was a questionable act, according to the mores of that society, but there is no evidence that it was a matter of concern, perhaps because of the difference in age. (Although rabbis were known to take a sick person’s hand if he was a man, “there are no examples of rabbis doing so for a woman, and certainly not on the Sabbath when the act could wait until after sundown.”)⁵¹ When she was healed, she immediately served Jesus and the others. In doing this she went beyond what was usually done by the “matron of the house.”⁵² All three Synoptic Gospels also mention this act of serving. It is surely not intended as a statement of subservience in any of the Gospels. It was an act of gratitude appropriate to the social situation of the day.

The Woman Taken in Adultery

It is difficult to know what the original biblical setting was for this episode. Most early texts do not have it where it presently is—John 7:53–8:11.⁵³ It could be said that even if it does not belong here, it does reflect an attitude of Jesus that rings true. The account is well known. A woman was caught in the act of adultery, and the religious leaders were about to stone her to death. Jesus wrote something on the ground (which the Scriptures do not disclose, but which curious people ever since have tried to reconstruct), after which he addressed the crowd: “If anyone of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” This, of course, does not mean that Jesus minimized the woman’s sin. It is rather a statement that all have sinned and a statement also of God’s mercy. In that society what a man could do and get away with could not be done with impunity by a woman. Jesus once again cut across the grain of his society. His double statement to the woman has been the subject of many sermons: “Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Jairus’ Daughter and the Woman With a Hemorrhage

On one occasion, Jesus performed miracles on behalf of two women.⁵⁴ The narrative begins with a father, Jairus, pleading with Jesus to come to his daughter, who was dying. On the way, a woman with a hemorrhage pressed through the crowds and, seeking healing, touched the edge of Jesus’ cloak. Jesus sensed that power had gone out of him, called out to ask who it was who touched him, and, when she approached, commended her faith.

Christ Healing the Woman With a Hemorrhage. Late third-century lunette. Crypt Arcosolium. From Art Resource, New York.

Meanwhile, Jairus’ daughter had died. Jesus told the crowds that she was just sleeping, probably using that euphemism so that when he raised her the miracle would not bring him as much attention from those who were seeking a spectacular messiah. Jesus did raise the girl, after encouraging the father’s faith. Incidentally, the girl’s mother is not mentioned until the end, when there is a reference to the parents in the plural.

While the account is about two women, Jairus’ daughter is, of course, passive. The two objects of attention are Jairus himself and the woman with the hemorrhage. Thus a man and a woman are paired together as people of faith. Actually, Jairus seems to have needed some encouragement and may not have been as strong as the woman. The reason Jesus singled her out was clearly not to embarrass her but to reveal and commend her faith. Jesus could have expressed distress over becoming ceremonially unclean, for that was understood to be the result of touching anyone with a physical discharge.⁵⁵ But he was obviously more concerned over the woman than over matters of ritual cleanliness. The woman with the hemorrhage was a member of a “marginal” group.⁵⁶ She was a woman, in this case unclean because of her hemorrhage, and there is no indication of her having any status such as being related to a prominent man might give her. She undoubtedly lived a lonely life. She stands in contrast to the ruler Jairus, a prominent person and community leader who had the social standing she lacked. Yet both exercise faith, and both are accepted by Jesus.

The Syrophoenician Woman

It is striking that “two of the longest conversations Jesus had with women were not with Jewish women who might have been expected to have some understanding of who he was and of the meaning of his message, but with a Samaritan and with the Syrophoenician woman from the region of Tyre.”⁵⁷ It has been suggested that in Matthew the incident is the central point of a chiasm (a literary device with a sequence of elements that are repeated in reverse order).⁵⁸ However that may be viewed, it does occur, both in Matthew and in Mark, between the feeding of the five thousand and the feeding of the four thousand.”⁵⁹ This sequence of events thus contrasts the feeding of thousands of people with the grateful acceptance by the Syrophoenician woman of (figuratively) a few “crumbs.” The effect of this is to feature the lone figure of this woman of faith.

It may also be significant that in both Matthew and Mark this account is preceded by some teaching of Jesus on the subject of ritual cleanness. That may be significant because the woman involved was not only not Jewish but, according to Matthew, also a “Canaanite.” This reference to the woman’s descent from the pagan inhabitants of Palestine prior to the settling there of the Jewish people underscores the fact that she would have been considered ritually and personally unacceptable to the Jewish people. How this is so becomes evident in the reading of the story.

This incident took place in the vicinity of the city of Tyre and Sidon. Thus Jesus was in Gentile territory, outside of the borders of Galilee. The area, which is now in Syria, was known then as Phoenicia. This is why the woman is called a “Syrophoenician.” Matthew introduces the action with a word designed to get the reader’s attention: “Look!” (the Greek word idou, often translated, “Behold”). This woman came to Jesus and begged him to cast a demon out of her daughter. Matthew’s version, which has more detail than Mark’s, says that Jesus did not at first answer her but responded when the woman got on the disciples’ nerves.

Jesus’ response has disturbed many readers of this narrative. It seems rude and racist to tell her in effect that Jesus’ mission was only to Jewish people and that it would be wrong to take the “bread” that belongs to them (whom he describes figuratively as children) and give it to dogs, a term by which the Jewish people described Gentiles such as this woman. “The woman’s answer is masterly. ‘Yes, Lord,’ she agrees, ‘for even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.’ Those two words ‘for even’ reveal immense wisdom and faith.”⁶⁰ The woman did not argue with the theological premise of Jesus’ messianic mission. Matthew records the fact that she had initially addressed Jesus as “Son of David.” She then realized that this was not the basis on which she would receive help; instead, the Lord is merciful to all who call on him, regardless of their position in or outside of Judaism with its messianic privileges.

This woman showed herself to be perceptive, able to hold her own in conversation, and possessing a deep faith that not only achieved her desire but undoubtedly also won the admiration of Jesus. Her place in the Gospel account is well deserved.

The Women at the Cross

Matthew⁶¹ and Mark⁶² mention by name several women who were watching the events of the Crucifixion “from a distance.” Luke⁶³ does not mention any names here, probably since he did so in chapter 8. Interestingly, Luke wrote that among those who knew him and “stood at a distance” were “the women who had followed him from Galilee.”⁶⁴ John does not mention the distance at all; on the contrary, he says that the women, whom he names, were “near the cross.”⁶⁵

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all say that these women “followed” Jesus. The word “follow” is usually considered the equivalent of “be a disciple of,” though that idea has been challenged.⁶⁶ The word that Luke uses conveys the idea of “follow along with” and is less likely to mean discipleship, though that is not ruled out. It could actually convey the idea of an even closer relationship. Still another difference is that Matthew and Mark say women were “ministering to” or “serving” Jesus, whereas Luke omits this idea. The reason that this, like the names of the women, is absent from Luke here is probably that in the passage studied above he already identified several women who “ministered” to Jesus (Luke 8:1–3). Mark speaks also of “many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.”⁶⁷ It is not known whether these were regular disciples or not.

What does it mean that these women “ministered” to Jesus? Is this term the equivalent of what is connoted by its use today? Could the women be called ministers? A semantic error can be avoided by noticing that whereas ministry in the contemporary sense is done for the Lord to other people, here it is to the Lord and his associates. It is an overstatement to say, “This was equivalent to calling the women…ministers.”⁶⁸

But having said that, there is no reason to think that the women ministered to Jesus any less than the men did. Nor is there any reason to think that the women did not minister to others after the resurrection of Christ. Nor should it be concluded that, when Luke says the women ministered “out of their substance,” this was intended to introduce a restriction on the extent of their ministry. To be realistic about it, the way in which the women—or men—could minister to Jesus probably was largely in providing for his material and personal needs. It would be unrealistic and anachronistic to think that if Luke had not included the words “out of their own means,” ministering would have meant something like our modern concept of ministry.

Women were not only at the cross; they also went to the tomb. Luke is careful to note that the women “saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.”⁶⁹ Several things are worth noting here. In spite of their grief, the fact that Jesus had been executed as a criminal, and the danger from the hostile crowds and officials that all the disciples felt, these women identified themselves as Jesus’ followers and went to the tomb where the Roman soldiers were standing guard.

The preparing of spices for Jesus’ body (a necessary provision for a corpse in that hot climate), was not only the ministry of women, as one might infer from a statement by Charles C. Ryrie—a statement to which Dorothy Pape takes strong exception.⁷⁰ Ryrie says that the ministry of women to Christ was to care for his physical needs and implies that it was only in response to such ministry that he allowed women to follow him. However, John tells us that Nicodemus accompanied Joseph of Arimathea to the tomb and “brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.”⁷¹

Women as Witnesses of the Resurrection

The narratives of the Resurrection events are among the most revealing in all of the Gospels, not only as to the character and role of women but also as to the perceptions of men concerning them.

All four Gospels open their accounts of the day of Resurrection with the early visit of the women to the tomb of Jesus (Matt. 28:1–8; Mark 16:1–8; Luke 24:1–8; John 20:1–10). John has a further section about Mary Magdalene (John 20:11–18). Mark 16:9–11 also mentions Mary Magdalene; the verses in Mark, however, are part of a section that most New Testament scholars consider to be a later addition to the original text. All four Gospels mention Mary Magdalene. She is already well known in the Gospel narration and was one of those who accompanied Jesus in Luke 8:1–3. She is the first person mentioned at the tomb, the one who lingered nearby, and the first one to see Jesus.

Another Mary (mentioned in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) is identified by Mark as the mother of James. Mark mentions Salome, and Luke mentions Joanna; the probability is that this is the same Joanna mentioned among the companions of Jesus in Luke 8:1–3. When Luke tells of the report these women gave to the other disciples, he says that there were other women with them who were also telling these things to the apostles. There is no way to tell how many women were involved altogether.

These women came as early as they could following the close of the Sabbath. It appears from a comparison of the Gospel narratives that they started out before dawn and reached the tomb as the sun was beginning to rise. The scene that greeted them—the empty tomb and the angels—is well known. Mark and Luke describe the women as alarmed and frightened. There is no hint that this response had anything to do with any alleged emotional difference between men and women. After all, it was the male disciples who had been terrified on the Mount of Transfiguration, and Zechariah had been startled and frightened by the angel in the temple in Luke 1.

Some interpreters of the Gospels have rightly emphasized the fact that the first proclamation of the resurrection of Christ was made to women. Assessments of the significance of this, however, vary. Gilbert Bilezikian comments, “It was the reward of the loyal female disciples, who had accompanied Jesus to the place of crucifixion and stayed with Him through the horror of His execution, to be intrusted by Him with the most powerful message that has ever impacted the world: ‘He is risen.’”⁷²

Mary Evans has a well-balanced

The Women at the Tomb. From the Christian Baptistry at Dura Europas. Third Century. From the Yale University Art Gallery, Dura Europas Collection.

statement. After disposing of what she considers the false alternatives of whether “the angels appeared to the women rather than the men as a reward for their greater love [which seems to be Bilezikian’s position] or as a support for their weaker faith,” she says, “it seems likely that the angels appeared to the women as the ones who were first at the tomb, and having corroborated the evidence there was no need for them to appear again.”⁷³ Evans then notes that the women not only were “witnesses to the facts and receivers of the message” but also were commissioned to declare that message. “The women might have been the first,” she writes, “to receive the message of the resurrection because they were first at the tomb; they were the first proclaimers of it by the direct command of the angels and of Christ himself.”

It is surprising that there are books from the feminine perspective that include data from the Gospels but do not mention the women at the empty tomb. Even those that do mention them do not discuss the significance of the role they play. Evan’s statement strikes the right balance. The point is not simply that the women were there; it is rather that they were commissioned to tell. But immediately they encountered a problem, and this problem makes the commission all the more striking. Luke reports that when the other disciples heard the report of the women, “they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense” (Luke 24:11). Luke’s record is not a put-down of the women, as some have supposed. On the contrary, if anything, it is a put-down of the men who failed to believe them. But it is not certain that the men disbelieved because the messengers were women. No one seemed disposed to believe the Resurrection facts at first. This makes the belief and boldness of the women all the more significant.

If there was a reluctance to believe even partly because the word came through women, that would not have been unusual. Paul, we may remember, fails to list the women as witnesses to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15:3–8). This may be attributed to the fact that women were not accepted as legal witnesses.

The Penitent Mary Magdalene. This statue from Florence is one of several portrayals of her that overemphasize the aspect of sin and repentance. This is not, however, the way she is presented in the Gospels. Alinari—Art Resource, New York.

John’s added narration of the meeting between Jesus and Mary Magdalene is a moving account. She did not recognize Jesus. This could be because of the nature of the resurrection body of Jesus (if there was some variation in corporeal structure), or it may have simply been that she did not see his face at first. In any event his calling her by name resulted in immediate recognition. Her natural impulse was to cling to Jesus (the verb indicates more than just touching); but Jesus said that she should not hold on to him, because he had not yet ascended to the Father. It is not certain whether this refers to an immediate ascension followed by periodic appearances and then the final visible ascension or whether it refers to the single ascension we know of from Luke 24 and Acts 1. But this does not affect the fact that Jesus indicated to Mary that things were different and she must not try to hold on to him. It is a beautiful scene and consistent with what we know of Jesus’ relationship with these faithful women.

Women in the Teaching of Jesus

Jesus did not teach explicitly on the subject of women. His attitudes, however, can be gleaned indirectly from comments on other subjects, such as divorce. They can also be gathered from noting some of the negative Jewish opinions and observing the absence of such ideas in the Gospels.

Jesus and Jewish Thought

In the Gospels, Jesus makes little reference to the belief systems of others, apart from those of the sectarian leaders with whom he had personal confrontation. How much background is necessary in order to portray him historically against his times is difficult to know. Jesus and his disciples were untrained in rabbinic thought,⁷⁴ so discussion of that subject will await the chapter on Paul. It is more likely that he read or heard of the teachings of another Jesus—Jesus ben Sira (Sirach). But whether he did or not, his own teachings and attitudes toward women are seen in clearer perspective when we know something of the teachings of that sage.

Ben Sira lived nearly two centuries before the time of Christ. He made a number of comments about women, strongly positive and strongly negative. The latter probably express his inner feelings more accurately.⁷⁵ As is true of other ancient writers, ben Sira seems to find a woman’s virtues mainly in her relationship with her husband, not in qualities of her own. A passage that on the surface seems to celebrate the beauty and desirability of woman begins, “Any man will a woman accept” (i.e., a woman will accept any man—a statement that is hardly flattering to women). Structurally it is parallel to 36:18, “Every food does the stomach eat,” and both are followed by “Yet one [food/woman] is more pleasant than another.” In the opinion of ben Sira, therefore, a woman’s beauty is not one of a number of virtues contributing to her dignity as a woman; rather, it is something that pleases her husband sexually and can also get her into trouble with other men.

It has often been observed that the compliments paid to women in Jewish literature around the time of Jesus and the early church relate to her role as wife, mother, and provider. This is true also in Sirach, but several considerations should be kept in mind. One is that ben Sira does show appreciation for his wife’s character.⁷⁶ Woman’s virtue is not merely sexual or utilitarian; it is also intellectual and moral. Another consideration is that given the culture of his day, there was little opportunity for a woman to demonstrate her virtues and abilities outside of the family. Sirach is a vivid demonstration of this situation, and this in itself provides a valuable insight into the background of the Gospels. The cultural setting of ben Sira’s comments also includes the fact that wives were viewed as a husband’s possession: “He who acquires a wife gets his best possession.”⁷⁷

Ben Sira’s portrayal of the bad wife is very negative. He pictures her as publicly disgracing, uncontrollable, drunken, adulterous, angry, impossible to live with, worthy of a curse, babbling, seductive, emasculating, unpleasant, sin-originating, outspoken, and worthy of divorce.⁷⁸

The description “sin-originating” is particularly important. This is a theme found in later writings, including the works of the church fathers. Ben Sira says, “From a woman did sin originate, and because of her we all must die.”⁷⁹ This view accords with later ideas both of rabbis and of the church fathers. A reference to Eve is also found in Paul, but the difference is that it is not her sin as such but her being deceived that Paul mentions.⁸⁰ Paul specifically says that it is because of Adam’s sin, not Eve’s, that we all die.⁸¹ Jesus does not refer to Eve’s sin or to her deception. It is clear in Genesis that man would dominate his wife following the Fall.⁸² Whether the Fall left woman with an inordinate desire for, or dependence on, her husband or whether it made her competitive with her husband for leadership⁸³ does not seem to be an issue in the Gospels. Nothing appears in Jesus’ teaching to compare with Paul’s reference in 1 Timothy 2:12–14 to Eve’s having been deceived.

In fairness to ben Sira, in his passage on the bad wife the subject is just that, “a bad wife,” not “wives are bad.”⁸⁴ And if he says that it is “better to dwell with a lion and a dragon than to dwell with an evil wife,”⁸⁵ this is reminiscent of “Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife” (Prov. 21:9; 25:24). If we read in Sirach that it is “hard slavery and disgrace” for a woman to support her husband, that is not to say that ben Sira looks down on women in general because some support their husbands.⁸⁶ Rather, it reflects the ideals of the age. Even in Proverbs 31, the industrious wife has a distinguished husband.

All this shows that during the centuries immediately preceding the coming of Christ, there was a pervasive low view of women abroad in Palestine that is reflected even in a work such as Sirach, which at times shows real appreciation for a virtuous wife. How dark this picture was is a matter of disagreement among scholars.⁸⁷

Women in Parables and Allusions

In contrast, no one attributes a low opinion of women to Jesus. One way to perceive Jesus’ high view of women is to survey his parables. Jesus told parables portraying a remarkably wide variety of human situations. They pertain to such real-life circumstances as weddings, business, a mugging, finding and losing valuables, farming, baking, house construction, an unexpected guest, investments, and the courtroom. Naturally these reflect the social structures of Jesus’ day. Thus males are found in such positions as those of judge, farmer, employer, shepherd, and religious leader among the Jews. If Jesus’ parables were to be an effective means of communication, they had to reflect life in a recognizable way.

The Prodigal Son.⁸⁸ This parable has an all-male cast. It is about a father and an older and a younger brother. This is natural because it would have been a son rather than a daughter who would acquire a portion of the inheritance and seek his way in the world. Another son, rather than a sister, would have had cause for jealousy. It would have been a father, not a mother, who would give a portion of the inheritance, and the action of the father in running out to meet his son would have been more striking than similar action on the part of the mother. Further, and here theology is involved, Jesus taught about the heavenly Father, and in that respect, at least, it was appropriate to represent God by a human father.

The Lost Sheep and the Lost Coin.⁸⁹ In the other two parables of Luke 15, it was natural that the shepherd be a man. But when the opportunity was open to choose between the sexes for one who lost and found a coin, Jesus chose a woman. There is no reason why this was necessary, for it could just have easily been a man who lost a coin in the house. In fact, it is more striking that Jesus chose to make the character a woman in that she also, like the shepherd and the father of the lost son, represents God. In this case fatherhood is not involved, so the choice of a woman is possible.

The Persistent Widow.⁹⁰ The main characters in the parable of the unjust judge are a gruff judge and a disadvantaged widow. In spite of his resistance to her appeals, in the end she prevails. As noted above, this passage does not demean women as weak. On the contrary, it features a woman’s persistence. Clearly the woman comes off better than the man in this parable. This is all the more striking if the man to a degree is analogous to God and the woman to the believer who petitions God. Possibly the judge says he is afraid that further delay on his part will cause the woman to give him a “black eye,” since the verb usually translated “wear me out” actually means to strike someone under the eye. It therefore could mean literally and figuratively to give someone a black eye, just as we use the expression today.⁹¹ If this is the case, the point may be that God, like the judge, will respond so that his reputation is not blackened. The thrust of the parable may be one of comparison (God, like the judge, will eventually respond) or contrast (God, unlike the judge, will show compassion).

Either interpretation arouses admiration for the widow. Although she is a relatively helpless member of society, she shows tremendous strength of character and a healthy aggressiveness in the pursuit of her rights. She emerges as a colorful character who wins the day.

The Wise and Foolish Bridesmaids.⁹² These women are evenly divided between the wise and the foolish. There is no suggestion that women in general are foolish or that they are lacking in foresight or industry. What is significant here is that Jesus chooses to use a parable solely about women and that this parable is parallel to the following one about men in business. This is one of several instances where Jesus mentions men and women in balance. In some cases male and female are paired in Jesus’ teaching.

The Pairing of Men and Women. There are some interesting cases of the pairing of men and women. A man plants a mustard seed and a woman uses leaven in Jesus’ parables of the kingdom.⁹³ The Queen of the South appears in parallel to Jonah as witnesses in the future judgment in two allusions that Jesus makes to Old Testament narratives.⁹⁴ To say that the Queen of the South will “rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them” is a powerful statement about the significance of this woman. It is probably reading too much into the text, however, to say that she “would stand in judgment over men” and that “a woman will be given judgment over a whole generation of men and condemn them for their spiritual obduracy.”⁹⁵ The fact is that while the word is frequently used in condemning, it need not imply that the individual functions as a judge passing sentence. Rather, as a major New Testament Greek lexicon puts it, “The conduct of one person, since it sets a standard, can result in the condemnation before God of another person whose conduct is inferior.”⁹⁶ Therefore, although the other interpretation is incorrect, the correct understanding does not minimize the outstanding character and significance attributed to this woman.

An Eschatalogical Picture.⁹⁷ Jesus made a further reference to women, not this time in a parable or an Old Testament allusion, but as typical of the activity that would be interrupted by the return of the Son of Man. In the discourse of Luke 17, Jesus said that there would be two men sleeping in one bed (probably referring to the common arrangement of people sleeping all together on pallets on the floor of a house) and one would be taken and the other left (v. 34). In parallel to this he spoke of two women grinding their grain together, one being taken at the Lord’s coming and the other left (v. 35). It is clear that Jesus wanted to use one illustration concerning men and another concerning women. For that purpose he chose a typical activity of women. The illustration of the men in bed portrays the fact that the Lord’s return could be at night as well as in the daytime.⁹⁸ Therefore, one illustration was chosen from each time period. The suggestion that Jesus deliberately chose both men and women is supported by the fact that in the similar setting of Matthew 24:40–41, although Jesus speaks of two women grinding at the mill, as in Luke, the companion reference to men is a different one, in this case two men working in a field. The point is that even though Jesus uses different illustrations for men, he retains the same illustration of women, showing that this was a constant factor in repeated teachings on the subject.

Jesus and Social Change

Every time Jesus visited Jerusalem, he no doubt observed that women were permitted in the Gentile court of the temple and into the next one only if they were not in their period of impurity. Only Jewish males were permitted into the inner court. Women could not participate in the rites performed there, so entrance would have been useless anyway. There is no evidence that Jesus spoke out against this as unacceptable discrimination. This need not constitute approval of the distinction, for Jesus as an individual could do no more to change that situation than Paul could change the practice of slavery. It is true that Jesus did cast out the money changers, but their activity was an imposition on the established structure, not a part of it. Whether women were segregated in the synagogue and how much they may have participated in synagogue activities will be discussed in connection with Paul.

“Less lust and larger families” was the slogan with which Cicero had advised Julius Caesar to legislate reforms in the Roman Republic. This message, with its implied small print about the place of women, describes the secular situation in the decades prior to the birth of Christ. Laws were finally passed under Augustus in 19/18 B.C. to encourage large families by providing substantial benefits for having three or more children, and to stipulate severe penalties for adultery (banishment of the offending pair to different islands for life).

In such ways the superpower of Jesus’ day was attempting to deal with matters of justice for women. As might be expected, laws that seem to have been designed to help women were just as likely intended to benefit society as a whole (and consequently men as well).

Jesus, in contrast, showed little interest in direct action to modify the social conditions of women—or of men, for that matter. Yet his teaching on adultery and divorce, among other subjects, not only addressed moral issues in a radical way but in effect raised the level of women’s dignity and security. The effect of Jesus’ teaching on divorce, to continue this example, was not only to maintain a high level of personal morality but also to protect women from irresponsible tactics on the part of men who simply wanted freedom to pursue a new relationship. In contrast, some of the rabbis, notably Hillel and his followers, were permitting men to divorce their wives for minor and ridiculous reasons. Jesus put the matter squarely on a moral basis. In this respect, Judaism (except for the more conservative rabbi Shammai) had lagged behind the Romans in protecting the rights of the women.

The Male Apostolate

One of the questions most often asked by both traditionalists and feminists is why Jesus did not appoint any women apostles. Traditionalists use this fact as a challenge, and it is a problem feminists must face. First, if Jesus intended to declare women not only personally equal with men but also qualified for equal ministries, why did he not take the opportunity of making such a declaration by choosing at least one woman among the Twelve? Would this not have been an opportunity not only for vividly demonstrating his position on the matter but also for pioneering social change? Second, traditionalists point out that no matter how many women may have been associated with Jesus, even in a discipleship relationship, the ultimate step was clearly not taken. Without listing pro and con authors, it should at least be generally observed that while more serious studies on such subjects as the priesthood of women may acknowledge the problem of an all-male apostleship, popular works surveying women in the New Testament tend simply to omit reference to this, thereby bypassing a troublesome fact.

To be equally honest, however, one should ask the question, “What would have happened if Jesus had appointed a female apostle?” First of all, from a practical standpoint, it would have been logistically difficult for a woman to travel alone as an itinerant missionary in the first-century world. Second, from a social viewpoint, a woman would not have been accepted as a religious teacher in most areas. This will become clear in the second chapter. There were women involved in religious cult leadership, but their image was that of emotion and frenzy. Third, women were not accepted as witnesses. The basic function of the apostle was to witness to the words, deeds, resurrection, and person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Because of the unacceptability of women as witnesses, Paul does not list them among the witnesses to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 15). Fourth, the apostles symbolically represented the twelve tribes of Israel. This is apparently why it was felt that a successor had to be appointed to take the place of Judas,⁹⁹ and even though Paul was shortly to have the ministry of apostleship conferred on him, that would not provide the visible completion of the body of Twelve in Jerusalem. If this symbolic group was to gain acceptance among Jews, it was unthinkable that one of them be a woman.

Were all or any of these considerations behind Jesus’ decision not to appoint a female apostle? This question cannot be answered with certainty. But those who see the lack of women apostles as a proof that women should not have any authority in the church today will do well to ponder what implications there would have been had Jesus taken the other course of action.

Concluding Reflections

Jesus’ attitudes to women are, therefore, seen only indirectly in his teaching. It is more in the Gospels’ description of his positive relations with women in daily life that we learn his thoughts. Even without pronouncements on the subject, we are left in no doubt as to his position. Making a clear break with custom, Jesus had women learning from him as disciples and traveling with him in service. He engaged in theological dialogue with women. He helped women in need and in sin without demeaning them. He treated men and women alike with regard to their failings. He encouraged both men and women in their faith. He was absolutely pure in his relations with women. In his parables, which had to reflect life as it was in order to be effective, he portrayed women accurately in their various social roles.

All this makes understandable the strong reaction of Dorothy Pape to the claim of Charles C. Ryrie that Jesus “limited [women’s] activity by not choosing one of them for official work. Thus we may say…He limited the sphere of their activity by glorifying the domestic responsibilities with which they ministered to Him.” Pape questions what “official work” may be and asks, “Where in the Gospels does Christ especially ‘glorify’ domestic work? The woman mixing bread does not seem any more ‘glorified’ than the farmer sowing seed or dressing vines.”¹⁰⁰

Jesus’ attitude toward women is seen especially in his relationship to his own mother, Mary. He helped her to see that her ultimate relationship with him had to be one of obedient faith. At his death, he cared for her future needs by committing her to John’s care.

The Gospels, reflecting Jesus’ attitudes toward women, sometimes portray women in need. This is not done, however, with the purpose or effect of demeaning them. Women in the Gospels have dignity. In the Resurrection narratives, the women are described as the first at the tomb and as the first in the long and distinguished line of those who have born witness to the living Savior.

Dorothy Sayers has understood what all this means:

Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man—there never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronized; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as “The women, God help us!” or “The ladies, God bless them!”; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious.¹⁰¹

EXCURSUS ON LUKE’S VIEW OF WOMEN

Students of the Gospels have long been accustomed to observing the prominence of women in the Gospel of Luke. Luke seems to have had an empathy for women, an understanding of their physical and spiritual needs that displays more sensitivity than is shown by the other Gospel writers. Recently, however, this fact has been viewed from a different perspective. Rather than commending Luke’s sympathetic portrayal of women, some now consider it a patronizing putting down of women:

Luke characteristically qualified every mention of women by a reference to some negative aspect of their character. Here he noted that these women had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, especially Mary of Magdala from whom seven demons had been cast out. This is a literary device used throughout the gospel of Luke to present women as both weak and sinful.¹⁰²

Such a viewpoint is not only contradicted by the preceding survey of women in Luke, but by the following observations:

1. When Luke includes incidents about men in sections that are also found in one or more of the other Gospels, he portrays their physical and moral needs as well, not minimizing their weaknesses in contrast to those of women. Luke includes incidents found in Matthew and Mark that show male weakness: he mentions a demon-possessed man (4:33). Jesus healed a male leper (5:12–14) and a paralyzed man who was in need of forgiveness (5:17–20). He calls Levi, a tax collector and “sinner” in 5:27–32, where Jesus says, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” The centurian’s servant near death is a male. The Gerasene demoniac in 8:26–39 is male, not female. It is a son, not a daughter, who is suffering from convulsions in 9:37–43. It is a man, not a woman, who is blind and helpless in 18:35–43. It is Peter, not a woman, who denies the Lord.

2. Luke presents several incidents about men that are not found in the other Gospels. In each case he brings to the fore their physical or moral weakness. Only Luke includes the special call of Peter. In this incident Peter called himself a sinful man (5:8). The Pharisee in 7:36–50 is clearly inferior in character to the woman who is called a sinner, and likewise the judge in the parable of 18:1–8 is inferior in character to the widow. Prostitutes (such as the woman in Luke 7 seems to have been) have always been a marked group in any society. For Luke to introduce this woman is not to brand women as morally inferior but to show God’s grace and Jesus’ love to even such a person. Likewise, widows were a distinct group in that society. It is no reflection on women to recognize the statistical reality of first-century mortality tables. The story of the unjust judge is not literary fiction to emphasize the weakness of a widow, but a parable that encourages the church to identify itself with the widow who perseveres against the injustice of an unjust judge. A widow, generally thought of as helpless, is here transformed into a character of strength, a model for the church.

Virgin of the Annunciation, a woodcut from the fifth or sixth century. If this is, as assumed, a portrayal of Mary, it is one of the earliest representations of the Virgin extant, and perhaps the earliest. Mary has remained the ideal Christian woman over the centuries. From the Louvre.

3. Also in passages that have no counterpart in the other Gospels, Luke presents women as spiritually strong as well as portraying some of them, like men, in conditions of weakness and sin. Perhaps Elizabeth’s childlessness (Luke 1:7) could be considered a weakness, but in verse 6, as noted earlier, Luke specifically commends Elizabeth equally with her husband, Zechariah, who was a priest of God.¹⁰³ Certainly Luke does not present the virgin Mary as weak or sinful; on the contrary, he features her piety and biblical knowledge. Mary of Bethany is shown in Luke 10 to be a disciple learning from a rabbi, hardly a portrayal of weakness or sinfulness. Other women presented only in Luke are portrayed as fiscally responsible and supportive of Christian ministry, as was noted above and as will also be seen in Luke’s narrative in Acts.¹⁰⁴

4. Although there are places in Luke where women are described in terms of weakness and moral need, this is true of all the Gospels. But such references are not derogatory. Men and women share these characteristics, and Christ came to meet the moral and physical needs of all people. Luke tells us that Jesus came “to seek and to save what was lost.”¹⁰⁵ For Luke, sinfulness and weakness, though negative, are conditions of humankind that affords God opportunity to exercise his saving grace. It is true that several of the women who appear only in the Gospel of Luke have serious physical or moral defects. Only Luke’s story of an anointing features a woman who is said to be sinful. Only Luke mentions that Mary Magdalene had been demon-possessed. It is only in his Gospel that we read of the woman who had been “bound by Satan” and unable to stand up straight.¹⁰⁶ Examples like these are easily observed also in the other Gospels.

Matthew has a statement about “Rachel weeping for her children.”¹⁰⁷ John tells of Jesus’ conversation with the woman at the well, an example of a woman who was in deep moral need and who became a proclaimer of the Messiah to her own people. The illness of Peter’s mother-in-law appears in several Gospels.¹⁰⁸ The dying daughter of Jairus and the woman with a hemorrhage likewise are found in all three Synoptics.¹⁰⁹ The details about the infamous Herodias and her role in the death of John the Baptist are in Matthew and Mark, though not in Luke.¹¹⁰ The parable in which a debtor fears being sold along with his wife and children, a vivid picture of the times, appears only in Matthew.¹¹¹ The original setting of the story of the woman taken in adultery is uncertain; its present location is in John.¹¹² It is Matthew, not Luke, who reports that prostitutes enter the kingdom (and there they are paired with male tax collectors).¹¹³ The story of the widow’s mite occurs in both Mark and Luke.¹¹⁴ Here again, although the woman is portrayed in a position of weakness, widowhood with its consequent poverty was a common state in that society, conveying nothing concerning the morality of the individual woman. Further, the widow here is featured in contrast to rich people. Women were also prominent in the passion narrative.

Human beings are thus seen in Luke and in all the other Gospels as essentially weak and sinful, and many of them became the recipients of God’s saving grace. This includes men and women without discrimination.

↑ Back to top