Teaching Women

Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village, where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. She had a sister named Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to what he was saying. But Martha was distracted by her many tasks; so she came to him and asked, ‘Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.’ But the Lord answered her, ‘Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.’ -Luke 10:38-42 (NRSV)

I used this text during last Shabbat's teaching at my congregation as part of a discussion of gifts, giving, and motivation, but something a little unusual happened. It wasn't that I learned something new during the lesson. I often learn something new from what the class says when I teach, but I heard an interpretation, well a "hint" anyway, of something I'd absolutely never considered before.

We were discussing the differences between Mary (Miriam) and Martha (Marta) during this sequence of events and, while Martha was correctly expressing middle eastern hospitality (which particularly in ancient times was a much bigger deal than in modern American homes), the Master was pointing out that learning the things of God contains a greater and more lasting value.

First let's address the issue of hospitality just to get it out of the way. I'll use a classic example:

The Lord appeared to him by the terebinths of Mamre; he was sitting at the entrance of the tent as the day grew hot. Looking up, he saw three men standing near him. As soon as he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them and, bowing to the ground, he said, "My lords, if it please you, do not go on past your servant. Let a little water be brought; bathe your feet and recline under the tree. And let me fetch a morsel of bread that you may refresh yourselves; then go on—seeing that you have come your servant's way." They replied, "Do as you have said."

Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said, "Quick, three seahs of choice flour! Knead and make cakes!" Then Abraham ran to the herd, took a calf, tender and choice, and gave it to a servant-boy, who hastened to prepare it. He took curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared and set these before them; and he waited on them under the tree as they ate. -Genesis 18:1-8 (JPS Tanakh)

As you'll recall from Genesis 17:26, Abraham, and every male in his household, had just recently been circumcised, so running around to make sure that the needs of the three strangers (there's no reason to believe Abraham knew they were angelic beings at this point) was undoubtedly really "uncomfortable" for him. Nevertheless, he would have been severely remiss as a host if he had neglected his guests, no matter what the reason.

Also, there's this:

And he said to them, ‘Suppose one of you has a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say to him, “Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; 6for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to set before him.” And he answers from within, “Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.” I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, at least because of his persistence he will get up and give him whatever he needs. -Luke 11:5-8 (NRSV)

In this case, Jesus is using an example of hospitality that would have been very familiar to his audience and which not only mirrors Abraham's example, but explains why Martha was so distressed that Mary wasn't helping out in serving the guests. Jesus wasn't undoing the custom and duty of hospitality when he spoke to Martha, he was explaining that there are things even more important, and Mary was doing them.

But besides breaching social etiquette, what's so special about Mary sitting at the Master's feet and learning from him? She was a woman.

Think about it. Although Jesus had many disciples who were women, in almost all "important" transactions, he is speaking to and teaching men. All of his inner circle; the twelve disciples, were men. There is a long tradition in the Tanakh, the Apostolic Scriptures, and in historic Judaism and Christianity that tends to favor men over women.

Does that mean Judaism and Christianity is sexist?

Besides all of that, I don't think that Christianity would exist today if it were not for sexism. If Mary didn't face getting stoned to death for getting knocked up before marriage, there would have been no need for the cockamamie immaculate conception story anyhow. Odds are, Joseph pressured her to have sex before marriage and told her nothing bad was going to happen. But, I guess I'm biased.

From an article at Think Atheist

However, there are numerous areas of the Bible where we see that women are not treated poorly, as the above writer suggests:

The daughters of Zelophehad, of Manassite family—son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph—came forward. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, "Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah's faction, which banded together against the Lord, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. Let not our father's name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father's kinsmen!"

Moses brought their case before the Lord.

And the Lord said to Moses, "The plea of Zelophehad's daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father's kinsmen; transfer their father's share to them. -Numbers 27:1-7 (JPS Tanakh)

On the one hand, Moses had to bring this case before God because it wasn't obvious that Zelophehad's daughters should inherit, but on the hand, Moses didn't dismiss their case out of hand because it wasn't obvious that they shouldn't have such rights.

There are numerous examples of how women are valued and esteemed in the ancient Jewish (Proverbs 31:10-31) and Christian worlds, but in Christianity, the most obvious example is this:

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise. -Galatians 3:27-29 (NRSV)

"No longer male and female" doesn't mean Paul is saying that the differences between sexes were eliminated, but that access to God and our value in the eyes of the Jewish Messiah isn't affected by our gender. For men and women (and Jews, Gentiles, masters, and slaves) the playing field is completely level in that regard.

While the message of wives submitting to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22-24) is often seen as sexist and oppressive, critics usually don't read far enough to see that husbands are commanded to care for their wives to the same standard that they care for themselves (Ephesians 5:25-33), and that the relationship of love and respect in marriage goes both ways.

But having said all that, did women in ancient (and not so ancient) times, have equal access to Religious and Spiritual learning?

If you've seen the 1983 Barbra Streisand film Yentl, then you might be tempted to say "no". After all, Streisand's character in the film must disguise herself as a young man to be allowed to attend a Yeshiva in Poland in 1903. This is a relatively accurate understanding of women and Jewish Yeshiva education at that time.

Traditionally in Judaism, women are "exempted" from a number of time related mitzvot as they would interfere with their duties as mothers and wives (which can certainly sound sexist). Christianity must admit to the same historical responsibility in favoring men over women in the areas of education and ministry.

While the majority of "key players" in the Bible are undeniably men, perhaps this is more of a reflection of cultural bias rather than God's intent. We see some exceptional women in the Bible (the Judge Deborah) and we notice in a number of Paul's letters that he commends a significant group of faithful women in the fledgling Messianic community. While Jesus didn't seem to assign leadership roles to any women among his inner circle, his treatment of Mary seems to show that he didn't object to (and perhaps instead respected) Mary sitting at his feet and learning the same lessons as the men. Holiness is after all, an equal opportunity affair if we can believe Paul's letter to the Galatians, and if both men and women are to have equal access to God, they certainly must be afforded an equal opportunity to learn.

While "equality" is considered more or less the norm in religious practice today (adjusted for practices in different Christian denominations and in the different branches of Judaism), we tend to think of the ancient record as showing that women were held to a lesser standard or denied equal opportunities for study and ministry. I don't believe this is true, or at least I don't believe this is true because of God's intent. If we can trust how Jesus interacted with Mary and Martha (and I admit, I'm piling on a tremendous amount of meaning onto a single part of the book of Luke), then the modern practice of admitting both men and women to Bible and Talmud study (again, adjusting for customs in different expressions of Christianity and Judaism), means we are finally catching up to a teaching of the Master that has been historically ignored.

The road is long and often, we travel in the dark.