|
Michael F. BirdIs Christianity a servile and womanish religion?
It is somewhat ironic that today people sometimes dismiss Christianity as too patriarchal, whereas the ancient Romans reviled the churches as too womanish. They accused Christianity of being for the weak-bodied and feeble-minded dregs of society, a religion for losers, unmanly, and servile. Christians gloried in the shame of their crucified messiah, who himself, like a female captive, was violated into submission.
Topics like patriarchy, gender-equality, and gender-based violence in relation to ancient and contemporary Christianity are legitimate areas of discussion. I do not mean to defend all articulations of manhood and masculinity and the way the Christian faith is sometimes used to give them religious legitimacy.
But I do want to point out that Christianity, at least in its earliest centuries, had a reputation for being pro-woman, to the point of being disparaged as an effeminate, even emasculating, religious association. This is why the second-century pagan philosopher and erstwhile critic of Christianity, Celsus, said that the churches comprise “only foolish and low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make convert.”1
Socio-cultural background: Greco-Roman patriarchy
The Romans prized the virtues of virility and victory as demonstrated through violence, manliness, and might, not power in weakness, nor humility, servant heartedness, or a scandalous display of mercy. To them, Christian social ethics, where women on some level were equal with men, were an absurdity or an affront to civic order and familial decorum.
True, in the Roman world, there were law reforms often in the favor of wives and daughters. In addition, women had their own spheres of power and influence where they did carry authority and have rights and responsibilities. Indeed, a mother or wife of the emperor was an immensely powerful person, but within certain limits. To transgress those limits invited chatter as much as conspiracy. The priestess of a certain cult or the patroness of an association likewise had an esteemed status and demonstrable authority, albeit within the “game” of a male-dominated society.
The churches sometimes adhered to social mores about male, female, and family expectations with a few variations spliced in (e.g., the household codes in Eph 5:22–6:9 and Col 3:18–4:1; Paul’s remarks on head-coverings in 1 Cor 11:2–16; and their expectations about wives). But at other times they challenged, redefined, or subverted these conventions (e.g., principles of equality, as in Gal 3:28; mutual submission in marriage, as in Eph 5:21; prohibitions on male aggression towards women, as in 1 Pet 3:7).
Luke’s contribution to the Christian elevation of women
I submit that the depiction of women in the two-volume work known as Luke–Acts is partly responsible for shaping distinctly Christian views of women. Luke more than any other New Testament author provides concerted attention on the significance of women in the life of Jesus (Gospel of Luke) and in the ministry of the early church (Acts of the Apostles).
Luke narrates a two-episode story (Luke and Acts) which puts a spotlight on women and their substantial roles in the plan and purpose of God. Beginning with Mary, the mother of Jesus, and including other prominent women like Mary Magdalene, Tabitha, and Lydia, Luke shows how God uses women to advance his redemptive purposes in the world and to promote the mission of Jesus and his church.
Luke shows how God uses women to advance his redemptive purposes in the world and to promote the mission of Jesus and his church.
In addition, Luke evidences heartfelt concern for the vulnerability of women, especially widows and women who suffer from various afflictions or alienation, whether rich or poor, even prostitutes. Luke draws attention to the plight of women who experience injustice, deprivation, and shame. One could judge Luke–Acts as partly a protest against a pernicious patriarchy and its exploitation of women. This is precisely the assertion that James Arlandson makes when he writes:
when Luke constantly esteems women in Luke–Acts, and especially six from the unclean and degraded and the expendable classes at the expense of wealthy, powerful, and prestigious men, then he is transmitting a value about women to the Christian community, especially about poor women.2
Luke crafts his narrative in such a way as to highlight the contribution of women to God’s mission and the moral imperative to show vulnerable women compassion.
In what follows, I will provide a quick snapshot of a cohort of women specifically from the Gospel of Luke. In the course of doing so, I will illustrate Luke’s attention to women’s roles and interests in his account of Jesus.
Mary, mother of Jesus: birther of God
I enjoy exposing the faulty presuppositions of my students and I do this like a taipan snake lying in wait for its prey.
When I teach the Gospel of Luke, we get to Mary’s Magnificat, so I begin by asking them what they think of the Marian devotion of the Catholic Church, which tends to be negative. I then ask the students, “Should we [Protestants] consider Mary to be especially ‘blessed’?” There is always someone in the class who protests with fervent denial that Mary isn’t any more blessed than anyone else because we Protestants believe all Christians are saints and in the priesthood of all believers. Then, with a wry smile on my face, I invite the same student to read Luke 1:48, which says, “Surely from now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me” (NRSVue). To which the student normally stutters on the word “blessed.”
You do not have to be Roman Catholic to accept that Mary is a big deal in the story of Jesus and in the story of redemption. She is indeed blessed, and we should call her so! In the annunciation (Luke 1:26–37), the angel Gabriel tells Mary that she is God’s “favored one” who has “found favor with God” (Luke 1:28, 30 NRSVue). Mary is chosen by God and is worthy of the divine choice for the role to which she is elected.
Mary, Jesus’s mother, is no ordinary peasant girl and not a one-dimensional character. God’s plan and purposes pass through Mary’s womb. But she is no passive character; rather, she is a model of devotion and piety. In the Christian tradition, Mary is celebrated as Theotokos, “God-bearer,” the one who gives of her flesh, the flesh of the Son of God.
God’s plan and purposes pass through Mary’s womb.
On hearing that God intends for her to bear a child, without sexual congress, as a virgin, her response is not incredulity, mysterious though the events to bring it mist have seemed to her. Instead, she responds like a prophet with the words, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word” (Luke 1:37 NRSVue). These words, contrasted with others, like Zechariah’s dimness and Peter’s denial, portray Mary as an exemplary disciple who receives the word with joy (see Luke 8:13).3 Greg Forbes and Scott Harrower comment, “Mary is in many ways a model of a desired response to the unexpected ways in which God may work in and through the lives of the faithful.”4
Mary is a prophet. She hears, receives, and accepts God’s promises without question or query. She is a herald of God’s justice. Mary sounds almost like a social radical in her celebration of God bringing down the rich and exalting the low. Her words acclaim that God “has brought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty” (Luke 1:52–53 NRSVue).
Mary’s words are like a Hebrew version of “Rich Men North of Richmond.” Her song celebrates and anticipates—like Amos or Hosea—God putting wrongs to right, a reordering of power, the poor lifted up, and those who gained their riches through avarice sent away empty.
Mary is a paragon of piety. Mary is a worshipper of God. In her soul, she “magnifies the Lord,” which is to cause something to be held in greater esteem through praise and making much of it (Luke 1:46 NRSVue).5 Her worship is one of joy for God’s mercy, faithfulness, and justice (Luke 1:47–55). Mary explains that God is mighty to save and why God is worthy of worship.
Indeed, Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:46–56) sits beside other biblical celebrations of divine victory, such as the Song of Moses (Exod 15:1–18) and the Song of Miriam (Exod 15:20–21). Her song comprises one of the most sublime celebrations of God’s enduring faithfulness to his promises for his people. Mary’s words are suffused with jubilation as they celebrate God’s faithfulness to the patriarchs, to Israel, and his magnificent mercy and justice, which are as comprehensive as they are effective. Mary’s song promises, very importantly, mercy and justice to all of Abraham’s children in the family of faith, who will also sing the song that Mary did.
As the story unfolds, Mary gave birth to the infant Jesus in Bethlehem, connecting the scriptural pattern of a young maiden bearing a child in Davidic line (Isa 7:14) with messianic prophecy of a Davidic messiah born in the small Judean town (Mic 5:2–6). After the shepherds attend the holy family and explain their angelic visitation, Luke tell us that “Mary treasured all these words and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2:19 NRSVue). Mary was perhaps the first theologian, one who was among the first to reflect and put the pieces of the story together. It left an indelible impression upon her.
Mary was perhaps the first theologian, someone who was among the first to reflect and put the pieces of the story together.
As Jewish custom required, the family visited Jerusalem to offer the relevant sacrifices for purification after the birth and to dedicate their son to the Lord. While in Jerusalem, the prophet Simeon told Mary about what the child would one day do, causing a division within Israel. To Mary, he said, “a sword will pierce your own soul, too” (Luke 2:35 NRSVue), which intimates that Mary herself will tragically experience something of the pain of her son’s own passion.
Later, in Jesus’s twelfth year, when the boy Jesus had disappeared from the group, his parents were frantically searching for him in the temple. When found, Jesus’s answered that he must be “in my Father’s house” (Luke 2:49). Though neither Joseph nor Mary understood the boy’s words (Luke 2:50), his obedience to his parents furnished proof of his devotion to them. Luke again comments, “His mother treasured all these things in her heart” (Luke 2:51 NRSVue). Mary was the first one who believed, pondered, and treasured the messianic story that she was involved in by bringing the “Son of the Most High” (Luke 1:32) and “the Messiah, the Lord” (Luke 2:11 NRSVue) into the world.
All we know of Mary in the early church is that she was among the first disciples of the Jerusalem Church who met together for prayer (Acts 1:14).
Luke portrays Mary as an instrument of the divine purposes, exemplary in her faithfulness, a prophet of God’s justice, a worshipper with a noble heart, and ponderous of God’s purposes. She should rightly be called “blessed” by “all generations” and be acclaimed as “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43, 48).
Mary Magdalene: a towering figure of faith
When it comes to Mary Magdalene, we must carefully distinguish faith, fact, and fiction. Mary Magdalene is associated with many pious assumptions, conspiracy theories, and sensationalist gossip. If I may bust one myth, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. That legend began in the sixth century when Pope Gregory I conflated Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2) with Mary of Bethany (Luke 10:39) and the anonymous “sinful woman” who washed Jesus’s feet (Luke 7:36–50).
Mary, based on the underlying Hebrew for Miriam, was a common Jewish name for women. More interesting is the meaning of her family name, “Magdalene.” It might designate her origins in the village of Magdala, derived from the Hebrew word מִגְדָּל for “tower,” located on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee (i.e., the city of “Tarichaea”). Otherwise, Jesus gave many of his followers nicknames (e.g., Mark 3:27; Matt 16:17), so perhaps “Magdalene” means something like “Tower,” for her towering faith and support.6 Such a theory is speculative, but not implausible.
Luke refers to Mary Magdalene in two places in his Gospel:
- In connection with supporting Jesus’s Galilean ministry
- As a witness to his resurrection
Soon afterward he went on through one town and village after another, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, 2 as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who ministered to them out of their own resources. (Luke 8:1–3 NRSVue)
Many people find it an astounding insight that Jesus was financially sustained in his ministry by three prominent women: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna, among others. These women probably possessed some means or were even quite affluent. In the case of Joanna, her husband was Herod Antipas’s chief administrator. Mary Magdalene had been healed of multiple demonic—though what that precisely means we are not told. She then joined the “Jesus movement” and remained faithful to Jesus even into up to his crucifixion.
But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body. While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to the hands of sinners and be crucified and on the third day rise again.” Then they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. (Luke 24:1–11 NRSVue)
The prominence of women in the Lucan birth and infancy narrative (Elizabeth, Mary, Anna) is mirrored in the prominence of women in the resurrection narrative. Luke largely rehearses the Marcan story in his account of the empty tomb. However, Luke adds that these women “remembered his [Jesus’s] words” (Luke 24:8) and “they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest” (Luke 24:9 NRSVue). In Luke’s narration, the women, seeming led by Mary Magdalene, were the first to connect Jesus’s death with his passion predictions, and the first to proclaim the resurrection to the apostles. This is precisely why, since Thomas Aquinas, Mary Magdalene has been celebrated as the “apostle to the apostles.”
Start a study on Mary Magdalene in the Factbook inside Logos. Get the Logos app free, if you don’t already have it.
Mary and Martha of Bethany
I would be remiss to talk about women in Luke’s Gospel without mentioning Mary and Martha. Their story is very familiar:
Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village where a woman named Martha welcomed him. She had a sister named Mary, who sat at Jesus’s feet and listened to what he was saying. But Martha was distracted by her many tasks, so she came to him and asked, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her, then, to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things, but few things are needed—indeed only one. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38–42 NRSVue)
This passage is a playground for feminist interpretation and deconstruction of Luke’s portrayal of women. Is Mary praised because she takes time to listen to Jesus, whereas Martha is wrong to complain about the mundane matters of domestic chores? We might look at it differently though! What if Mary is praised because she does what “women should do”: sits down and shuts up, leaving the proper work of “service” to men? The issue many readers have, from over-worked homemakers to female Bible scholars, is not the commendation of Mary for listening to Jesus; it is the dismissal of Martha’s complaint about the unfair burden placed upon her to provide for everyone single-handedly.
Perhaps Martha is concerned with the status of her household if she cannot provide hospitality for her guests. Jesus’s response does not address her domestic service, but rather her distraction and anxiety.7Jesus never disparages Martha’s service or dismisses her complaint. Jesus’s point in his reply to her is that one needs to consider a greater need than the urgency of the present. The greater good is receiving the Word. Without such a perspective, Martha, for all her sense of domestic decorum, could become like the soil covered with thorns which does not receive the Word because the Word is choked by anxieties over mundane matters (Luke 8:14).
Mary is affirmed in her desire to be a learner of Jesus. Martha’s anxieties are calmed as her service is affirmed.
A constellation of vulnerable women
The Lucan Jesus is also characterized by a concern for vulnerable women, such as widows and sex-workers! In material unique to Luke’s Gospel:
- Luke clearly praises the piety and asceticism of the widow and prophet Anna (Luke 2:36–38)
- Jesus uses the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarepheth as an example of God’s blessings extended to outsiders in a time of national recalcitrance (Luke 4:25–26)
- He heals the widow’s son at Nain (Luke 7:11–17)
- He forgives a “sinful woman” who encroached upon his dinner with Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36–50)
- He healed a crippled woman even though it was the sabbath (Luke 13:10–17)
- He tells a parable where a persistent widow is the paragon of faithfulness and endurance and attains justice (Luke 18:1–8)
All of this indicates a pattern in which vulnerable women, especially widows, are in need compassion and protection, and yet at the same time often play important roles, such as the prophetess Anna, or even as positive examples of discipleship, as in the case for the persistent widow before the unjust judge. I cannot think of any other literature in the Greco-Roman world that takes such an interest in the plight of women in antiquity.
Luke and women today
To ask if Luke was a feminist is a bit like asking if he was a Chicago Cubs fan. He might not understand the question and it is somewhat anachronistic to ask!
We must be alert that Luke is not going to be a feminist or pro-women in the way that we might want, by our own standards, given our own unique history of suffrage for women, battles for gender equality, women’s rights, and more. Even so, when viewed in light of his own context, wherein the patriarchy was often brutal and women were often silent, it’s hard not to view Luke as liberative for the women of his day.
What can we learn from Luke about Jesus, women, and the mission of the church? I think there are several clear takeaways:
- Women have a big place in the plan and purposes of God. There’s no Jesus without Mary; there is no incarnation without Mary.
- Women are among the most exemplary of disciples, whether we are talking about Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha, or others.
- Luke draws attention to the particular vulnerability of women.
- Luke portrays women as possessing a positive place in the mission of the early church with their own valued contribution.
Resources Dr. Bird recommends about women in Luke
- Arlandson, James Malcolm. Women, Class and Society in Early Christianity: Models from Luke-Acts. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
- Forbes, Gregory W., and Scott D. Harrower. Raised from Obscurity: A Narrative and Theological Study of the Characterization of Women in Luke-Acts. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2015.
- Levine, Amy-Jill., with Marianne Blickenstaff. Editors. A Feminist Companion to Luke. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2001.
- Reid, Barbara E. Choosing the Better Part? Women in the Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996.
- Spencer, F. Scott. Dancing Girls, Loose Ladies, and Women of the Cloth. New York: T&T Clark, 2014.
For further reading about women in Scripture
- Women in Acts: Women’s Role in the Birth of the Church
- 7 Women in the New Testament & Their Example to the Church
- Why Did Jesus Appear to the Women Instead of the Disciples?
- Origen of Alexandria, Against Celsus, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Frederick Crombie (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 484.
- James Malcolm Arlandson, Women, Class and Society in Early Christianity: Models from Luke-Acts (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 188.
- Barbara E. Reid, Choosing the Better Part? Women in the Gospel of Luke (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1996), 69.
- Gregory W. Forbes and Scott D. Harrower, Raised from Obscurity: A Narrative and Theological Study of the Characterization of Women in Luke–Acts (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015), 44.
- William Arndt et al., “μεγαλύνω,” in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 623.
- See Elizabeth Schrader and Joan E. Taylor, “The Meaning of ‘Magdalene’: A Review of Literary Evidence,” JBL 140 (2021): 751–73.
- Veronica Koperski, “Women and Discipleship in Luke 10.38-42 and Acts 6.1-7: The Literary Context of Luke-Acts,” in A Feminist Companion to Luke, ed. Amy-Jill Levine (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim, 2001), 195.
Joshua Jipp
Mitch Chase
Daniel Stevens
Posts
.jpg?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/quality,q_70/resize,m_mfit,w_350,h_350/format,webp)
