 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
The reason why Jesus did not choose women to be part of the twelve
apostles was his need to adapt, in this matter, to the social perceptions of
the time. For Jesus' contemporaries were under the influence of the social and
cultural spell of male predominance.
What is at stake?
The fact that Jesus did not choose a woman among the twelve apostles is
a non argument. By itself it proves nothing. Yet, the Roman documents
rightly raise the question of whether Jesus conformed to the attitude of his
contemporaries regarding women or not? For this is made a crucial issue in
Rome's argument. Through it they try to turn something Jesus did not do, into a
definite and permanent decision.
What however, about the facts?
If Jesus broke with the social customs of male predominance and yet
refused to admit women to the apostolic team, we might have an
indication that he was setting a permanent norm. If, however, in selecting only
men for the apostolic team Jesus was guided by the general practice of his own
times, we have no reason at all to presume his objection against the ministry
of women in changed circumstances. And the latter, clearly, was the case.
The term: “myth” of predominance
Sociologists and anthropologists speak of
“myths” that underlie social structures. Male dominance too rested on
such a myth.
A
“social myth” is a complex of values, beliefs, practices and popular
perceptions that guide society. We use the word “myth” here in a
technical sense. “Myths display the structured, predominantly culture
specific, and shared semantic systems which enable the members of a culture
area to understand each other and cope with the unknown...Myths express the
strong components of semantic systems”.
P.MARANDA, Mythology, Select Readings. Penguin
Harmondsworth 1972, pg. 12.
To understand the issues we will be discussing, it may be useful to
study these findings on the “social myth” of male predominance:
- The “myth” of male superiority is found
in many cultures and societies.
- Though men and women seem genetically predisposed for certain
functions, the rise of male predominance was mainly
a social development.
- The “myth” of male superiority underlies much of
Old Testament cultural thinking.
Procedure
I will adduce positive evidence to prove that Christ did conform to
social male predominance in four ways:
(a)
He clung to the Jewish image of a 'father'.
(b)
He accepted the Jewish role of the
'husband'.
(c)
He spoke as if the Jewish understanding of
sex was correct.
(d)
He had to contend with the secondary role
played by women in religion.
In other words, Jesus did not overthrow the social system by which men
possessed predominance in Jewish society. He accepted this system as a social
system for what it was worth and acted in harmony with it.
(a) Jesus and the Jewish image of a 'father'
For the Jews, the man was the undisputed head of the family. All
relationships centred round him. His wife and his children (especially his
sons) were considered man's most precious possessions.
'Your wife: a fruitful vine
on the inner walls of your
house.
Your sons: round your table,
like shoots round an olive tree.'
(Ps 128, 3)
It was the father who had absolute authority over his children and
could decide about their future (Gen 43, 1-15; 2 Sam 13, 23-27). Family
property was inherited by men, not by women. Only if no male heir was left,
could a daughter inherit (Num 27, 1-11; 36, 1-12). It was the father who, as
sole owner of the family property, could distribute it to his sons (Dt 21,
15-17). The authority of a father and the different treatment of sons and
daughters in a family are well illustrated by the following piece of advice:
'Have you cattle? Look after them.
If they are making you
a profit, keep them.
Have you sons? Educate them,
make them bow the
neck from childhood.
Have you daughters? Take care of their bodies,
but
do not be over-indulgent.
Marry a daughter off, and you have finished a
great work;
but give her to a man of sense.' (Sir 7. 22-25).
In New Testament times the juridical position of man as head of the
family had not changed. Jesus himself clearly presupposes it and accepts it as
a fact. In the parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15, 11-32), it is the father who
distributes the property among his sons. The willing son and the unwilling one
are given their work by their father (Mt 21, 28-31). Jesus clearly presupposes
the Jewish authority role of the father when he says to the pharisees; 'The
devil is your father so that you do what he wants' (Jn 8, 44). Interesting in
this context is also the question of Jesus' own connection to the house of
David. How could Jesus be called 'Son of David' if Joseph was not his real
father? Wasn't his mother Mary from the priestly tribe to which also Zechariah
and Elizabeth belonged (Lk 1, 36)? The Gospels give the typically Jewish answer
that, although Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus, he
was his legal father as Mary's legitimate husband (Mt 1,
13-25). This would indeed convince Jews that Jesus was a true
son of David, but it clearly implies a concept of family descent no longer
valid in our own days.
In all his parables Jesus conforms to the Jewish idea according to
which the man was the centre of the family. The 'owner of the house' (Lk 22,
11) is always a man. It is the man who builds the house (Mt 7, 24-27). It is
the man who defends his house against intruders (Mt 12, 29) and stays awake at
night to catch a burglar (Mt 24, 43). It is the man who manages the property
(Mk 25, 14-30), who has authority over the servants (Mt 24, 45-51) and who
controls the family store (Mt 13, 52).
(b) The roles of husband and wife in Jesus'
examples
According to Jewish thinking the wife was almost owned by her husband.
He had property rights over her. 'A good wife is the best of possessions' (Sir
26, 3). 'She is far beyond the price of pearls' (Prov 31, 10). In the Ten
Commandments the wife is mentioned as one of people's possessions that should
be respected: 'You shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his slave, or his
maidservant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is his' (Ex 20, 17). No
doubt a good husband will have loved his wife and relationships between them
were much more human than such juridical relationships might express. The
Canticle of Canticles witnesses to this more human side of the picture.
However, the ownership rights of a husband over his wife remained the juridical
foundation on which the marriage bond was made. The husband could practically
dissolve the bond at will (Gen 16, 1-6; Dt 24, 1-4). In extreme cases he could
give her away like the Levite who, under pressure, gave his wife to the
townspeople of Gibeah for their pleasure. When the poor woman died on account
of the treatment she received, the townspeople were condemned for their
injustice; not the Levite for giving his concubine (Judges 19, 1-30).
When speaking about marriage, Jesus takes the man-centred concept of
the Jews for granted. He speaks of a king arranging a marriage
for his son, without ever mentioning the queen (Mt 22, 1-14). At the wedding
itself, it is not the bride but the bridegroom who is celebrated. The wedding
guests are called 'the friends of the bridegroom' (Mt 9, 15). The ten virgins
are not waiting for the bride but for the bridegroom. It is he who excludes the
foolish ones from the feast (Mt 25,1-13). It was quite natural for Jesus to say
'The bride exists only for the bridegroom' (Jn 3, 29). In passing Jesus makes
mention of a man's wife and children being sold as slaves to pay off his debt
(Mt 18, 25) and enumerates the wife and children among other possessions which
he invites his close followers to leave for the kingdom of heaven (Lk 18, 29).
Isn't it abundantly clear from all this that Jesus simply accepted the social
relationships between man and woman as he found them in his own times?
The instructions of the apostles render further confirmation of this.
If Jesus had rejected the social myth of man's predominance, why did they
continue to strengthen it? The apostles, too, presume that the man, as father,
husband and householder, wields the ultimate authority within the family.
Husbands should have consideration and respect for their wives (1 Pet 3, 7). A
husband should love his wife, feed her and look well after her (Eph 5, 21-33).
But the wife is 'the weaker partner'. She should be obedient to her husband,
faithful and conscientious ( I Pet 3, 1-7). A wife should give way to her
husband (Col 3, 18), be subject to him (Eph 5, 22). Although the position of
woman as an equal child of God is recognised in some texts (Gal 3, 28), the
social implications of this doctrine had not yet been
realised.
(c) Jesus and Jewish biological notions
The Jewish concept of male predominance was supported by a mistaken idea
of sexual functions. We know that the fetus in the womb is the product of a
conjunction of a male sperm and a female ovum. The Jews did not know this. They
identified the fetus with the sperm. For them 'seed' and 'off-spring' are
synonymous (cf Gal 3, 16). While the mother fulfilled a useful function in
providing the womb, it remained the father who generated life as the carrier of
'offspring'.
Obviously, Jesus never had the intention of lecturing on the biology of
sex. But when he refers to the sexual roles of man and woman in marriage, his
statements conform to the Jewish notion. Neither does he correct this notion if
expressed by others.
For Jesus, too, it was the man's role to produce offspring by giving
his seed. The Jews argue they are offspring of Abraham because they are his
direct seed, not born out of fornication (Jn 8, 39-41). Jesus accepts the
custom of a man marrying his brother's widow to raise offspring for him, but
denies that this type of practice will continue in heaven (Lk 20, 27-36). Jesus
describes celibacy for men as 'making oneself a eunuch', a rather strong way of
saying that a celibate voluntarily contains his generative power (Mt 19, 10-
12). In the description of Jesus' own birth, the evangelists take the same
line. Jesus is truly the Son of God because Mary did not conceive human seed,
but a divine substitute for it. 'She conceived of the Holy Spirit' (Mt 1, 20).
The power of the Most High overshadowed her (Lk 1, 35). In this way Jesus' own
birth is the perfect example of divine sonship which John defines as being born
'not of blood nor the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of the will
of God' (Jn 1, 13).
Women's role is well expressed by the exclamation 'Blessed the womb
that bore you and the breasts that you sucked' (Lk 11, 27). Jesus accepts this
view and employs it himself when describing the future tragedy of Jerusalem
when it will be said: 'Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore, the
breasts that never gave suck' (Lk 23, 29). A woman who does not bear children
is called barren: her womb is like infertile soil that cannot receive the seed.
Elizabeth was called barren in this sense (Lk 1, 7. 25. 36). When discussing
spiritual rebirth, Nicodemus asks: 'Does this mean that a man has to go back
into his mother's womb?'. Jesus replies that, in the kingdom of heaven, man is
born of 'water and the spirit'. To put it crudely, in the matrimony of baptism
the Holy Spirit acts as the father engendering the seed, while the water is
like the mother's womb (Jn 3, 4-8). Jesus also pre-supposes the Jewish concept
of generation when describing his passion. His death is like a grain of wheat
falling into the earth, dying in its womb, but being reborn with much fruit (Jn
12, 24). The anguish and labour of childbirth will be forgotten once the new
child has been born (Jn 16, 21). Although such texts are by no means
pronouncements, let alone inspired teaching, on the functioning of sex, they
prove beyond any doubt that Jesus conformed to the views of his contemporaries
in all such matters.
(d) Women and worship
The social myth that put man on a pedestal had enormous consequences for
the way in which the Old Testament Jew understood and practised his religion.
Men and women were certainly not considered equal partners in religion or in
the covenant with God. A few hard facts may help us to realise the implications
of this stand.
Inequality began at birth. Whenever a child was born, the mother was
considered ritually unclean for some time. If the child happened to be a boy,
she was unclean for forty days; if a girl, for eighty days (Lev 12, 1-8). Every
first-born male 'who opened his mother's womb' had to be redeemed with a
special sacrifice. A girl did not count (Ex 13, 11-16). All male children had
to be circumcised on the eighth day after birth. This was an essential
condition for belonging to the Covenant, more or less parallel to our baptism
for belonging to the Church. However, there was no equivalent rite of
initiation for women (Gen 17, 9-14). All this was tantamount to meaning that
God had concluded his covenant with the men, the 'sons of Israel'. The women
participated in the Covenant only indirectly, through their fathers and
husbands.
A woman could not act as a full person, independently, in her own right
within religion. A religious vow made by a woman was only valid if it was
ratified by her father or husband (Num 40, 2-17). Women could not present
sacrifices. Their going up to the temple for worship was voluntary, not
obligatory, 'Three times a year all your menfolk must present
themselves before the Lord' (Ex 23, 17). The arrangements in the temple of
Jerusalem even limited the access of women to the central sanctuary. Whereas
men were allowed to proceed to the 'court of Israel' which faced the sacred
precincts containing the altar of holocausts, women had to stay behind in the
'court of women'.
As in government, warfare, family life and business management,
religion too was a domain where men met men. Yahweh himself was portrayed as a
man. The titles under which he was invoked, King, Ruler, Warrior, Judge,
Father, presented a thoroughly masculine image. The prophets could speak of him
as a husband enduring the unfaithfulness of his rebellious wife, Israel (Hos 3,
1-5). Idolatry and worship of other gods was compared to fornication and
adultery (Ez 16, 15-43). And although women could pray to God and at times even
be his spokesmen (compare a prophetess like Deborah, Judges 4, 1-9), religion
and revelation were essentially a meeting-ground between God, the Man, and his
first-born son, the male Israelite. The spirit of this is well expressed in the
words of God to Job:
'Gird up your loins like a man.
I will question you and
you will answer me' (Job 38, 3; 40, 7).
In this religious context, it becomes clear that a woman could never be
thought of as a priest. Mosaic Law restricts the priestly ministry to Aaron and
his sons (Lev 8, 1-36). The necessity of priests being men was so obvious to
the Jew that in the whole Old Testament in no single text are women excluded
explicitly. Whenever priests are spoken of, they are presented as men. The
enormous abyss between priests and women is most clearly expressed in indirect
legislation whereby a priest's 'sacredness' is safeguarded from contamination
through the proximity of women. A priest should marry a virgin. He was not
allowed to marry 'a woman profaned by prostitution or divorce' (Lev 21, 7-9). A
priest's wife and daughters could eat from his food, including meat offered at
sacrifices (Lev 22, 13). But certain of the sacrifices were sacred. Only men
could eat them (Num 18, 8-10). When David and his companions were hungry and no
other food was available than the 'holy bread' of the presentation sacrifice,
the high-priest gave it to them reluctantly, and only after having been assured
that they had not touched a woman for some days ( 1 Sam 21, 4-6). In this world
of thought, the ministry of a woman at the altar was literally unthinkable.
Jesus, of course, was different in his own ideas. He showed in his own
ministry a great personal openness to women. Women
and men entered the Kingdom as equals through one
baptism. Jesus’ atttitude to women contained the
germs of their future ministry, as Luke implies in his Gospel. But Jesus
had to deal with the people of his time. He could not bring about an immediate
social revolution.
Conclusion: Jesus had to conform
All these laws were in force in Jesus' time. All religious leaders -
whether priests, scribes, pharisees or rabbis - were men. If this was the
religious climate of the day, need we be surprised that Jesus called only men
to be his apostles? To put it differently: entrusting the ministry to women
would have required a profound social
revolution, even more than a religious reform. Even if Jesus had wanted to
overthrow the social structures of his society, it would be doubtful if he
could have achieved this in so short a time. A centuries-old social myth that
is ingrained in the texture of people's life and thought cannot be uprooted
even by a God-man through three years of preaching. But Jesus did not want to
effect an immediate social liberation.
Although his teaching and redemptive action enshrined the principles
that make true social equality possible, Jesus himself refrained from any
direct social rebellion. He refused to be drawn into a political struggle for
independence. He accepted discrimination against women as a reality of the
society in which he lived. In selecting only men for leadership functions
in his Church, Christ simply followed the social limitations forced on him by
contemporary society.
What about the examples adduced by Rome to illustrate Jesus'
“courageous break with established custom”? Read
my reply here.
Jesus did introduce a new religious principle that put
women on an equal footing with men in his Kingdom.
Women too share in his priesthood through baptism. This has laid the basis for
their full admission to the ministerial priesthood.
John Wijngaards
Follow @JohnWijngaards
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!