Articles
Leonard Swidler, Professor of Catholic Thought & Interreligious
Dialogue, Religion Department, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA An Editor of the Journal of Ecumenical Studies and a member of religion
department at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA at the time this article was
written. The article first appeared in Catholic World. January, 1971.
E-mail: dialogue@temple.edu
JESUS WAS A FEMINIST by Leonard Swidler
Thesis: Jesus was a feminist
Definition of Terms: By Jesus is meant the historical person who lived in
Palestine two thousand years ago, whom Christians traditionally acknowledge as
Lord and Savior, and whom they should "imitate" as much as possible. By a
feminist is meant a person who is in favor of, and who promotes, the equality of
women with men, a person who advocates and practices treating women primarily as
human persons (as men are so treated) and willingly contravenes social customs
in so acting.
To prove the thesis it must be demonstrated that, so far as we can tell, Jesus
neither said or did anything which would indicate that he advocated treating
women as intrinsically inferior to men, but that on the contrary he said and did
things which indicated he thought of women as the equals of men, and that in the
process he willingly violated pertinent social mores.
The negative portion of the argument can be documented quite simply by reading
through four Gospels. Nowhere does Jesus treat women as "inferior beings." In
fact, Jesus clearly felt especially sent to the typical classes of "inferior
beings," such as the poor, the lame, the sinner--and women--to call them all
to the freedom and equality of the Kingdom of God. But there are two factors
which raise this negative result exponentially in its significance: the status
of women in Palestine at the time of Jesus, and the nature of the Gospels.
Both need to be recalled here in some detail, particularly the former.
The Status of Women in Palestine
The status of women in Palestine during the time of Jesus was very decidedly
that of inferiors. Despite the fact that there were several heroines recorded in
the Scriptures, according to most rabbinic customs of Jesus' time--and long
after--women were not allowed to study the Scriptures (Torah). One first-
century rabbi, Eliezer, put the point sharply: "Rather should the words of the
Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman ...Whoever teaches his daughter the
Torah is like one who teaches her lasciviousness. "
In the vitally religious area of prayer, women were so little thought of as not
to be given obligations of the same seriousness as men. For example, women,
along with children and slaves, were not obliged to recite the Shema, the
morning prayer, nor prayers at meals. In fact, the Talmud states: "Let a curse
come upon the man who must needs have his wife or children say grace for him . .
." Moreover, in the daily prayers of Jews there was a threefold thanksgiving:
"Praised be God that he has not created me a gentile; praised be God that he has
not created me a woman; praised be God that he has not created me an ignorant
man." (It was obviously a version of this rabbinic prayer that Paul controverted
in his letter to the Galatians: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither slave or free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in
Christ Jesus.")
Women were also grossly restricted in public prayer. It was (is) not even
possible for them to be counted toward the number necessary for a quorum to form
a congregation to worship communally--they were again classified with children
and slaves, who similarly did not qualify (there is an interesting parallel to
the current canon 93 of the Codex Juris Canonici which groups married women,
minors, and the insane). In the great temple at Jerusalem, they were limited to
one outer portion, the women's court, which was five steps below the court for
the men. In the synagogues, the women were also separated from the men; and, of
course, they were not allowed to read aloud or take any leading function. (The
same is still true in most synagogues today - cannon 1262 of the CJC also states
that "in church the women should be separated from the men.")
Besides the disabilities women suffered in the areas of prayer and worship,
there were many others in the private and public forums of society. As a
Scripture scholar, Peter Ketter, noted, "A rabbi regarded it as beneath his
dignity, as indeed positively disreputable, to speak to a woman in public. The
Proverbs of the Fathers' contain the injunction: "Speak not much with a
woman." Since a man's own wife is meant here, how much more does not this apply to the
wife of another? The wise men say: 'Who speaks much with a woman draws down
misfortune on himself, neglects the words of the law, and finally earns hell. .
. If it were merely the too free intercourse of the sexes which was being warned
against, this would signify nothing derogatory to woman. But since the rabbi may
not speak even to his wife, daughter or sister in the street, then only male
arrogance can be the motive. Intercourse with uneducated company is warned
against in exactly the same terms. One is not so much as to greet a woman. In
addition, save in the rarest instances, women were not allowed to bear witness
in a court of law. Some Jewish thinkers, as for example, Philo, a
contemporary of Jesus, thought women ought not leave their households except to
go to the synagogues (and that only at a time when most of the other people
would be at home); girls ought even not cross the threshold that separated the
male and female apartments of the household.
In general, the attitude toward women was epitomized in the institutions and
customs surrounding marriage. For the most part, the function of women was
thought rather exclusively in terms of childbearing and rearing; women were
almost always under the tutelage of a man, either the father or husband, or if a
widow, the dead husband's brother. Polygamy--in the sense of having several
wives, but not in the sense of having several husbands--was legal among Jews at
the time of Jesus. Although probably not heavily practiced, he merely had to
give her a writ of divorce. Women in Palestine, on the other hand, were
not allowed to divorce their husbands.
Rabbinic sayings about women also provide an insight into the attitude toward
women: "It is well for those whose children are male, but ill for those whose
children are female . . . At the birth of a boy all are joyful, but at the birth
of a girl all are sad . . . When a boy comes into the world, peace comes into
the world; when a girl comes, nothing comes . . . Even the most virtuous of
women is a witch . . . Our teachers have said: ‘Four qualities are evident in
women: They are greedy at their food, eager to gossip, lazy and jealous.’"
The condition of women in Palestinian Judaism was bleak.
The Nature of the Gospels
The Gospels, of course, are not the straight factual reports of eyewitnesses of
the events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth as one might find in the columns of
the New York Times or in the pages of a critical biography. Rather, they
are four different faith statements reflecting at least four primitive Christian
communities who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Lord and Savior of the
world. They were composed from a variety of sources, written and oral, over a
period of time and in response to certain needs felt in the commonalities and
individuals at the time; consequently they are many-layered. Since the Gospel
writers-editors were not twentieth-century critical historians, they were not
particularly intent on recording ipissima verba Christi, nor were they
concerned to winnow out all of their own cultural biases and assumptions;
indeed, it is doubtful they were particularly conscious of them.
This modem critical understanding of the Gospels, of course, does not impugn the
historical character of the Gospels; it merely describes the type of historical
documents they are so their historical significance can more accurately be
evaluated. Its religious value lies in the fact that modern Christians are
thereby helped to know much more precisely what Jesus meant by certain
statements and actions as they are reported by the first Christian communities
in the Gospels. With this new knowledge of the nature of the Gospels it is
easier to make the vital distinction between the religious truth that is to be
handed on and the time-conditioned categories and customs involved in expressing
it.
When the fact that no negative attitudes by Jesus toward women are portrayed in
the Gospels is set side by side with the recently discerned "communal
faith-statement" understanding of the nature of the Gospels, the importance of
the former is vastly enhanced. For whatever Jesus said or did comes to us only
through the lens of the first Christians. If there were no very special
religious significance in a particular concept or custom, we would expect that
current concept or custom to be reflected by Jesus. The fact that the
overwhelmingly negative attitude toward women in Palestine did not come through
the primitive Christian communal lens by itself underscores the clearly great
religious importance Jesus attached to his positive attitude--his feminist
attitude--toward women: feminism, that is, personalism extended to women, is a
constitutive part of the Gospel, the Good News, of Jesus.
Women Disciples of Jesus
One of the first things noticed in the gospels about Jesus' attitude toward
women is that he taught them the Gospel, the meaning of the Scriptures, and
religious truths in general. When it is recalled that in Judaism it was
considered improper, and even "obscene," to teach women the Scriptures, this
action of Jesus was an extraordinary deliberate decision to break with a custom
invidious to women. Moreover, women became disciples of Jesus, not only in the
sense of learning from Hun, but also in the sense of following Him in His
travels and ministering to Him. A number of women, married and unmarried, were
regular followers of Jesus. In Luke 8:1 ff., several are mentioned by name in
the same sentence with the Twelve: "He made his way through towns and villages
preaching and proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom of God. With him went the
Twelve, as well as certain women . . . who provided for them out of their
resources." (Cf: Mk.15:40f. The Greek word translated here as "provided for" and
in Mark as "ministered to" is diekonoun, the same basic word as
"deacon;" indeed apparently the tasks of the deacons in early Christianity were
much the same as these women undertook.) The significance of this phenomenon of
women following Jesus about, learning from and ministering to Him, can be
properly appreciated when it is recalled that not only were women not to read or
study the Scriptures, but in the more observant settings they were not even to
leave their household, whether as a daughter, a sole wife, or a member of a
harem.
The intimate connection of women with resurrection from the dead is not limited
in the Gospels to that of Jesus. There are accounts of three other resurrections
in the Gospels--all closely involving a woman. The most obvious connection of a
woman with a resurrection account is that of the raising of a woman, Jairus'
daughter (Mt. 9:18ff.; Mk 5:22ff.; Lk. 8:41ff.) A second resurrection Jesus
performed was that of the only son of the widow of Nain: "And when the Lord saw
her, he had compassion on her and he said to her, 'Do not weep.'” (Cf. Lk.
7:13ff.) The third resurrection Jesus performed was Lazarus' at the request of
his sisters Martha and Mary (Cf. Jn. 11:43-44). From the first, it was Martha
and Mary who sent for Jesus because of Lazarus' illness. But when Jesus finally
came, Lazarus was four days dead. Martha met Jesus and pleaded for his
resurrection: "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. And
even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you." Later, Mary
came to Jesus and said much the same. "When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews
who came with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled; and
he said, "Where have you laid him?" They said to him, "Lord, come and see."
Jesus wept. Then followed the raising from the dead. Thus, Jesus raised one
woman from the dead and raised two other persons largely because of women.
There are two further details that should be noted in these three resurrection
stories. The first is that only in the case of Jairus' daughter did Jesus touch
the corpse--which made him ritually unclean. In the cases of the two men, Jesus
did not touch them but merely said, "Young man, I say to you, arise," or
"Lazarus, come out." One must at least wonder why Jesus chose to violate the
laws of ritual purity in order to help a woman, but not a man. The second detail
is in Jesus' conversation with Martha after she pleaded for the resurrection of
Lazarus. Jesus declared himself to be the resurrection, ("I am the resurrection
and the life.”) the only time he did so that is recorded in the Gospels.
Jesus, here again, revealed the central event, the central message in the
Gospel--the resurrection, His resurrection, His being the resurrection--to a
woman.
Women as Sex Objects
There are, of course, numerous occasions recorded in the Gospels where women are
treated by various men as second-class citizens. There are also situations where
women were treated by others, not at all as persons but as sex objects, and it
was expected that Jesus would do the same. The expectations were disappointed. One such occasion occurred when Jesus was invited to dinner at the house of a
skeptical Pharisee (Lk. 7:36ff.) and a woman of ill repute entered and washed
Jesus' feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair and anointed them. The
Pharisee saw her solely as an evil sexual creature: "The Pharisee . . . said to
himself, 'If this man were a prophet, he would know who this woman is who is
touching him and what a bad name she has.’" But Jesus deliberately rejected this
approach to the woman as a sex object. He rebuked the Pharisee and spoke solely
of the woman's human, spiritual actions; he spoke of her love, her non-love,
that is, her sins, of her being forgiven, and her faith. Jesus then addressed
her (It was not "proper" to speak to women in public, especially "improper"
women) as a human person: "Your sins are forgiven . . .Your faith has saved you;
go in peace."
A similar situation occurred when the scribes and Pharisees used a woman reduced
entirely to a sex object to set a legal trap for Jesus. It is difficult to
imagine a more callous use of a human person than the "adulterous" woman was put
to by the enemies of Jesus. First, she was surprised in the intimate act of
sexual intercourse (quote possibly a trap was set up ahead of time by the
suspicious husband), and then dragged before the scribes and Pharisees, and then
by them before an even larger crowd that Jesus was instructing: "making her
stand in full view of everybody." They told Jesus that she had been caught in
the very act of committing adultery and that Moses had commanded that such women
be stoned to death. (Deut. 22:22ff.) "What have you to say?" The trap was partly
that if Jesus said "Yes" to stoning, He would be violating the Roman law, which
restricted capital punishment; and if He said "No," He would appear to
contravene Mosaic law. It could also partly have been to place Jesus' reputation
for kindness toward, and championing the cause of, women in opposition to the
law and the condemnation of sin. Jesus, of course, eluded their snares by
refusing to become entangled in legalisms and abstractions. Rather, he dealt
with both the accusers and the accused directly as spiritual, ethical, human
persons. He spoke directly to the accusers in the context of their own persona1
ethical conduct: "If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the
first to throw a stone at her." To the accused woman he likewise spoke directly
with compassion, but without approving her conduct: "Woman, where are they? Has
no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I
condemn you; go, and do not sin again."
(One detail of this encounter provides the basis for a short excursus related to
the status of women. The Pharisees stated that the woman had been caught in the
act of adultery and, according to the law of Moses, was, therefore, to be stoned
to death. Since the type of execution mentioned was stoning, the woman must have
been a "virgin betrothed," as referred to in Deut. 22:23f. There provision is
made for the stoning of both the man and the woman although in the Gospel story
only the woman is brought forward. However, the reason given for why the man
ought to be stoned was not because he had violated the woman, or God's law, but
"because he had violated the wife of his neighbor.” It was the injury of the man
by misusing his property--his wife--that was the great evil. )
Jesus' Rejection of the Blood Taboo
All three of the synoptic Gospels insert into the middle of the account of
raising Jairus' daughter from the dead the story of the curing of the woman who
had an issue of blood for twelve years (Mt. 9:20ff; Mk. 5:25ff.; Lk. 8:43ff.).
Especially touching about this story is that the affected woman was so reluctant
to project herself into public attention that she, "said to herself, 'If I only
touch his garment, I shall be made well." Her shyness was not because she came
from the poor, lower classes; for Mark pointed out that over the twelve years
she had been to many physicians--with no success--on whom she had spent all her
money. It was probably because for the twelve years, as a woman with a flow of
blood, she was constantly ritually unclean (Lev. 15:19ff.), which not only made
her incapable of participating in any cultic action and made her in some sense
"displeasing to God" but also rendered anyone and anything she touched (or
anyone who touched what she had touched!) similarly unclean. (Here is the basis
for the Catholic Church not allowing women in the sanctuary during Mass--she
might be menstruating and hence unclean.) The sense of degradation and contagion
that her "womanly weakness" worked upon her over the twelve years doubtless was
oppressive in the extreme. This would have been especially so when a religious
teacher, a rabbi, was involved. But not only does Jesus' power heal her, in one
of His many acts of compassion on the downtrodden and afflicted, including
women, but Jesus also makes a great to-do about the event, calling extraordinary
attention to the publicity-shy woman: "And Jesus, perceiving in himself that
power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said
'Who touched my garments?' And the disciples said to him, ‘You see the crowd
pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?' And he looked around to
see who had done it. But the woman, knowing what had been done to her, came in
fear and trembling and fell down before Him and told Him the whole truth. And He
said to her, 'Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed
of your disease." It seems clear that Jesus wanted to call attention to the fact
that He did not shrink from the ritual uncleanness incurred by being touched by
the "unclean" woman (on several occasions Jesus rejected the notion of ritual
uncleanness ), and by immediate implication rejected the "uncleanness" of a
woman who had a flow of blood, menstruous or continual. Jesus apparently placed
a great importance on the dramatic making of this point, both to the afflicted
woman herself and the crowd, than He did on avoiding the temporary psychological
discomfort of the embarrassed woman, which in light of Jesus' extraordinary
concern to alleviate the pain of the afflicted, meant He placed a great weight
on the teaching of this lesson about the dignity of women.
Jesus and the Samaritan Woman
On another occasion, Jesus again deliberately violated the then common code
concerning men's relationship to women. It is recorded in the story of the
Samaritan woman at the well of Jacob (John 4:5ff). Jesus was waiting at the well
outside the village while His disciples were getting food. A Samaritan woman
approached the well to draw water. Normally, a Jew would not address a Samaritan
as the woman pointed out: “Jews, in fact, do not associate with Samaritans." But
also normally a man would not speak to a woman in public (doubly so in the case
of a rabbi). However, Jesus startled the woman by initiating a conversation. The
woman was aware that on both counts, her being a Samaritan and being a woman,
Jesus' action was out of the ordinary; for she replied: "How is it that you, a
Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" As hated as the Samaritans were by
the Jews, it is nevertheless clear that Jesus' speaking with a woman was
considered a much more flagrant breach of conduct than His speaking with a
Samaritan. John related: "His disciples returned and were surprised to find him
speaking to a woman, though none of them asked, 'What do you want from her?' or
'Why were you talking to her?’" However, Jesus, bridging of the gap of
inequality between men and women, continued further; for in the conversation
with the woman He revealed himself in a straightforward fashion as the Messiah
for the first time: "The woman said to him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming' . .
. Jesus said to her, 'I who speak to you am he.’"
Just as when Jesus revealed Himself to Martha as "the resurrection," and to Mary
as the "risen one" and bade her to bear witness to the apostles, Jesus here also
revealed Himself in one of his key roles, as Messiah, to a woman who immediately
bore witness of the fact to her fellow villagers. (It is interesting to note
that apparently the testimony of women carried greater weight among the
Samaritans than among the Jews, for the villagers came out to see Jesus: "Many
Samaritans of that town believed in him on the strength of the woman's testimony
. . ." It would seem that John the Gospel writer deliberately highlighted this
contrast in the way he wrote about this event, and also that he clearly wished
to reinforce thereby Jesus ' stress on the equal dignity of women.)
One other point should be noted in connection with this story. As the crowd of
Samaritans was walking out to see Jesus, Jesus was speaking to His disciples
about the fields being ready for the harvest and how He was sending them to reap
what others had sown. He was clearly speaking of the souls of men and most
probably was referring directly to the approaching Samaritans. Such exegesis is
standard. It is also rather standard to refer to others in general, and only
Jesus in particular, as having been the sowers whose harvest the apostles were
about to reap (e.g., in the Jerusalem Bible). But it would seem that the
evangelist also meant specifically to include the Samaritan woman among those sowers; for immediately after he recorded Jesus’ statement to the disciples
about their reaping what others had sown, he added the above mentioned verse:
"Many Samaritans of that town had believed in him on the strength of the woman's
testimony . . .”
Marriage and the Dignity of Women
One of the most important stands of Jesus in relation to the dignity of women
was His position on marriage. His unpopular attitude toward marriage (cf. Mt.
19:10: "The disciples said to Him, 'If such is that case of a man with his wife,
it is not expedient to marry.’") presupposed a feminist view of women; they had
rights and responsibilities equal to men. It is quite possible in Jewish law for
men to have more than one wife (this was probably not frequently the case in
Jesus’ time, but there are recorded instances, e.g., Herod, Josephus) though the
reverse was not possible. Divorce, of course, also was a simple matter, to be
initiated only by the man. In both situations, women were basically chattels to
be collected or dismissed as the man was able and wished to. The double moral
standard was flagrantly apparent. Jesus rejected both by insisting on monogamy
and the elimination of divorce. Both the man and the woman were to have the same
rights and responsibilities in their relationship toward each other (cf.
Mk.10:2ff; Mt. 19:3ff.). This stance of Jesus was one of the few that was rather
thoroughly assimilated by the Christian Church (in fact, often in an over-rigid
way concerning divorce, but how to understand the ethical prescriptions of Jesus
is another article), doubtless in part because it was reinforced by various
sociological conditions and other historical accidents, such as the then current
strength in the Greek world of the Stoic philosophy. However, the notion of
equal rights and responsibilities was not extended very far within the Christian
marriage. The general role of women was Kirche, Kinder, Kuche--and only a
supplicant's role in the first.
The Intellectual Life for Women
However, Jesus clearly did not think of woman's role in such restricted terms;
she was not to be limited to being only a housekeeper. Jesus quite directly
rejected the stereotype that the proper place of all women is "in the home,"
during a visit to the house of Martha and Mary (Lk. 10:38ff.). Martha took the
typical woman's role: "Martha was distracted with much serving." Mary however,
took the supposedly "male" role: she "sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his
teaching." Martha apparently thought Mary was out of place in choosing the role
of the "intellectual," for she complained to Jesus. But Jesus' response was a
refusal to force all women into the stereotype; he treated Mary first of all as
a person (whose highest faculty is the intellect, the spirit} who was allowed to
set her own priorities, and in this instance has "chosen the better part." And
Jesus applauded her: "It is not to be taken from her." Again, when one recalls
the Palestinian restriction on women studying the Scriptures or studying with
rabbis, that is, engaging in the intellectual life or acquiring any "religious
authority," it is difficult to imagine how Jesus could possibly have been
clearer in his insistence that women were called to the intellectual, the
spiritual life just as were men.
There is at least one other instance recorded in the Gospels when Jesus uttered
much the same message (Lk. 11:27f.). One day as Jesus was preaching, a woman
from the crowd apparently was very deeply impressed and, perhaps imagining how
happy she would be to have a son, raised her voice to pay Jesus a compliment. She did so by referring to His mother, and did so in a way that was probably not
untypical at that time and place. But her linage of a woman was sexually
reductive in the extreme (one that largely persists to the present): female
genitals and breasts. "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that
you sucked!" Although this was obviously meant as a compliment and although it
was even uttered by a woman, Jesus clearly felt it necessary to reject this
"baby-machine" image of women and insist again on the personhood, the
intellectual and moral faculties, being primary for all: "But he said, 'Blessed
rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" Looking at this text, it
is difficult to see how the primary point could be anything substantially other
than this. Luke and the traditional and Christian communities he depended on
must also have been quite clear about the sexual significance of this event. Otherwise, why would he (and they) have kept and included such a small event
from the years of Jesus' public life? It was not retained because Jesus said
blessed are those who hear and keep God's word, but because that was stressed by
Jesus as being primary in comparison to a woman's sexuality. Luke, however,
seems to have had a discernment here and elsewhere concerning what Jesus was
about in the question of women's status that has not been shared by subsequent
Christians (nor apparently by many of his fellow Christians); for, in the
explanation of this passage, Christians for two thousand years did not see its
plain meaning--doubtless because of unconscious presuppositions about the status
Christians gave it. For, in the explanation of this passage, Christians for two
thousand years did not see its plain meaning--doubtless because of unconscious
presuppositions about the status.
God as a Woman
In many ways, Jesus strove to communicate the equal dignity of women. In one
sense, that effort was capped by his parable of the woman who found the lost
coin (Lk. 15:8ff.), for here Jesus projected God in the image of woman! Luke
recorded that the despised tax collectors and sinners were gathering around
Jesus; and, consequently, the Pharisees and scribes complained. Jesus,
therefore, related three parables in a row, all of which depicted God being
deeply concerned for that which was lost. The first story was of the shepherd
who left the ninety-nine sheep to see the one lost--the shepherd is God. The
third parable is on the prodigal son--the father is God. The second story is of
the woman who sought the lost coin--the woman is God! Jesus did not shrink from
the notion of God as feminine. In fact, it would appear that Jesus included this
womanly image of God quite deliberately at this point for the scribes and
Pharisees were among those who most of all denigrated women–just as they did
“tax-collectors and sinners.”
There have been some instances in Christian history when the Holy Spirit has
been associated with a feminine character, for example, in the Syrian Didascalia
where, in speaking of various offices in the Church, it states: "The Deaconess
however should be honored by you as the linage of the Holy Spirit." It would
make an interesting investigation to see if these images of God presented here
by Luke were ever used in a Trinitarian manner--thereby giving the Holy Spirit a
feminine linage. A negative result to the investigation would be as significant
as a positive one, for this passage would seem to be particularly apt for
Trinitarian interpretation: the prodigal son's father is God the Father (this
interpretation has in fact been quite Common in Christian history). Since Jesus
elsewhere identified himself as the Good Shepherd, the shepherd seeking the lost
sheep is Jesus, the Son (this standard interpretation is reflected in, among
other things, the often-seen picture of Jesus carrying the lost sheep on his
shoulders). The woman who sought the lost coin should "logically" be the Holy
Spirit. If such an interpretation has existed, it surely has not been common. Should such lack of "logic" be attributed to the general cultural denigration of
women of the abhorrence of pagan goddesses although Christian abhorrence of
pagan gods did not result in a Christian rejection of a male linage of God?
Conclusion
From this evidence it should be clear that Jesus vigorously promoted the dignity
and equality of women in the midst of a very male-dominated society: Jesus was a
feminist, and a very radical one. Can his followers attempt to be anything
less--De Imitatione Christi?
Leonard Swidler has published a book by the same name, Jesus Was A Feminist which you may purchase at
http://www.amazon.com/
Review of Jesus Was A Feminist
Leonard Swidler’s book, Jesus Was A Feminist, is one of the most empowering books ever written for women! How exhilarating to find women have been so primary, so central, so chosen! Swidler clearly shows not only how much Jesus loved women but also how very valuable their witness has been to Christianity. Jesus came for “the poor, the broken-hearted, the captives, the blind, the marginal, and the oppressed.” On every page, Jesus defended women, honored and healed them, threw away the taboos, and fought for their equality with men. Swidler analyzes how Jesus treated each woman with dignity, especially giving them a voice. Without women’s telling and re-telling their stories, we would not have much in the Gospels and would still not know He rose from the dead if they had remained silent.
Swidler shows God has always loved women. Then, Jesus showed it. He chose to reveal the most profound information only to women as we read in the Gospels. He chose only women to be the first witnesses to His Resurrection. You will be surprised to find out how extremely valuable Mary Magdalene was. According to Swidler, women wrote parts of the gospels! Swidler explains the problem passages and shows Jesus did not reject divorce and remarriage. Jesus was a feminist who did more for women than we have been taught. This book is one which cannot sit on the book shelf but is a precious pearl that must be passed around. - Adele Hebert
|