Jesus and Expectations: Part 7- Women
Oct 30th, 2009 by John
Welcome to USAmerican evangelicalism. Show me your version of the Bible and I’ll tell you what you think about the role of women in ministry. Can you believe it has come to this?
This post cannot be an in-depth presentation of the role of women in ministry. I would encourage you to read Scot McKnight’s The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible where Scot presents the biblical/theological issues at stake in the current evangelical serious (and at times silly) debate on the role of women in ministry. We live in amazing times when entire versions of the Bible are created to promote and preserve the views on this hot-button issue (the complementarian and egalitarian views).
Whatever the debate is today, it is undeniable that Jesus had very liberal views and relationships with women in his 1st century Jewish culture. Whatever his culture’s boundary markers were, he broke them. I will present three episodes of Jesus’ relationship to women.
First, Jesus talked publicly and theologically with a very questionable woman (John 4). While most Jews, including Jesus’ own disciples, saw the woman as a Samaritan, unclean, immoral and heretical, Jesus saw the woman at the well near Askar as a worshiper of his Father in spirit and in truth. Most of us see people as they are, Jesus sees them for who they may become. Good Jews were discouraged from talking to women, even their own wives, because it took away time from studying Torah. But to talk in a public place (the village well) with a dirty, degenerate half-breed in the noon-day sun was breaking every rule that directed the behaviors of nice Jewish men. Granted, Jesus did reveal to the woman that he knew all about her sin, yet he also revealed to this woman that he was, indeed, the long-awaited Messiah. The only person to whom Jesus revealed that truth privately to was this Samaritan woman. Without any Campus Crusade training or Evangelism Explosion seminars this woman leads her village to Christ. You tell me, did Jesus have a high or low view of this woman as a mass evangelist?
Second, in an act that was shockingly and culturally unacceptable, a woman with a serious, sinful reputation anoints Jesus with perfume while Jesus is in the home and at a meal with Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7). When the woman let her hair loose in public, you can feel the air being sucked out of the room. That was an act suitable only for the bed-chamber. Simon took the act scandalously and Jesus took the act as a sign of grateful humility. Who was right? Jesus remained calm and accepting of the woman’s actions while Simon had an internal fit and reaches bad conclusions not only about the woman, but about Jesus himself. To Simon, Jesus is one big fraud. And the woman sheer polluted evil incarnate. But the irony is that the biggest sinner in the room is Simon, the Scripture studying, rule-keeping Pharisee. The woman, in Jesus’ view, is the incarnation, not of evil, but of thankful love for sins forgiven. Did Jesus have a high, if not risky view of women?
Third, and similar to the episode above, is Mary anointing Jesus with myrrh just before his imminent death (Mark 14). This time it is not a pompous Pharisee castigating the woman, but Judas Iscariot and the other 11 disciples. They charged her with wreckless wasting of wealth, with money that could have been given to the poor. It is Judas who says this, perhaps to cover his own pilfering of the disciples’ money bag. Jesus immediately and strongly shuts down their accusations and interprets the meaning of Mary’s act. Jesus does much more. Jesus declares that wherever the Gospel is proclaimed, Mary and her act will be honored. Have you ever heard this story of Mary in any presentation of the Gospel? I have not. So much for obedience to Jesus on this one. We have so reduced the Gospel in USAmerican evangelism that it’s lucky that even Jesus is mentioned in it. It’s all about us and how to get to heaven from Grand Rapids, MI. But the point is that the objecting disciple, Judas, in the next moment strikes a deal with the religious leaders to betray Jesus. We have the sacrificial devotion and sensitivity of Mary to Jesus’ approaching death contrasted with the man. The male. The head. The man, Judas, who hot-headedly yells at Mary and cold-heartedly kisses Jesus as a signal of money-grubbing betrayal.
Who fled like cowards when Jesus was arrested? Who denied Jesus? Who betrayed Jesus? The women?I don’t think so. It was men.
Jesus’ relationship to women did not follow the cultural scripts. Neither does the Gospel follow cultural scripts. The Gospel liberates women to their rightful place with their brothers in the work of the kingdom of God. Phoebe was a leader, a deacon. Junia was an outstanding apostle. Priscilla was an effective discipler of Apollos. Many other women were co-workers, not sub-workers, with Paul in the ministry of the Gospel. It all got started with Jesus.
Note: I used Darrell L. Bock’s Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels for background on the stories.
Popularity: 2% [?]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Robert Hartzell, dbgooglereader. dbgooglereader said: Jesus and Expectations: Part 7- Women: Welcome to USAmerican evangelicalism. Show me your version of the Bible .. http://bit.ly/4aQHSo [...]
“Most of us see people as they are, Jesus sees them for who they may become.” I just want to keep reading this sentence over and over again.
Elisha,
You’re so sweet. I am glad that sentence encouraged you.
Love, Dad
[...] more from the original source: jesus the radical pastor | exploring the life and mission of the … By admin | category: jesus | tags: bear-hug, catch-the-guy, culture, flow, his-culture, [...]
Regarding this statement: “We live in amazing times when entire versions of the Bible are created to promote and preserve the views on this hot-button issue (the complementarian and egalitarian views).”
Can you elaborate on this a little? Which specific versions were created to favor which specific views? I’m just trying to get some kind of idea of the landscape of bible versions – wouldn’t one think the translators would simply try to represent the original languages or thoughts as accurately as possible without injecting their own biases? Thanks John.
Don (#4),
Of course you are aware of the bruhaha launched by the complementarian crowd when the NIV-UK came out as “gender inclusive” followed by the TNIV. These versions were the slippery slope toward undiluted, egalitarian heresy according to their detractors. Then, the complementarian crowd got behind and endorses big time the English Standard Version that preserves, for them, the correct view of headship, hierarchy, traditional views of family and women in ministry. We live in a day when Bible translations are agenda driven. Isn’t that sad?
I am aware of the gender issue with the translations that had been raised by James Dobson, but I was not aware that complementarianism/egalitarianism was the primary thrust that brought the ESV into existence. I thought it was simply concern over regendered language. Additionally, I had thought that the primary figures behind it also desired a very literal translation that would be more readable than, say, the NASB. As I had been out of the habit of regular bible reading up until a couple of years ago, I desired a fresh read after having relied on the NIV for the first 20 years of my Christian life, and the ESV is in fact the version that I chose. To be honest, I have to say that I love it, as it has delivered on my desire for freshness in reading. I would far rather stick as closely as possible to the original languages than go in the other direction, such as to The Message. My pastor at first wasn’t keen on the idea of a literal translation, preferring the NIV, but now finds the ESV easier to teach from.
To be honest, I’m fascinated by bible versions and their origins, and I did learn a lot in my research a couple of years ago. Do you know of other contemporary translations that may have been agenda driven, or were you thinking primarily of the ESV? It would not surprise me if, through the centuries, many more versions came from an action-reaction dynamic.
p.s. I suppose the gender role issue (specifically within the church) could be easily implied by the gender translation issue, but I didn’t read that far into it at the time I was researching bibles.
[...] Frye, in his post “Jesus and Expectations: Part 7- Women“: Whatever the debate is today, it is undeniable that Jesus had very liberal views and [...]
Don (#6-#7),
I think I was imprecise. I don’t think that either the TNIV or the ESV were produced with the “role of women” issue in mind as a driving reason for their existence. It is just that the evangelical divide over this issue has resulted in preferred English translations that “fit” their position. Thanks for your interactions.
John,
I believe this is one of the best posts that I have heard on Jesus and the bibles view of women. I believe every believer needs to rethink this issue and treat women as a vital part of the Kingdom of God. We need to allow women to use the spiritual gifts that God has given them and not hinder their talents and abilities. We need to see them as an important part of the body of Christ. May those who hinder and bind womens roles in ministry set them free! May those who see them as second class Christians be opened to the true reality of what they truly are in Christ! Thank you brother for this post and challenging us. God bless all you do to make a Kingdom difference. God bless you!!
Preacherman,
Thanks, again, for your very encouraging comment. I pray we will continue to see our sisters in Christ take their rightful and equal place with us as leaders in and to the church. God bless you!
John,
Likewise, thank you for your responses and clarification of your original post. One irony I noted is that the NIV was initially welcomed by conservatives as a response to the RSV; and now, the ESV, as a more conservative rewrite of the RSV, appears to be supplanting the NIV among conservatives!
Finally, a quick review of history of contemporary bible versions as documented by Michael Marlowe on http://www.bible-researcher.com illustrated to me that liberals and conservatives have been in a cat-and-mouse game for over half a century, i.e., if we are to take Marlowe’s accounts at face value, it would seem that “there is nothing new under the sun” in terms of bible translation motives! Perhaps sad, but not the least bit surprising given human nature.
[...] We have so reduced the Gospel in USAmerican evangelism that it’s lucky that even Jesus is mentioned in it. It’s all about us and how to get to heaven from Grand Rapids, MI. But the point is that the objecting disciple, Judas , …Next Page [...]