Jesus Was Not Sexist

[Thy Geekdom Come]

It has become a popular mythology from those who claim to be devout Christians that Jesus is sexist. They point to two main scriptural verses on which to base their claims of outward sexism. The first passage takes place at the Wedding at Cana:

[quote]When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine."  And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come." -John 2:3-4[/quote]

Many radical feminists claim that Jesus, in referring to his mother as [i]woman[/i], is displaying sexist tendancies which, they say, spread on to the Church Heirarchy. This, however, is simply not true. First, calling one's mother [i]woman[/i] in the culture of Jesus was an accepted practice. It is not a sign of disrespect as it comes across in our country. The Jews understood the part-counterpart nature of men and women. They understood that the sexes were complimentary, not competitory. By the authentically religious standards of the time, a woman should be proud to be called [i]woman[/i] and a man [i]man[/i]. Second, many biblical scholars have pointed to Jesus' comment as a reference of love for His mother not only for her femininity, but also for her role as the New Eve.

The second passage takes place in the town of Tyre:

[quote]But after hearing of Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at His feet.  Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter.  And He was saying to her, "Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs."  But she answered and said to Him, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs."  And He said to her, "Because of this answer go; the demon has gone out of your daughter."  And going back to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, the demon having left. -Mark 7:25-30[/quote]

It is often claimed that because Jesus refers to this woman as a dog, he must have been insulting her sex (as our modern connotation for the word sometimes implies). First, this claim does not hold water. The word was used in reference to her race, not her sex. Second, in reference to her race, and even if it had been in reference to her race, the Church has not understood Christ to be bigoted here. The reason is that he uses these terms as endearing. He wishes to be kind to this woman, but not to open the Gates of Heaven yet to all nations. The Church has interpretted the statement this way because St. Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate to reflect that attitude from Jesus. The Vulgate shows something which the English does not. The word St. Jerome used for "to the dogs" is [i]catellis[/i], which is a diminutive form. While it was common for the Jews to refer to Syrophoenicians as dogs, Jesus refers to her and all her race as "little dogs" and thus softens the blow without altogether losing His purpose.

Jesus was not a sexist. Jesus understood that men and women are equal, but certainly different and that they are called to different things. These different roles are to be honored, respected, and loved. Our modern times have become so swept up in individualism that people have begun to take the mindset that each person can be completely self-sustaining. We are made to be a human community of interrelated and interdependent people. It is dangerous folly to pretend that we are anything else.

[StColette]

great post Micah !! I remember you and I talking about this the other night !!

[phatcatholic]

[b]The Early Church Fathers on Mark 7:25-30[/b]

[b]24[/b]. And from thence He arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it; but He could not be hid.
[b]25[/b]. For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of Him, and came and fell at His feet:
[b]26[/b]. The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought Him that He would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.
[b]27[/b]. But Jesus said unto her, "Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs."
[b]28[/b]. And she answered and said unto Him, "Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs."
[b]29[/b]. And He said unto her, "For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter."
[b]30[/b]. And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.


[b]Theophylact:[/b] After that the Lord had finished His teaching concerning food, seeing that the Jews were incredulous, He enters into the country of the Gentiles, for the Jews being unfaithful, salvation turns itself to the Gentiles.

Wherefore it is said, "And from thence He arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon."

[b]Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: [/b]Tyre and Sidon were places of the Canaanites, therefore the Lord comes to them, not as to His own, but as to men, who had nothing in common with the fathers to whom the promise was made. And therefore He comes in such a way, that His coming should not be known to the Tyrians and Sidonians.

Wherefore it continues: "and entered into a house, and would have no man know it." For the time had not come for His dwelling with the Gentiles and bringing them to the faith, for this was not to be, till after His cross and resurrection.

[b]Theophylact:[/b] Or else, His reason for coming in secret was that the Jews should not find occasion of blame against Him, as if He had passed over to the unclean Gentiles.

It goes on: "But He could not be hid."

[b]Pseudo-Augustine, Quaest e Vet. et N. Test. 77:[/b] But if He wished to do so and could not, it appears [p. 139] as if His will was impotent; it is not possible however that our Saviour's will should not be fulfilled, nor can He will a thing, which He knows ought not be.

Therefore when a thing has taken place, it may be asserted that He has willed it. But we should observe that this happened amongst the Gentiles, to whom it was not time to preach; nevertheless not to receive them, when they came to the faith of their own accord, would have been to grudge them the faith.

So then it came to pass that the Lord was not made known by His disciples; others, however, who had seen Him entering the house, recognized Him, and it began to be known that He was there. His will therefore was that He should not be proclaimed by His own disciples, but that others should come to seek Him, and so it took place.

[b]Bede, in Marc., 2, 30:[/b] Having entered also into the house, He commanded His disciples not to betray who He was to anyone in this unknown region, that they, on whom He had bestowed the grace of healing, might learn by His example, as far as they could, to shrink from the glory of human praise in the shewing forth of their miracles; yet they were not to cease from the pious work of virtue, when either the faith of the good justly deserved that miracles should be done, or the unfaithfulness of the wicked might necessarily compel them. For He Himself made known His entry into that place to the Gentile woman, and to whomsoever He would.

[b]Pseudo-Aug.:[/b] Lastly, the Canaanitish woman came in to Him, on hearing of Him; if she had not first submitted herself to the God of the Jews, she would not have obtained their benefit. Concerning her it continues: "For a woman, whose daughter had an unclean spirit, as soon as she had heard of Him, came in and fell at His feet."

[b]Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: [/b]Now by this the Lord wished to shew His disciples that He opened the door of faith even to the Gentiles, wherefore also the nation of the woman is described when it is added, "The woman was a Gentile, a Syrophenician by nation," that is, from Syria and Phaenice.

It goes on: "and she besought Him that He would cast forth the devil out of her daughter."

[b]Augustine, de Con. Evan., 2, 49:[/b] It appears however that some question about a discrepancy may be raised, because it is said that the Lord was in the house when the woman came, asking about her daughter. When, however, Matthew says that His disciples had suggested to Him, [p. 140] "Send her away, for she crieth after us," [Matt 15:23] He appears to imply nothing less than that the woman uttered supplicating cries after the Lord, as He walked. How then do we infer that she was in the house, except by gathering it from Mark, who says that she came in to Jesus, after having before said that He was in the house? But Matthew in that he says, "He answered her not a word," gave us to understand that He went out, during that silence, from the house; thus too the other events are connected together, so that they now in no way disagree.

It continues: "But He said unto her, Let the children be first filled."

[b]Bede:[/b] The time will come when even you who are Gentiles will obtain salvation; but it is right that first the Jews who deservedly are wont to be called by the name of children of God's ancient election, should be refreshed with heavenly bread, and that so at length, the food of life should be ministered to the Gentiles.

There follows: "For it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs."

[b]Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: [/b]These words He uttered not that there is in Him a deficiency of virtue, to prevent His ministering to all, but because His benefit, if ministered to both Jews and Gentiles who had no communication with each other, might be a cause of jealousy.

[b]Theophylact:[/b] He calls the Gentiles dogs, as being thought wicked by the Jews; and He means by bread, the benefit which the Lord promised to the children, that is, to the Jews. The sense therefore is, that it is not right for the Gentiles first to be partakers of the benefit, promised principally to the Jews. The reason, therefore, why the Lord does not immediately hear, but delays His grace, is, that He may also shew that the faith of the woman was firm, and that we may learn not at once to grow weary in prayer, but to continue earnest till we obtain.

[b]Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: [/b]In like manner also to shew the Jews that He did not confer healing on foreigners in the same degree as to them, and that by the discovery of the woman's faith, the unfaithfulness of the Jews might be the more laid bare. For the woman did not take it ill, but with much reverence assented to what the Lord had said.

Wherefore it goes on, "And she answered and said unto Him, Truth, Lord, but the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs."

[b]Theophylact:[/b] As if she had said, The Jews have the whole of that bread which comes down from heaven, [p. 141] and Thy benefits also; I ask for the crumbs, that is, a small portion of the benefit.

[b]Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: [/b]Her placing herself therefore in the rank of dogs is a mark of her reverence; as if she said, I hold it as a favour to be even in the position of a dog, and to eat not from another table, but from that of the Master himself.

[b]Theophylact:[/b] Because therefore the woman answered with much wisdom, she obtained what she wanted; wherefore there follows, "And He said unto her, &c." He said not, My virtue hath made thee whole, but for this saying, that is, for thy faith, which is shewn by this saying, "go thy way, the devil is gone out of thy daughter."

It goes on: "And when she was come into her house, she found her daughter laid upon the bed, and the devil gone out."

[b]Bede:[/b] On account then of the humble and faithful saying of her mother, the devil left the daughter; here is given a precedent for catechising and baptizing infants, seeing that by the faith and the confession of the parents, infants are freed in baptism from the devil, though they can neither have knowledge in themselves, or do either good or evil.

[b]Pseudo-Jerome:[/b] Mystically however the Gentile woman, who prays for her daughter, is our mother the Church of Rome. Her daughter afflicted with a devil, is the barbarian western race, which by faith hath been turned from a dog into a sheep. She desires to take the crumbs of spiritual understanding, not the unbroken bread of the letter.

[b]Theophylact:[/b] The soul of each of us also, when he falls into sin, becomes a woman; and this soul has a daughter who is sick, that is, evil actions; this daughter again has a devil, for evil actions arise from devils. Again, sinners are called dogs, being filled with uncleanness. For which reason we are not worthy to receive the bread of God, or to be made partakers of the immaculate mysteries of God; if however in humility, knowing ourselves to be dogs, we confess our sins, then the daughter, that is, our evil life, shall be healed. Edited August 24, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

Bede's remarks on the connection between this event and our infant baptism is particularly insightful. i had never thought to make the connection before:

[b]Bede:[/b] On account then of the humble and faithful saying of her mother, the devil left the daughter; here is given a precedent for catechising and baptizing infants, seeing that by the faith and the confession of the parents, infants are freed in baptism from the devil, though they can neither have knowledge in themselves, or do either good or evil.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 24 2004, 04:17 PM'] Bede's remarks on the connection between this event and our infant baptism is particularly insightful. i had never thought to make the connection before:

[b]Bede:[/b] On account then of the humble and faithful saying of her mother, the devil left the daughter; here is given a precedent for catechising and baptizing infants, seeing that by the faith and the confession of the parents, infants are freed in baptism from the devil, though they can neither have knowledge in themselves, or do either good or evil. [/quote]
Oh...that is good...that should go into an infant baptism tract...

[MorphRC]

Great stuff Micah and Phat.

Ive heard quite a few feminists use that first one, with 'Woman' addressed to Mary, as if He is saying it like some men of today would.

[phatcatholic]

if would be really awesome if there was a book out there that just explained all the cultural norms, phrases, behaviors, customs, and traditions of biblical times so that we would understand how to interpret things like "woman" and Jesus giving care of his mother to John and things like that. then, we would have proof for what we claim about the culture of the day instead of just taking some other apologist's word for it

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 25 2004, 03:28 PM'] if would be really awesome if there was a book out there that just explained all the cultural norms, phrases, behaviors, customs, and traditions of biblical times so that we would understand how to interpret things like "woman" and Jesus giving care of his mother to John and things like that. then, we would have proof for what we claim about the culture of the day instead of just taking some other apologist's word for it [/quote]
We could do that...

I can handle all the meanings of phrases from the Latin Fathers.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Aug 25 2004, 03:21 PM'] We could do that...

I can handle all the meanings of phrases from the Latin Fathers. [/quote]
i was thinking more of OT times and the culture that Jesus and the apostles lived in

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 25 2004, 04:23 PM'] i was thinking more of OT times and the culture that Jesus and the apostles lived in [/quote]
Oh...well then...ummm...I've got nothing...