According to Elizabeth Cady Stanton in her book “The Woman’s Bible”, “The Bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race”. From the beginning of time, woman have been seen in a lesser positive light in comparison to that of men. The Bible reflects a culture where the perception of women rested on infirmitas sexus, womanly weakness. Women were under complete custody of men, and fully dependant on their bounty, whilst men were strongly advised to stay clear of all physical contact with women unless for procreation. Whilst it is evident that the Bible is not a book of neutrality, there still begs a question: why did Jesus treat women differently. Accounts of Jesus’ interactions with woman appear continuously throughout the Bible and are often considered as non-conforming and displays of Jesus’ possible belief in gender equality. In this dissertation I plan to examine exactly how Jesus treated women in an unconventional way and how this reflected his beliefs on gender equality, ultimately measuring to what extent he could be considered a “feminist”. Although Jesus existed long before the feminist movement, a more modern and western idea, perhaps Jesus represented the qualities of a feminist, before it became an official word. The question is relevant to RMPS as it allows us to develop a deepened understanding of Jesus actions and beliefs and how it might affect the teachings of Christianity. The question is relevant today because of the large inequity of clergy throughout Christian denominations. According to a 2012 National Congregations Study, only around 11% of individuals identified the clergy leader to be a woman, which proposes the idea that maybe woman are viewed as inferior to men when it comes to Christianity. Or, if Jesus really was a feminist, then perhaps Christianity hasn’t quite aligned its practices to Jesus’ model. In this dissertation I will investigate into the life and ministry of Jesus, looking into depth at several of his interactions with women such as the woman of Samaria and the likes of Mary Magdalene. I have used a wide range of sources and differing commentaries on Biblical passages which has given me a variety of interpretations on Jesus’ actions; helping me to further understand his motives and beliefs.
Jesus’ ministry appears frequently in the Gospel of John, particularly his interactions with women. One notable passage is that of the Samaritan Woman in Chapter 4, where Jesus encounters a Samaritan woman drawing water from a well on his journey from Judea to Galilee and asks her for a drink.
Jesus violates two ancient customs; the first being religious. There was an animosity between Jews and Samaritans dating back centuries and the woman “thinking instinctively of current quarrels and divisions” (Lightfoot) was naturally surprised by Jesus’ approaching. These hundreds of years of conflict sourced a Jewish view that Samaritans were beneath them, particularly Samaritan women. Samaritan women were seen as ritually unclean and so for Jesus to not only acknowledge the Samaritan woman’s existence, but also to overtly interact with her indicates great significance as he would have been viewed as becoming unclean in Jewish tradition. As this was an early point in Jesus’ ministry, it suggests that Jesus was setting a bar for gender equality for others to follow in pursuit and this heightens the idea that Jesus was a feminist. As public interaction between men and women was unheard of, Jesus also breaks a social taboo. Men were advised to avoid any overt contact with woman and in John 4:27 the disciples “marvelled that he was speaking with a woman”. Although this highlights the uncommonness and disbelief of Jesus’ interaction, the word “marvelled” suggests that the disciples did not view the situation in a negative light but were instead inspired by Jesus’ actions. Potentially, Jesus was aware of his role-model position to the disciples and so by acting in the way he did, he was aware of the message he was spreading and like a feminist was willing to actively express this belief. Furthermore, his defiance of social customs also suggests that he not only saw women as deserving and equal as men, but he was willing to act against the gender constrictive roles to show this. This extends the idea that Jesus was in-fact, a feminist.
Another point to note is that Jesus did not approach the Samaritan woman with the intent of enlightening her, but simply because he was thirsty. Yet, he quickly forgets his thirst and instead “waters the mind of her who had denied Him water” (Calvin). Calvin argues that he sees her salvation of more importance, which is a strong argument as Jesus was sent for the salvation of the world as evidenced in John 14:6 “ Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Calvin’s view suggests that gender played no role in Jesus’ evangelisation and he did not discriminate against women when spreading the Word of God. Instead he saw them as equally deserving of salvation and eternal life as men, a view which might be described as that of a feminist. When Jesus tells the woman that he is the messiah, she goes back to her village and shares the word and knowledge of Jesus, spreading his faith to other Samaritans. Jesus often told witnesses not to share their testimony, but in allowing the Samaritan woman to, it suggests that Jesus felt she deserved a leader-like role among her villagers. This is important as it shows Jesus was evidently not opposed to the idea of women holding a similar status to men, since it was almost always men spreading the Word of God. However, Robert G. Maccinni claimed that in the Pentateuch there are no legal rules excluding women as witnesses which suggests that it was not entirely unheard of for a woman to receive a hearing. This could mean that Jesus did not allow the woman to go and tell the villagers the news of the messiah because he believed she deserved a higher-status role as Jewish traditions didn’t apply in Samaria and so it was not out of the norm. This is an equally strong argument because it aligns with the historical context of Samaria and so potentially, Jesus was not so much a feminist, but simply an evangelist.
A final point to note, is how historical the Samaritan woman actually is in John’s gospel and questions often arise surrounding this issue. Perhaps John was using the Samaritan woman symbolically rather than literally. Nonetheless, symbolically, the passage still reflects Jesus’ egalitarian views and blindness towards gender and religion. The legitimacy of the Gospels is a possible counterargument to all of Jesus’ actions, but this point will be touched on later.
Mary Magdalene is a prominent women throughout the Bible, featuring on several occasions. In the Gospel of Luke, tells the story of Jesus coming to the home of both Mary and her sister Martha and it bears huge importance in the example of Jesus’ “feminist” actions towards women.
During Jesus’ visit, he allows Mary to join in with the rabbinic circle, fulfilling her desire to listen to his teachings. In a time where female education was focussed purely on domestic skills such as cooking and cleaning it was unheard of for a women, rather a hostess, to involve herself in the rabbinic discussion. Moreover, it was a time where space was segregated between men and women; men kept to public space whilst women kept to private space such as the kitchen, as Martha did. Mary upset this tradition by entering a public place, and so was seen as acting like a man. However, when Martha asks that Mary return to the kitchen, Jesus affirms that “Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her”, defending her place as a disciple and someone just as deserving of education as the men. Wright takes the view that “Jesus’ valuation of each human being is based not on abstract egalitarian ideals, but on the overflowing love of God”. This idea stems from the belief that God is omnibenevolent- “all-loving”, something often attested to in the bible, which strongly suggests that Jesus treated Mary in this way because of his all-encompassing love. Perhaps his love for humanity blinds him of gender and he sees everyone as human rather than a man, or a woman; a belief which would be considered feminist. Jesus could have let Mary and Martha solve their indifferences between one another, but instead he intervenes, and rather than doing so in private, he chooses to defend Mary in front of the other rabbis. In doing so, he displays his public stance of equality, which links back to a similar idea as with the Samaritan Woman, that Jesus was willing to publicly and actively support equality, which makes the idea more and more plausible idea that he was a feminist.
However, one of the main basis’ of this argument is the fact that Jesus was accepting of Mary’s entrance into a public setting, thus accepting of unorthodox views on a woman’s place. However, Pamela Thimme’s notices that “the setting is private, not public”, which encourages that Jesus was not treating Mary in an extremely remarkable manner, as she did have a place in that setting. Nonetheless this viewpoint is weak as it does not detract from the fact that Jesus allowed Mary to
sit by his feet, the typical position of a male disciple, essentially treating her in equity with his other disciples.
Mary Magdalene becomes a more prominent character later when she appears at Jesus’ resurrection, an event which occurs in all four of the canonical gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The resurrection of Christ is seen as a physical raising of his body to heaven; three days following his crucifixion, he appeared to Mary Magdalene after she found his tomb empty and he commissioned her to spread the news of his resurrection. Jesus revealed himself to his female apostles before anyone else, something which weighs great importance when evaluating his beliefs.
First and foremost, first-century Israel women did not have the prerogative to attest in the court of law under the belief that they were unreliable witnesses. Widely believed, the place of a women was seen at home and not in court and it would have been considered illogical to choose a woman as a first witness. And yet, the first apostle commissioned to give testimony of his resurrection was a woman, indicating that Jesus did not act accordingly to the general consensus. This consensus is exemplified in Luke 24:11 as the disciples “did not believe the women (the other female apostles that Jesus appeared to following Mary Magdalene), because their words seemed to them like nonsense”. So the question begs as to why Jesus would have selected a woman as his first witness.
One possibility is that Jesus chose Mary as his witness so to remove the blemish of female inferiority that first emerged in the Garden of Eden. Following “the Fall” of mankind, an inequity was generated by the fact that Eve was seen to have sinned first; God told her “your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Woman lost all power and authority to man- being described as the “devil’s gateway” and the root of all sin”. There are multiple paradoxes between the Fall and Jesus’ resurrection in John 20. There were two gardens; the Garden of Eden from which Eve and Adam were banished and the garden in which Jesus appeared in on Resurrection Sunday. There were two women; Eve, the first sinner and Mary Magdalene her “counterpart”. Finally, there were two angels; these parallels show that Jesus’ resurrection was a way to revoke the curse that Adam had placed on mankind, and save humanity from “original sin”.
As Jesus’ death would remove the curse through his redemption, perhaps he wanted women to regain their voice and authority and remove the bondage of women. Jesus was calling Mary to be the carrier of his gospel and was calling women to be his apostles. This viewpoint has great strength in it since the news of his resurrection was possibly one of the most monumental events in Jesus’ life and it is unlikely that he would have selected just anyone to testify this. It becomes increasingly clear here that Jesus was a feminist; not only did he want Mary to have the same rights as men in terms of spreading his testimony, but he wanted to change the views on women completely, and eradicate the idea that they were the “root of sin”.
Evidently, Jesus did not see gender as importance when selecting his apostles, instead he chose those who were most faithful and devoted to him and his gospel. Jesus wanted the disciples to be led by women into the next phase of Christianity, to deliver his teachings. This brings us onto the next point, which centres around the challenging question as to why all twelve of Jesus’ disciples were male.
If Jesus was such a so-called “feminist” it would seem irrefutable that he would include women as part of his discipleship, and yet he did not. Phillip Siddons briefly suggests that Jesus was aware of travel dangers and was acting accordingly to the patriarchal social structure of his time. However, in Jewish culture women were in-fact accepted into certain leadership roles; Queen Salome Alexandra ruled over Judea for nine years B.C. and examples of female leaders appear in the Bible such as 2 Kings 11:3, “Athaliah ruled the land”. Nevertheless, Jesus made a clear distinction between men and women when selecting his discipleship, suggesting women were not worthy enough of serving in this position. James Borland claims in his article “Women in the Life and Teachings of Jesus” that “Jesus clearly affirmed an abiding role distinction between men and women and an abiding leadership role for men”. Jesus had broken many cultural traditions before- his treatment of the woman from Samaria, his inclusion of Mary Magdalene in the rabbinic circle, and so could have easily made his disciples both men and women, but he did not. Perhaps, Jesus did see men of a slightly superior level to women and was less of a feminist than the New Testament suggests.
Although women weren’t directly part of the “twelve disciples”, Biblical evidence suggests they were still part of Jesus’ group. In Luke 8:1-3 Jesus travels through the towns and cities announcing the news of His kingdom and we are told that “twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities”. In Mark 15:40-41 Jesus is accompanied by “many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem”. Among the women in Jesus’ group, specifically mentioned is Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Chuza and Susanna. A reasonable assumption for why Jesus might have included women as a part of his group was too evangelise other women. Since public interaction between men and women was frowned upon, it would have been extremely difficult for women to find out more about what was being preached in the towns and markets. Having women as part of his group, this meant that other women could go and speak publicly to them and ask any questions. So whilst this explains why Jesus might have had female followers around him, it does not imply much of him having a “feminist” attitude. Whilst Jesus was communicating a message on the status of women, simply just by being around them, the clear segregation of roles between them and his male disciples reflects not an egalitarian view, but a traditional male-dominating view. This lessens the extent to which Jesus appears a feminist.
Historian and Bible expert Joan Taylor puts forward a slightly more radical suggestion that perhaps there were both twelve male disciples and twelve female disciples. In her documentary with Helen Bond, Taylor observes in the original greek version of “the Mission of the Twelve” that the expression “δύο δύο” appears, meaning “two by two”. The same expression appears in the greek version of Genesis in the story of Noah, when the animals come in “δύο δύο”, explicitly pairs of one male and one female. This suggests that when Jesus sent out his disciples, they were sent out in pairs of men and women. Professor Helen Bond points out that this would fit with the social context of those times; with the strict regulations on gender relationships, the pairs of men and women would allow the men to evangelise other men, whilst the women could go into private areas and evangelise other women. As further noted in Bond’s speech at St Paul’s Cathedral, when Jesus and his male disciples were preaching to the people of towns and villages, “groups of women would have been able to hear them, but they wouldn’t have been able to ask questions openly, or to come forward to be baptised by a male”. Therefore, “Women were perfectly placed to befriend other women, to talk to them as they drew water at the wells, washed clothes in the river, or gathered in groups. And women could go into other women’s homes, and talk to them openly.” The idea here is that Jesus included women in his discipleship in order to help evangelise other women. Jesus is portraying the qualities of a feminist here, by allowing other women an equal opportunity to become followers of God and, if the theory is right, by allowing women an equal status in his ministry as men. This viewpoint is strong, because the phrase it is based upon comes from the original biblical scriptures, rather than a modern translation, which makes it likely to be historically accurate. Although the idea is based off of a single phrase, there is plenty of evidence throughout the bible that there were women among Jesus’ group, so this is not a completely radical suggestion.
Another key interaction to examine between Jesus and a woman is the account of the woman with the blood flow (Mark 5:24-34). This particular passage tells the story of a woman
“who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years”. The woman, also referred to as the “Haemorrhoissa”, comes forward through a crowd and touches Jesus garment, which immediately heals her.
There are three points of significance in Jesus’ reaction to her touching him. The first, is the belief of the “blood taboo”; in the Jewish community during these times, to be unclean was to be an outcast and due to these beliefs, her bleeding would have brought social and religious isolation upon her. The belief of uncleanliness was integrating into the fabric of society and people were sorted into three categories of holy, clean and unclean; priests were seen as holy, Israelites as clean and the non-religious as unclean. Due to the woman’s blood flow, she would be depicted as making anything she touches “impure”; she was subject to laws noted in Leviticus 15:25-31 referring to bleeding women which stated that “anyone who touches them will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening”. And yet, when she touches Christ, he doesn’t react shocked or disturbed, but instead heals her of her bleeding despite this “unpardonable liberty to take with an eminent Rabbi”. This demonstrates his love for humanity, that he doesn’t see humans categorised as pure or impure, but rather that everyone is equal and deserving of his love. Jesus appears like a feminist here, as he believes that even the most socially isolated of women, deserve his healing and power.
Secondly, Jesus acknowledges the woman in public. Jesus could have easily continued on his journey and kept the interaction between him and the woman; but he did not. Jesus stopped and publicly acknowledged her faith, defying both social and religious constrictive roles. The woman’s condition would not have been a secret in such a small village; since Israelites were warned to “separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness”, her condition would have been notorious. Not only was it remarkable that he engaged openly with a woman, but to do so with an outcast of society, Jesus was delivering a strong message. He was expressing a belief that not only “clean” women deserved the right to be acknowledged in public places, but “unclean” women too. By speaking to the Haemorrhoissa, Jesus was treating her as equal to men, reflecting his increasingly evidential, feminist views.
Finally, a point of noteworthiness, is Jesus’ words in response to the women touching him. After the woman is healed, Jesus refers to her as “daughter” and claims that her faith has made her well. Bowman takes the view that “her faith in Him had been the channel through which His healing power had come. Ritual impurity did not matter”. This exhibits Jesus’ blind-eye towards social categorisation and again shows his feminist-like views, in-that he over-looked the fact she was a woman, and an “unclean” one at that, and instead admired her faith. Jesus did not discriminate against the fact she was a woman in a public place, because to him gender has no importance, only faith. Secondly, the fact Jesus refers to the woman as his “daughter” exemplifies the thoughtful and caring manner in which he spoke to women; Jesus treats the women like a child, someone who can learn from him and see him as a role-model rather than treating her like a societal outcast.
However, Bowman also points out that “in fairness to the Rabbis, it should be noted that they, while they had built a hedge about the Law, had soften its stringencies”. Whilst this provides a possible explanation as to why Jesus was so unfazed by the women’s actions, it does not detract from the fact that he was publicly interacting with a social outcast and treating her as if she were family, and so this viewpoint lacks strength in possibly contradicting Jesus’ remarkable response.
In conclusion, Jesus Christ can be considered a feminist to a large extent. Throughout his life-time, Jesus continually treats women as equal to that of men; by simply publicly acknowledging the presence of so many women in his life, he exhibits a non-conformist stance to the general consensus on woman’s position in a patriarchal society. However, Jesus goes beyond this, allowing women to be part of his group and possibly hold a similar, if not, equal position to that of men in his discipleship. Although the term “feminist” did not exist in his time, I think it is fair to say that Jesus took such a different and extreme approach to women in comparison to other men of his times, that he would certainly have fit the term, had it existed back then. Since women’s rights and suffrage have progressed massively since then, Jesus’ treatment of women would not be considered exceptionally “feminist” in these days, but considering the social and religious contexts of his life-time, it is self-evident that he possessed feminist qualities. Jesus’ treatment of women is extremely important in today’s society and often overlooked as so many denominations still fail to understand that Jesus believed women should have leadership positions. Everything Jesus did was an example for the rest of man-kind, whether that be allowing women to spread the news of his resurrection, or seeing past the Jewish taboos on female cleanliness, Jesus undoubtedly saw women in a better light than is often perceived.