Table of contents#

1. Gnats, Camels, and Coffee Grinds
2. A Demon in an Apartment
3. Brief Historical Survey of Attitudes Towards Women at the Time of Jesus
4. Jesus’ Attitude towards Women in Ministry and at Home
   1. Example 1: The Woman at the Well
   2. Example 2: The Woman with the Bleeding Ailment
   3. Example 3: Mary, Martha, and Female Disciples
5. Summary
6. Notes

Gnats, Camels, and Coffee Grinds#

Last article, we surveyed the complementarian and egalitarian interpretations of Genesis 1-3, and the various strengths and weaknesses of each. I mentioned that my own personal view of women in ministry and at home cannot be fully articulated without the whole counsel of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. This article will focus only on Jesus and the gospel accounts, and how they can add to the discussion on a biblical understanding of women’s roles.

The way Jesus interacted with women was actually quite radical for His time. Jesus and the apostles also taught and assumed some things you and I don’t naturally assume. Sometimes we read Scripture and miss the meaning, because we don’t always know the culture. Case in point is when we actually see Jesus mixed in some sarcastic humor when he rebuked the Pharisees for “[straining] out a gnat, and [swallowing] a camel.” (Matt. 23:24).

Back then, people would strain out gnats from what they drank, and back then camels were how people got around, especially for long distances. I don’t know about you, but whenever I read the above verse, it always struck me as the type of humor or anger of an old wise sage, kind of like Gandalf yelling at hobbits for doing something stupid. I certainly did not envision a young, zealous 33 year old Galilean carpenter turned prophet (who also happened to be God) yelling this at a bunch of old religious guys with big beards.

To really understand the Lord’s personality in this statement, we might ask the question, “what is the modern day equivalent of a gnat and a camel?” Well, the only thing I can think of people straining out something they don’t want in their drink is pulp or coffee grinds from a French Press. Gnats are pretty small, so I guess a tiny coffee grind is the closest thing?

But what about a camel? Camels carried around a lot of stuff you needed, like a big pouch of water, bags for food and clothing, and man those things can last a long time without water. People would use camels to travel for a long time in the wilderness. If I could think of something in our modern day that mirrors a camel, it would have to be a motorhome; those things have huge gas tanks and have more than enough room for our stuff. They are also pretty fun!

Motorhomes are expensive though. I thought, how much would a camel have costed someone back then? I went the whole way and found an ancient source that priced a camel at 900 Greek “Drachmas”,¹ and found an ancient money calculator online,² and using modern day minimum wage of 15 dollars per hour, that camel would have been the modern day equivalent of $81,000, about what you’d get for a decent motorhome!

So, instead of camels and gnats, imagine Him yelling at the old Pharisees with big beards that they “strain out a tiny coffee grind, and swallow a motorhome!” To me at least, the meaning shows a bit more of Jesus’ humor.

Think of that time when the Pharisees told Jesus to leave the place because they said King Herod wants to kill him. Jesus then says, “Go tell that fox, ‘I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.’” (Lk. 13:32). Why did he say he was a “fox”? World renowned biblical scholar Craig Keener, known for his expertise in ancient cultural backgrounds of the Bible, can tell us:

Calling someone a “fox” in antiquity would not necessarily imply that the person is sly (although that was one possibility); instead, it could portray the person as worthless, slanderous, treacherous or (quite often) cunning, but often in an unprincipled manner. Thus Jesus here does not offer Herod a backhanded compliment (cf. Ezek 13:4).³

A Demon in an Apartment#

Trying to hear Scripture from it’s own context sort of reminds me of being on an overseas church trip in the Middle East. We were walking down the streets of a bustling city and the local contact leading us through the city randomly pointed at an apartment, and started telling us a story - apparently Jesus cast out a demon from him there. Wait, what? I thought. This guy. I thought. A demon? How?

I asked him what he meant and he explained that he used to live there, and then one night, in the middle of the night, Jesus appeared to him in that apartment and cast out a demon from him.

I had no reason to doubt his testimony, since these types of experiences are becoming increasingly common in the Middle East, as well as around the world. It does sound more like the Bible than it being a rare occurrence.

But the main point is that this guy’s story caught me off guard because he had prior knowledge that I didn’t have about that apartment. Well, Scripture actually assumes things without saying it. God does not always speak on our terms, especially when His word was written to an ancient people, and not 21st century Westerners who like to watch Netflix and football, scroll through Instagram, shop at Costco, and…camp in motorhomes.

Going back to the analogy of my trip guide’s story, when we stumble upon what may look like your everyday, perfectly normal apartment building (a passage of Scripture, wink), it may actually be a place where God’s kingdom is speaking in power. Well, the truth is, whenever we take a walk through Scripture, what may look like bare facts actually are a gate to understanding a new dimension of God’s kingdom!

Brief Historical Survey of Attitudes Towards Women at the Time of Jesus#

To understand what Jesus’ attitude really was towards women’s roles, we need to understand ancient culture.

A fair warning: the ancient Greek and Jewish view of women at the time of Jesus reads like nails on a chalkboard. But we need to listen to the scratch of that chalkboard, so that the way Jesus treated women will make more sense. When we look at the cultural context of Jesus’ time, it’s sort of like zooming in on that drab looking apartment I was talking about, and seeing those finer details that make you realize the true character of the apartment building.

We do not have extensive records of 1st century Jewish attitudes, except the writings of two Jewish men, Josephus and Philo. Josephus was a 1st century Jewish historian, was gifted in Jewish law from a young age, and became a member of the Pharisees.⁴ Philo grew up in what would eventually become modern day Egypt, part of a Jewish community under Roman rule. He was born around the time Jesus was born. He was deeply influenced by Greek philosophers.

While Philo doesn’t represent how the average Jew living outside Judea (modern day Israel/Palestine) would have thought, his views on women were likely similar to the average Jewish male regarding women. Philo was influenced deeply by Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics.⁵ Most people have never heard of this guy, but he was very influential on later Christian thinkers and Church Fathers.

Ready for the nails to scratch on chalkboards?

Some conclusions Philo made from the Genesis account:

• “It was the more imperfect and ignoble element, the female, that made a beginning of transgression and lawlessness, while the male made a beginning of reverence and modesty and all good, since he was better and more perfect (QG 1.43).⁶”

• “For the judgements of women as a rule are weaker and do not apprehend any mental conception apart from what their senses perceive (Legat.319).⁷”

• “…females are weaker and colder in nature, and we must look upon the female character as being a sort of natural deficiency.⁸”

Josephus’ attitudes toward women:

• “For, says the scripture, A woman is inferior to her husband in all things. Let her therefore be obedient to him. Not so, that he should abuse her; but that she may acknowledge her duty to her husband. For God hath given the authority to the husband.”⁹

• “…let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.”¹⁰

During Jesus’ time, women were restricted from becoming teachers of the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible), and Philo and Josephus’ attitudes were indicative of the general attitude toward women. The disciples were surprised that Jesus was willing to talk with a woman (Jn. 4:27-28). Roman and Greek culture also considered it culturally inappropriate for a wife to talk with another man in unguarded settings.¹¹

In the 2nd century, attitudes did not improve. The Rabbi Judah bar Ilai taught that Jewish men should pray everyday, that they are not a gentile, a woman, or a slave.¹² Rabbis generally did not want women to be taught the Torah.¹³ One later rabbi went so far as to say that it’s better to burn the Torah than to give it to a woman.¹⁴ These attitudes were likely the same in the 1st century, since oral tradition could have carried attitudes toward women down generations.

It was not as though women were prohibited from learning anything, however. Keener notes that women learned Torah in the home, and could listen to a Rabbi from a distance. But at the time of Jesus, only men could excel in learning the Torah, and women were significantly disadvantaged compared to men when it comes to education.

So, given this is the type of environment Scripture was written in, we will now find that some things that seem “normal” to us were anything but normal to ancient people. We now turn to some illuminating examples of Jesus’ “progressive” attitude regarding women and women’s roles in the home and in ministry.

Jesus’ Attitude towards Women in Ministry and at Home#

Example 1: The Woman at the Well#

The average westerner might not think it odd to read that Jesus asked a “Samaritan” woman for a drink of water at a well, told her that he was the messiah, prophesied to her, etc. Anyone from a modern country with rights for women would just think that Jesus is acting like a civilized man. But this is most certainly not the way an ancient Jewish man or woman would have understood it!

Just look at how the disciples responded to Jesus talking with this Samaritan women; they “…were surprised to find him talking with a woman.” (Jn. 4:27). Apparently, they were too afraid to ask “‘Why are you talking with her?’” (Jn. 4:27). Jesus didn’t even bother to explain to his fearfully confused disciples why it was ok to talk with a woman about the gospel; Jesus just assumed it!

In addition to Jesus’ personal interactions with this woman, and assuming that Jesus was led by the Father in the way He interacted with this woman, we can also deduce that the Father strategically “chose” this woman to open up her community to the gospel, since many believed in Jesus because of her testimony (Jn. 4:39), the result being that many Samaritans “…urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. And because of his words, many more became believers.” (Jn. 4:40-41).

Jesus in this example was transforming cultural assumptions about what is ok to do. On top of that, this woman was a Samaritan, a people group who were not on good terms with Jews, and vice versa. Yet, he crossed those man-made boundaries as to who is ok to talk to, and who isn’t. As an influential male religious leader, Jesus was moving the cultural “needle” towards a more equal view of women and men.

Moreover, we should assume that the Father had a strategic purpose for an interaction with this specific woman, since the entire community believed in Jesus because of her testimony; therefore God chose a woman to essentially lead her entire community to Christ. God was giving an important task that had a high level of influence to a woman; yet in ancient Jewish culture, men were supposed to be the ones that God ordained to have influence.

We might ask, if God prioritizes male leadership and influence in the life of the church, why didn’t He choose a male to go and open up this community to the gospel? Weren’t there plenty of men God could have sent up to that well to talk to Jesus? In my understanding, this is because God does not “choose” people for influence based on gender, but chooses people for influence based on the needs of a community.

It should strike us that the entire community had a high level of trust in this woman, because they immediately believed when she shared what Jesus told her. Even more striking is the fact that the apostle John does not say this community believed because she transmitted the gospel message to her community, but says that the town believed specifically “…because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me everything I ever did.’” (Jn. 4:39).

It is obvious then that this town really trusted this woman. I think that it’s safe to conclude then, that the Father knew this woman’s testimony and saw that a supernatural encounter with her would influence the community in a way that probably no one else in that community could, which included men. Even if there was a man who could have influenced the community this way, He still chose her to do it.

Example 2: The Woman with the Bleeding Ailment#

The famous story of the woman with an issue of blood is an example to all of us of bold faith. Yet there is some meaning some people miss, because we aren’t acquainted with ancient Jewish culture. It is far more courageous for a Jewish woman who was (a) socially restricted, (b) ceremonially “unclean”, and (c) also physically debilitated to take a risk and boldly touch Jesus’ cloak.

Jewish purity regulations mandated that someone in her situation not just be considered “unclean”, but also anything she touched, sat on, or layed on also became “unclean”,¹⁵ which is why she would have faced severe social restriction. Moreover, since anything she touched became ritually “unclean”, she risked making Jesus “unclean” by touching his cloak! You can imagine all the gossipy women of the town freaking out that she’s trying to go and grab the Rabbi’s cloak.

Rather than rebuking this woman for violating ritual codes, Jesus turns around and commends her for her faith! Not only that, but he bestows on her more than just physical healing. Joel Green insightfully shows us that Jesus

…embraces her in the family of God by referring to her as “daughter”, thus extending kinship to her and restoring her to her larger community—not on the basis of her ancestry (cf. 3:7-9), but as a consequence of her active faith. Now she is not only one who knows what God has done for her; so do the crowds who gathered around Jesus. Because he has pronounced her whole, they are to receive her as one restored to the community.¹⁶

This woman broke social conventions and did what many would easily have judged her for, yet the Father would have no judgment on this woman. Put yourself in the place of another bystander in the crowd; you would have been well aware that it would be highly disrespectful for that woman you’ve always heard about to be so bold as to touch a Rabbi!

After, all, wasn’t it God himself who mandated that she stay ceremonially unclean? And therefore, wasn’t it God himself who mandated her social restriction? If you are anything like me, you would have been pointing the finger at her, telling her to get away from the Rabbi. Yet, Jesus completely disregarded the purity laws for this woman! Hence renowned expert in the Gospel of Matthew R.T. France is surely on the mark when he points out that

The issue of impurity is not directly raised…but a Jewish reader could hardly have been unaware of it, and Jesus’ disregard of the taboo would be noticed. He is, as always, concerned with need rather than ritual (“mercy” rather than “sacrifice,” v. 13).¹⁷

Jesus is once again teaching us that there are indeed more important things than God’s generalized wisdom (OT law); that God is more concerned about deeper need instead of a surface-level, man-made, performance-based mindset that emphasizes form and ritual above purpose and intent. Jesus did not have the classic “rule-follower” and “teacher’s pet” mindset. This certainly has a bearing on how we understand women’s roles; in this narrative, the woman’s surrounding culture placed high expectations on her that demanded she follow her role “to the T”, and not even just her role, but supposedly her “God ordained” role and destiny. How often do we do that with God, attach man-made expectations to God’s wisdom, rather than attaching to God Himself?

But she decided to step outside of these boundaries, and into the boundaries of God’s kingdom rule, and she transcended what some might have called “good social norms for a woman like her”. She certainly would not have been considered a Teacher’s Pet, or I guess a Rabbi’s Pet. Whoops I forgot, women weren’t allowed to learn under a Rabbi, so only Rabbi’s Pets could be men! Anyways, principles and rules serve a higher purpose, and are not ends in and of themselves, similar to how Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27).

Example 3: Mary, Martha, and Female Disciples#

“As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But 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!”

“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”
(Luke 10:38-42)

While this passage is usually used as an illustration for warning against anxious work, this little passage is pregnant with cultural meaning and significance for women in ministry and women’s roles.

First, Martha was dutifully following the social code of her day for women - preparing the house and food for guests. Mary was not following these social codes and was instead sitting at the Lord’s feet, listening to him. Jesus then rebukes Martha for trying to whip Mary into shape and get her in the kitchen! It’s like she was saying, “Lord, don’t you remember that we women need to be in the kitchen cooking?” As He usually did, Jesus relativized social norms when they get in the way of more important matters.

Even more striking is that Luke uses the phrase “sat at the Lord’s feet” (v. 39) to describe Mary’s posture towards Jesus. We usually understand this phrase to be a purely literal description of what was happening. But Luke uses this phrase elsewhere, particularly quoting Paul. Paul said that he was “… trained at the feet of Gamaliel, according to the strict ways of the law of our fathers.” (Acts 22:3, ESV, emphasis mine). The phrase “at the feet” was not a literal description, but rather a Jewish idiom for training under a Rabbi specifically in order to become a Rabbi. This is why other translations like the NIV translate Acts 2:23 as saying “I studied under Gamaliel…” The NIV translators wanted to get the real meaning across.

So when Luke describes Mary as “sitting at the feet of Jesus”, it is not merely a physical description, but rather to say that she was adopting the posture of a disciple-in-training. As Craig Keener aptly notes,

…it is easy for modern readers to forget that rabbis restricted women from being disciples (albeit not from listening in the synagogues) largely because, after the elementary levels, disciples became rabbis-in-training. Mary might have been learning simply for herself—but she also might have been learning partly in order to share Jesus’ message with others who would listen.¹⁸

By allowing Mary to “sit at his feet”, Jesus was boldly shifting societal norms and expectations into alignment with the arrival of God’s kingdom in and through Jesus’ teaching and ministry–women no longer were destined to be spiritually underprivileged. In fact, they were soon to receive the Spirit like all the famous Jewish men like Moses and the prophets! Even the lowest social class, servants were to receive the Spirit!

Moreover, Jesus didn’t allow just Mary to take the posture of a “disciple in training”, but had many women disciples. Indeed, it was not just men who were traveling with him town to town, but “…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 Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” (Lk. 8:1-3).

Jesus allowing female disciples in ancient culture could have been viewed as scandalous,¹⁹ because men and women may have been traveling together. Because of this and the prevailing male-dominant Rabbi-disciple relationship, Jesus didn’t really mind pushing the boundaries of what culture thought was appropriate for women and men’s roles. While we can’t say that Jesus wanted Mary to become a Rabbi at a synagogue, we can certainly say that Jesus pushed the boundaries and began breaking apart the norm for women’s roles. Once God’s kingdom would fully come through the death and resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit, God’s new community would not be structured like the synagogue anyway.

And lastly (and shockingly), the first witnesses of the resurrection of Christ were female disciples, despite the fact that women’s testimony was regarded as less trustworthy than a man’s!

Summary#

In short, Jesus appointed a woman to open her community up to the gospel, commended a woman’s faith who broke social norms and conventions, and allowed women to fill a role traditionally reserved only for men. If the cultural “needle” was tilted towards male and female separation, Jesus shifted this cultural needle massively towards equality of roles and access to God, and presumably even ministry roles as disciples in training. In Part 3 of this series, we will see how this was indeed the case in the early church.

We might ask, if these female disciples were expected to fulfill certain wifely duties, or other familial obligations, Jesus didn’t turn them back and say “Go back and take care of the kitchen. You left the goat cooking in the oven.” If they were hungry to learn from God, Jesus would not deny them, no matter what cultural barrier there was. Conversely, there is actually one male disciple who was probably married when he started following Jesus: Peter. Jesus did not rebuke Peter and tell him to go and fulfill his duty to provide for his family, protect his wife, etc. I’m sure a lot of other men might have been like “Wow Peter, you’re really irresponsible.”

What are the implications of Jesus’ attitude towards men and women’s roles? While Jesus certainly never denied general principles of biblical wisdom, he most certainly lowered their status to be subordinated to higher principles of love, justice, mercy, etc. We can also deduce that sometimes following the Spirit’s leading may look “stupid”, and/or even in violation of what people call “biblical wisdom”. The bleeding woman actually violated God’s law, yet Jesus praises her. She wasn’t your ideal Teacher’s Pet. And what about the other disciples? What if their parents objected to following Jesus? What if both parents demanded their child come home instead of following Jesus? Would that have been an example of not “honoring your father and mother”, one of the ten commandments?

This is not to say that God contradicts Himself, or that God never gave generalized wisdom. But following the Spirit may actually violate our own understanding of the intended purpose of God’s Word. We often unconsciously attach specific practices and norms to God’s truth without knowing it, and when other people violate these practices, we often equate the practice with the truth itself. For example, Johnny didn’t read his bible today, so it maybe it means he’s not that committed to God. At the heart of these issues are often a performance-shame based mindset, that what we do is who we are. If you follow God’s wisdom, suddenly you “are” good.

And we each bring in our own biases to Scripture. Even our own personalities can often overstress certain Scriptural truths over others. Teacher’s Pets will point fingers and unrighteously judge, while rebels say “it’s all about grace, just give me some grace.”

So when it comes to women in ministry and roles at the home, following Jesus as a disciple certainly meant Jesus was totally fine with women abandoning their familial duties, and rejecting societal expectations in order to follow God’s Spirit. If we are called to imitate Christ in this way, how would that impact our understanding of who should be allowed to lead in our churches? In the case of the gospel being preached to a specific village, the Father chose the woman at the well, and not a man. I think it is therefore based more on need and opportunity, not on God’s Wooden Gender Principle that says that men must always lead everything, and women must never lead things.

There are other situations where God would have a male lead, too, so it goes both ways. I think Craig Keener sums it all up well when he says,

What do such acts of Jesus indicate in the broader context of his ministry? Jesus regularly crossed the boundaries of clean and unclean (Mark 1:41–42; 2:16; 5:30–34, 41–42; 7:2, 19), even though many of those boundaries were grounded in the OT (Ps. 1:1). He did not oppose the OT teachings (Matt. 5:17–20; Luke 16:17), but he interpreted them in such a way as to reflect on and reapply their purpose in fresh situations (Matt. 5:21–48). He also demanded that we keep first things first, not missing the forest for the trees; broader principles like justice, mercy, and faith took precedence over biblical details adapted for specific situations (Matt. 23:23– 24; Mark 10:5–9). In our commendable attention to grammatical details in some passages addressing specific situations, we must remain vigilant against the temptation to ignore broad principles about what matters most to God.²⁰

These broader principles should determine the practice. It is not always easy to apply such broad principles, and Keener adds,

…but to fail to ask the question is to ignore a dynamic principle of interpretation to which Jesus’ ministry summons us. Given even a few clear examples of women’s ministry in the Bible, is one text (or at most two)—which may be situationally conditioned—enough to deny or substantially restrict a group of laborers for the kingdom?

Some say they do not have enough certainty in order to permit women’s ministry, but should those who are less than absolutely certain deny the calling of others, or should they perhaps keep silent on the issue? If these women claim to be called and bear the same sort of fruit on average as men (criteria we typically use to evaluate a man’s calling), how objectively can we evaluate men’s calls to ministry while rejecting women’s?

Some people tell me they reject women’s callings because they have seen women fail at ministry, but have they never seen men fail at ministry? Some have never witnessed effective public ministry by a woman. On the other hand, I have seen more male ministers fall into sexual sin than women ministers. A few years ago I worked under a woman pastor who led more people to Christ in one year than I’ve seen any male pastor of a comparably sized congregation achieve. Our personal experiences may differ, but in the end is it not as dangerous to risk forbidding what God endorses as to risk promoting what he forbids?²¹

Notes#