Women’s Discipleship and Leadership in Jesus’ Movement:
An Indian/Asian Feminist Biblical-Theological Reconstruction*
Pauline Chakkalakal, dsp
1. Contextualisation
It was International Women’s Day in 2000. As customary in some parishes, women receive special attention at the Eucharistic celebration on this day. I happened to be present at a church service in an urban Catholic parish in the Archdiocese of Bangalore. Contrary to my expectation, the priest himself preached the homily even on a day dedicated to women. What a discriminatory practice by the institutional church that claims to be a champion of human dignity! I shall use the key issues emerging from his talk that triggered off my feminist consciousness as a starting point of this paper.
“My dear people, today’s Gospel speaks of women in the company of Jesus’ disciples. Their mission is precisely to look after the needs of Jesus and his apostles. In silence and humility they follow Jesus. What a sublime vocation! On this Women’s Day I wish to draw your attention to our Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, who is the perfect model of womanhood. Imitate her virtue of docility and submissiveness. Let us all, especially women learn how to obey without questioning authority.” A similar homily was given last year in one of the parishes of Mumbai by a middle-aged conservative priest, who rejected women’s proposal to have a woman preacher for the day.
Sermons like these speak volumes about the patriarchal mind-set prevalent even in this so-called post-modern era. On the one hand the feminist movement has gained momentum since the United Nations Declaration on the Decade of Women (1975-1985) both in society and in the church; and on the other, religious fundamentalism plays havoc in all religions, Christianity being no exception. Women have to consciously demand their rights and privileges both from civil and church authorities, who seem, often apathetic and silent. In both the developed and developing countries, women are victims of multiple inequalities, which are the by-products of centuries-long socio-cultural, religious, economic and political discriminatory practices.
The situation is all the more serious in the context of India – with its culture, predominantly rooted in Hinduism strongly entrenched in the caste system, with dehumanising poverty and illiteracy – which assigns to women an inferior role in most spheres of social life. Though the Indian polity recognises equality of rights between men and women, society implicitly accepts a sharp distinction in their roles and spheres of activity. Decision-making for the community and the exercise of political power is still regarded as an almost exclusive male preserve; this is clear from the entirely male composition of the traditional panchayats, either of villages or of caste groups.1 Despite women’s movements in the secular and ecclesiastical levels aimed at women’s empowerment, the change in attitudes to women’s participation in public life has been slow and uneven, “because they are related to deep-rooted prejudices about a woman’s inherent aptitudes and capacities, her proper sphere of work and man-woman relationships.”2 The vast majority of women in our country continue to be mute witnesses to their own exploitation and discrimination.
• Links between culture and religion
Interestingly, religious Scriptures are invoked in support of women’s second class citizenship. The Bible itself contents many discriminatory passages, which degrade women and extol the myth of male superiority and female inferiority. For example, (a) woman treated as man’s property (Ex 20:17; Deut 5:17-21; Gen 18:12), (b) laws on inheritance (Num 27:1-11), (c) laws concerning vows (Num 30:4-9; Gen 19:18, 20:1-14; Judg 19:30), (d) man’s right to divorce (Deut 24:1; cf. Sir 23:22-26), (e) laws of ritual purity (Lev 12:1-5; 15: 19ff), (f) woman confined to home (Sir 42:9-11; 2 Macc 3:19; 1 Sam l:23-24; 2:19; Prov l:8; 6:20).
In the New Testament, Pauline texts, particularly 1 Cor 11:2-16 (women’s head covering) and 1 Cor 14:26-40 (women’s silence in the church) have been misinterpreted in favour of women’s subjugation. In fact, they have been locked out of their contexts, and applied to totally different situations, or to issues, which lie beyond their concern. It is amazing to note how Pauline authority has been invoked in favour of female domestication in the churches through the centuries. This has not only deteriorated women’s position but also contributed to the development of patriarchal theology as exemplified in the teachings of the prominent Christian thinkers in the Patristic era.
Indian Christianity has its own Indian cultural context. Whether Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist or Jain, our Indianness stems from our common Indian roots. It is the ideal Hindu womanhood depicted in Hindu mythology and Hindu religious art and codified by Manu-Smruti that continues to exert its strong influence on the attitudes and behaviour of men and women alike. Images of woman as “good mother and wife”, “the weaker sex needing male protection”, “property of man”, “sex-symbol”, “temptress” and “unclean creature” which form the basis of man-woman relations have similarities in the interpretations of biblical texts by Church Fathers and traditional theologians.3 Women are generally characterised as essentially passive, dependent, emotional, rarely active, determined and rational.
The Indian epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata have played an important role in this cultural continuity. To quote Rajagopalachari, “the sweetness and sorrows of Sita and Draupadi, the heroic fortitude of Ram and Arjuna, and the loving fidelity of Lakshmana and Hanuman”4 have become the stuff of people’s philosophy of life. Husband-wife relationship forms a central feature of the epics, which serve as role models:
Sita is depicted as the ideal wife absorbed in the service of her husband, taking delight in the doing of his pleasure and his good. This is the path of dharma, known for long ages, revealed in the Vedas and remembered by the world. Even if a woman has never bowed to the gods and has ceased to worship them, she obtains the highest heaven by serving her husband…5
Thus, women form part of a patriarchal society, wherein they experience a great discrepancy between the idealised concept of women and their real life situation. Notwithstanding women’s ability to rise above patriarchal prejudices and assume leadership roles, the vast majority has been deprived of equal opportunities to explore their full potential not only in society, but also in the church that claims to champion the cause of women. It is in this paradoxical context that we shall engage in a feminist re-construction of women’s discipleship and leadership in Jesus’ movement. To enhance this process it is imperative that we describe briefly the revolutionary nature of feminist consciousness and hermeneutics.
2. Radicalism of Feminist Consciousness and Hermeneutics
Women’s experiences of marginalisation and subjugation, as well as struggles for legitimate freedom in all spheres of life, and participatory action for justice are central to feminist consciousness and hermeneutics. We need to accentuate that ‘women’s experience’ includes the biological and cultural experiences of being female and the feminist experience that calls for equality and inclusiveness of women and men. The awareness of weakness or victimisation has a positive effect on women, for it leads to the consciousness of one’s own power. It unfolds the possibility of “personal growth and the release of energy long suppressed”6 and motivates the person to engage in direct forms of struggle against an oppressive system. The late Phoolan Devi7 and several other women who have become victims of caste oppression, and who in turn have mobilised their “guilty victim” status to empower others, are typical examples of victory over victimisation. Feminist consciousness thus poses a challenge to dominant structures and sexist institutions, and proposes a fundamental change in society.
The feminist demand is for a re-structuring of thought and analysis in view of developing a holistic approach to Divine-human realities. With regard to the Bible, it stands as a critique of androcentric biblical interpretations and theological articulations, presented as eternal truths. It is important to remember that the writers of the Bible were men of their time, products of their particular socio-cultural and religious milieu. Hence, it is inevitable that the entire process of collecting traditions and sources and organising them into a cohesive narrative structure has been done from a male perspective. Obviously, when men reconstructed early Christian history, their androcentric mindset, nurtured by the socio-political system of patriarchy, side-tracked women and other ‘non-persons’ and virtually eliminated them from the historical record.8 No wonder, then, that there is a scarcity of information about women in the traditions of biblical authors. This is particularly the case with the Gospels and Acts, written toward the end of the first century when the process of patriarchalisation of the earliest church was well under way,9 and thus a ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ should inform any reading of women’s presence, participation, agency, and leadership in the first century churches.
3. Retrieving Women’s Role in Jesus’ Movement
Making use of the tools of historical criticism on the one hand, and the feminist hermeneutical principles on the other, this study intends to determine the position of women in the circles of Jesus’ followers. Feminist hermeneutical principles include “a hermeneutics of experience, domination and social location, suspicion, critical evaluation, creative imagination, re-membering and reconstruction, and transformative action for change.”10 If we believe in the liberative elements of biblical revelation, we cannot but assume the task of hearing the silenced voices within the text, which subvert or bear witness against the andro-centric narratives and interpretations. Mary Ann Tolbert’s dictum: “One must defeat the Bible as patriarchal authority by using the Bible as liberator,”11 may be accepted as a valid principle in retrieving women’s position in biblical story.
a) Jesus and Women
Jesus is presented as accepting women and their partnership in his ministry in an astonishing manner which contrasts with that of his Jewish contemporaries.12 Against the background of the first century patriarchal culture, Jesus’ behaviour towards women is so extraordinary that New Testament scholar Moule cites it as evidence of scriptural authenticity: “The Gospel portrait of Jesus would seem to have fairly forced its way through an atmosphere still. . . alien to it and still scarcely comprehending.”13 His positive attitude to women disciples enhanced their leadership functions at different levels in the Jesus’ movement.
The Gospel of Luke contains a great deal of material about women that is not found in other Gospels. Women characters are taken over from Mark and from Q,14 and many others are found only in Luke’s special source (L).15 The number of women depicted in Luke and the emphasis on their presence in the narrative are surprising. The tendency to defend, reassure and praise women is also noticeable in the Gospel (cf. Lk 2:37; 4:25-26; 7:12; 18:3,5; 20:47; 21:2-3; 7:36-50; 13:16; 10:38-42).16 However, careful comparison must be made of the quality of female roles and functions and of the liberative potential of each Gospel.
A few examples follow.17 Luke has no women who question Jesus or initiate a mission to the Gentiles. Luke omits the story of the Syro-phoenician woman found in Mark 7:24-30. There is no counterpart in Luke to the Samaritan woman of John 4. The Johannine Martha and Mary seem fulfilling more significant and powerful roles than the Lukan Martha and Mary. The women at the tomb in Matthew and John are on a mission: they are sent to the men disciples of Jesus with the good news of his resurrection. In Matthew, the women not only receive a commission, but also are greeted by the risen Jesus as they run to tell his disciples (Mt 28:1-10). Likewise, Mary Magdalene emerges as a leading figure in John’s resurrection narrative (Jn 20:1-2, 11-18).
Before proceeding further let us clarify the meaning of discipleship and leadership
b) Meaning of Discipleship in the Gospels
The disciples of Jesus, according to the Gospels, are those who hear and respond to his call to follow him: “If anyone would come after me, let that person deny self, take up the cross and follow me” (Mk 8:34). The technical expression denoting discipleship in the Gospels is the ‘following’ of Jesus. The word ‘disciple’ literally means a ‘learner’ (mathetes). Although Luke does not exploit this fact, nor does he use the verb ‘to learn’ except in a secular sense (Acts 23:27), Luke 1:4 shows that he understands instruction to be an important aspect of discipleship.18 It is clear that Luke does not develop the idea in the direction of a parallel to rabbinic discipleship as Matthew does (Mt 13:52). Nevertheless, Luke emphasises the necessity of being schooled in the teaching of Jesus.
The theological notion of “discipleship of equals” has been developed by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, a leading feminist critic in New Testament studies, whose scholarly work (one among many) has been cited above (see n.10). This radical feminist concept conveys an egalitarian vision and an alternative reality to the “patri-kyriarchyal” systems of domination-subordination. The qualifying word equals does not mean sameness, but “equality in diversity”. It underscores the fact that all disciples – men and women alike – have equal standing, dignity and access to the gifts of “Divine Sophia-Spirit”.
c) Meaning of Christian Leadership
The word ‘leader’ is frequently used in biblical texts of persons in authority and especially for the leaders of the Jewish people (Num 33:1; Heb 3:16). In speaking of the leaders of Jerusalem, Paul repeatedly uses hoi dokountes “those who are influential, who have a reputation”. Paul’s usage of the word in his list of spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:28) kybernesis refers to steering or piloting a ship and thus to the ability to hold a leading position in the building up of the church community.
The term leader is not used in the Gospels to describe the ministry of Jesus, because he is presented as one who sought to overturn religious and political leadership as domination, and to carry out his ministry through actions of healing, teaching and preaching. Yet, these actions on the part of Jesus as well as the list of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12, would in contemporary society be considered as forms of leadership. In Jesus’ view Christian leadership is not merely a matter of managing or organising the community. Service is the hallmark of a genuine leader; and one of the many ways of service is leadership in the Church.
Leadership is part of the network of power within organisational and institutional life, informed by beliefs about people’s behaviour and how they should live and work together. Ecclesiologically, leadership is informed by beliefs about God and the nature of the church.19 The church as the people of God, following the way of Jesus is not merely a social organisation or institution. Leadership within the church structure should be modelled on Jesus – the Servant-Leader. Jesus’ own prophetic example of ministry as freely chosen service, of leadership as diakonia, demonstrates a choice orientation as opposed to that of patriarchal privileges in the church today. His style of leadership excludes domination and subordination; it fosters participation and partnership in mission.
4. Women as Disciples and Leaders
In spite of the fact that the majority of disciples named are men, all four evangelists allude to women as well as men following Jesus during his ministry. The two verbs used in the vocabulary of discipleship and ministry in the New Testament are: they “followed” (akolouthein) Jesus and “served” (diakonein) him. This was equivalent to calling the women ‘disciples’ and ‘ministers’. The Gospels have five passages referring to the women who followed Jesus:
1. Mark 15:40-41 4. Luke 23:49
2. Matthew 27:55-56 5. Luke 23:55
3. Luke 8:1-3
In John’s Gospel, there is no explicit reference to the women who followed Jesus. He mentions the presence of the women near the cross: “Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene” (19:25). This by no means diminishes women’s position in John’s Gospel.20 On the contrary, “just as the concluding chapters maintain the Gospel’s negative portrayal of the Jews, so do they continue its positive portrayal of female characters.”21 John’s portrayal of women – Mary at Cana (2:1-12), the Samaritan woman (Ch. 4), Mary and Martha (12:1-7), Mary Magdalene, the first witness to the risen Christ (20:1-18) – is empowering.22
• Synoptic comparison
A cursory examination of the way the compilers of the Synoptic Gospels treat women shows that Mark and Matthew speak of women following Jesus from Galilee only in the closing stages of their narratives, describing the events of the passion. Luke on the other hand tells of the presence of the women in the first phase of Jesus’ activity in Galilee; he also refers to them at the time of his death and of his burial. Luke’s Gospel is therefore the only one in which this information is given at two different stages and in two different contexts.
Despite the variation among the Synoptics, all three evangelists note the presence of women at the passion and give the information that these women had followed Jesus from Galilee. In addition, women alone (with the exception of John) stood by Jesus at the crucial moments of his life. Mark, after describing Jesus’ arrest, says: “All of them deserted him and fled” (14:50); Matthew confirms this: “Then all the disciples deserted him and fled” (26:56). Because the male disciples had fled, the redactors are forced to refer to the women who stayed. Unable to cite the witness of the male disciples, they have to fall back on women, thereby providing a testimony to their fidelity. At this point the Synoptics recognise them as women welcomed by Jesus and who had been with him from Galilee.23
The Fourth Gospel speaks of the presence of “the disciple whom he (Jesus) loved” (Jn 19:26) standing at the foot of the cross. The name of this male disciple comes in the text straight after the list of the four women. John, the only one among the Twelve who was present, is thus also a personal witness to the presence of women. He attests to this in his Gospel and acknowledges the leading role of Mary Magdalene in the resurrection narrative. Mary is portrayed as an apostle, as the first one to grasp the significance of the empty tomb and to bear witness to others.
Approaching Mark and Matthew through the eyes of a woman, one can raise several questions: why do they speak of women following Jesus only so late? Is it because they did not consider women’s role important? Or is there a hidden agenda to silence women or push them to the periphery? As Ricci rightly observes, “an exegesis of silence is called for since Mark and Matthew hold this information back so long.”24
5. Illustration of a Feminist Reconstruction
With these general observations we shall delve into the group of leading women around Jesus, with special reference to Luke 1:26-55 (Mary of Nazareth) and 8:1-3 (women who followed Jesus).
a) Mary of Nazareth
Expounding the topic from a Catholic perspective, it seems appropriate to begin with Mary of Nazareth as she plays an important role in shaping the Catholic Church’s view on women’s vocation and ministry. Popes down the centuries have kept the Virgin Mary on a pedestal. For instance, one can find several passages in John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter on the dignity and vocation of women - Mulieris Dignitatem - in praise of Mary as ‘Mother of God’ (Theotókos), in whom “virginity and motherhood co-exist” (Nos. 4, 17), and Mary as “the most complete expression of woman’s dignity and vocation” (No. 5).
The traditional portrait of Mary as a pious, docile maiden, symbol of passivity and humility, has become a powerful means of domesticating women. The ‘humble Virgin’ image serves to maintain the status quo of an all-male governed and defined church. Mary needs to be rescued from this “masculine perception of idealised femininity”25 inflicted on women and men alike, which many have internalised. A feminist reading of Mary is crucial to discovering the assertive, intelligent, self-confident and strong woman in Mary. Our reflections shall be confined to Mary at the Annunciation and in the Magnificat.
• Mary at the Annunciation (Lk 1:26-38)
Annunciation stories are common features in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke (see Mt 1:20-21; Lk 1:11-20; 2:9-15). They follow a literary pattern that had its origins in the annunciation stories of the Old Testament: Ishmael (Gen 16: 7-12), Isaac (Gen 17: 1-21; 18:1-12), Samson (Judg 13: 2-21). The pattern is always the same. It is particularly evident in Luke’s presentation of the annunciation episode.26 We have no intention of examining the Lukan text now. Our purpose is to cull from it relevant issues affecting the lives of women.
Mary is presented as a virgin “betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph” (v. 27). In common usage the Hebrew word betûláh and the Greek word parthenos connote unmarried woman, without always emphasising her physical integrity; the word is often equivalent of the English “girl”.27 The appearance of the word ‘virgin’ twice in the same verse indicates Mary’s virginal state before the conception of Jesus. As far as the New Testament is concerned, the virginity of Mary is “not about the virtue of Mary, but it is about the origins of Jesus.”28 It is to ensure Jesus’ divine origin without any human intervention, the only exception being Mary’s unique role in God’s plan. In other words, the virginity of Mary is more a Christological matter than a Mariological concern.
What strikes us in Mary’s “Let it be done according to your word” (v. 38) is her total openness and availability to God. She has been caught up in God’s plan beyond the realm of human imagination and control, and commits herself to cooperate with God in the realisation of that plan. Hers was a free and responsible act of self-surrender, and not a passive, helpless submission. It was an adult response, a creative fidelity of a fully liberated human being. By this courageous act, she becomes a true disciple who listens to the word of God and acts upon it. Like an exemplary disciple, Mary contemplates the unfathomable ways of her son by treasuring “all these things in her heart” (Lk 2:51). Jesus himself acknowledges the quality of discipleship of his Mother and praises her obedient response to God’s Word, “Here are my mother, my sisters and brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” (Mt 12:49-50).
The point to be emphasised here is the fact that God chose Mary, a woman to collaborate in God’s plan of salvation (Gal 4:4). It is an affirmation of the sacredness of woman’s body. The celibate male theologians’ and church leaders’ preoccupation in projecting Mary as “virgin” immaculately conceived, should not divest her of her womanhood. This is important for understanding the dignity and vocation of woman against the background of a patriarchal Jewish society that looked down on woman. The contempt for woman is best summed up in the synagogue prayer in which a Jewish man thanked God that he was not born a woman.29 As Teresa Okure observes, despite this cultural predicament of the woman, God chose that channel for the birth of Jesus because in the divine scheme only a woman could give birth and nurture life along with God.30 Jesus is indeed Mary’s “flesh and blood”, “the son of Mary” (Mk 6:3). God has honoured womanhood in Mary and empowered her for liberative mission. The Magnificat is a powerful testimony to this counter-cultural action of God.
• Mary in the Magnificat (Lk 1:46-55)
Magnificat, found only in Luke’s Gospel, is said to be one of the four canticles in the Lukan narrative: “the Magnificat (1:46-55), the Benedictus (1:67-79), the Gloria in Excelsis (2: 13-14), and the Nunc Dimittis (2:28-32).”31 Concerning the composition of the canticles, biblical scholar R. E. Brown holds that the canticles were pre-Lukan and Jewish-Christian formulations, which Luke added to his already existing narrative.32
The Magnificat possesses the characteristics of Psalms of praise with three basic parts: the introductory praise of God, the body of the hymn suggesting reasons for praise and the concluding part recounting again the motive for praise along with a blessing and/or petition. One can notice a resemblance between Mary’s song and the canticle of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2:1-10, where Hannah bursts into sentiments of praise and thanks for God’s marvellous deeds in bringing about a reversal of order.
The Magnificat proclaims “the great reversal”, which is a major theme in Luke.33 The lowly are lifted up; the mighty are cast down; the hungry are filled; the rich are sent away empty (Lk 1:51-53). That is revolutionary: in Mary, God has envisaged a new world order, a “three-fold revolution. . .a cultural, political and economic.”34 An analytical reading of the six verbs used in verses 51-53 reveals that these are “habitual acts of God” in favour of the oppressed, calling us to collaborate with God.35 Mary identifies herself with the poor and lowly - the anawim and declares her commitment to their liberation and well-being. R. E. Brown helps us perceive the radicality of Mary’s choice:
For Luke, Mary’s virginity was like the barrenness of the O.T. women: both constituted a human impossibility which only the might of God could overcome. In using “low estate” and “handmaid” (i.e., female slave) of Mary, Luke is associating her with all the memories of the Poor Ones evoked by those terms—Poor Ones whom God has helped by his might, whether they were women yearning for children, or Israel reduced by oppression to the status of a “handmaid” (1 Macc 2:11) or “low estate” (1 Sam 9:16).36
The Magnificat has been termed “a dangerous story”,37 that challenges us to resist and transform all political, social, economic, and religio-cultural systems, claiming absolute authority and control. Mary’s song recounts the story of God’s justice, mercy, holiness and mighty deeds on behalf of the anawim. In her vision of a new community, Mary sees God’s action on behalf of the poor and exploited. She challenges the patriarchal order and all oppressive forces. Through her song of liberation, Mary announces the coming of the Messianic age and the prophetic mission of Jesus (Lk 4:18-19). Mary is confident that Yahweh will stand by the poor and effect a radical change in the oppressive structures and systems. Yahweh will achieve the final liberation of all people, through the death and resurrection of her Son.
• Implications for Women and Mariology
Mary at the Annunciation and in the Magnificat repudiates traditional Mariology, that has been serving the interests of the dominant shapers of society and church. By interpreting her fiat (yes) as the unquestioning and passive acceptance of God’s will, women have been motivated and even subjugated to assume an attitude of slavish docility and blind obedience to those in authority. In the words of T. Balasuriya, “this presentation of Mary as the obedient, docile, faithful virgin-mother has the impact of rendering Marian spirituality rather pietistic, somewhat passive and even individualistic.”38
The type of Marian spirituality practised in the Catholic Church is a clear proof of Balasuriya’s statement. Mary is honoured not as the daring woman of Nazareth, but rather in symbolic roles as the Lady of Lourdes, Fatima, Guadalupe, or Vellankanni in Tamil Nadu or Mount Mary in Mumbai. Raymond Brown maintains that “precisely because we do not know much about the historical character and individuality of Mary, she lends herself more freely than Jesus does to a symbolic trajectory. She has been adaptable in various times and places...”39 As Regina Coll observes, every age draws from the popular symbols of that age while at the same time reinforcing those symbols.40 Thus we notice a variety of titles for Mary, such as Hand-maiden, Virgin, Mother, Queen of purity, humility and so on. They have been presented as models for women. These symbols, as they have been applied to Mary, do not guarantee the empowerment of women or other marginalised groups. On the contrary, they actually disempower them by making them passive and resigned to their fate.
The distorted portrayal of Mary and other biblical women has led Christian women in general to submit themselves to clerical domination in God’s name. This is particularly true of women religious (Sisters) in the Catholic Church, who are “linked in a special way to the church” (Can.573/2). In spite of their dedicated involvement in the church’s apostolic activities, as well as their vibrant leadership in several areas of mission, they are in a more vulnerable position than their sisters outside Religious Orders. Canon Law can be invoked in support of their domestication in the church, precisely because the Canons on religious life indicate that the teaching church controls the interpretation of vowed life (Can. 576, 578).
The task of a new Mariology, then, is to let the Virgin of the Annunciation and the radical woman of the Magnificat stand up. Let the entire church learn from Mary the true meaning of humility. Far from denying her self-worth on the pretext of humility, Mary asserts her greatness by acknowledging the mighty deeds of God in her life (Lk 1:48-49). She thus gives a new sense and purpose to the virtue of humility. It is not by denying or by burying our gifts and talents that we glorify God, but by consciously accepting them with grateful hearts and placing them at the service of humanity. This positive dimension of humility shines out in the life of Mary from the Annunciation to the Pentecost. Here it would suffice to mention Mary’s visit to Elizabeth (Lk1:39-56) and her intervention at the wedding at Cana in Galilee (Jn 2:1-11). Both instances unfold Mary’s genuine concern, womanly sensitivity and spirit of service. She combines humility and assertiveness in herself.
Marian devotions should dismantle the patriarchal portrayal of Mary as a passive woman and ‘other-worldly’ queen beyond the reach of ordinary humans. Instead, they ought to allow women to emerge as free, faithful and committed like Mary (cf. LG, no. 66). The Catholic Church’s glorification of Mary and imitation of her virtues must aim at building self-confidence and realistic optimism in people, and instilling in them a sense of ‘prophetic protest’ against all forms of dehumanising systems. This is the kind of Mariology and spirituality that will do justice not only to Mary but also to other Biblical women.
b) Women with the Twelve
Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for him out of their resources (Lk 8:1-3).
From the analysis of this pericope, 41 we understand that the whole passage revolves around the group theme. The group is composed of Jesus, the Twelve and the women. Attention must be drawn to the fact that the two components of the group are the Twelve and the women. They are constantly “with him”, syn auto. This is consonant with Luke 23:49, 55 and with the other Synoptics (cf. Mt 27:55; Mk 15:40) which provide indication about the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee.
According to Turid K. Seim’s reading of Luke 8:3, women’s action of providing is identified with the preparation and serving of food which were traditionally a woman’s responsibility, unless slaves took care of it.42 She argues that Luke frequently uses terms with the root diakon, which means “to serve someone” as in the narrative about Peter’s mother-in-law (4:39) and in the case of Martha (l0:40; cf. Luke 12:37;17:8; 22:26-28). Although the verb diakoneo (literally meaning ‘serve’) has negative connotations in the Hellenistic or Greek culture because of its dominant ideology of “ruling and not serving”, in the New Testament, the term acquires a new meaning and significance. Jesus’ attitude to service makes diakoneo an integral mark of a true disciple of him. As Francis Pereira elucidates, “in the whole work of Luke, the verb diakoneo occurs 9 times (Lk 4:39; 8:3; 12:37; 17:8; 22:26, 27; Acts 6:2; 19:22). A careful study of these texts displays a remarkable development in the understanding of diakoneo in the Gospel.”43
The expression “out of their resources” in 8:3 presupposes that the women had financial means of their own, which allowed them to take care of the material needs of the group. Seim’s contention is that women are no longer seen as disciples, but care-takers of the material needs of the group, and that it is uncertain whether this patronage implies a formal directive authority. She finds no immediate connection between the status of patron/ness and the formal function of leadership, and “there is no convincing terminological evidence that diakonia was especially associated with this kind of leadership.”44
In this perspective there is no room for a feminist reconstruction of the early Christian history in which women played an active role in proclamation, worship and leadership. Women’s act of following Jesus in Luke 8:2 cannot be reduced merely to women’s role as benefactresses and subordinates to the spiritual authority and leadership of men. On the contrary it is remarkable that women dared to follow Jesus at a time when it was not socially acceptable for women to wander about the countryside following a male teacher. It was also unthinkable for women to stay in proximity to a group of men. Even to be the wife of a fully committed disciple was tough for a Palestinian woman. J. Jeremias has pointed out: “If the father of the house decided to enter Jesus’ company, his wife and children would have no choice but to return to her parents’ house, although that was felt to be a stigma.”45
The first woman mentioned, Mary Magdalene is the best known among the women disciples, possibly because her healing was the most dramatic, i.e., seven demons indicating a possession of extraordinary malignity.46 Strangely, Luke alone reports that seven demons had gone out of her (Lk 8:2). As T. Okure rightly points out, Mary Magdalene is stigmatised as a prostitute and has come down in history with this indelible stigma, though no gospel evidence links her with prostitution.47 She is commonly placed first when listed with other women (cf. Mt 27:56,61; 28:1; Mk 15:40,47; 16:1; Lk 24:10). She is undoubtedly important, and Luke wants to mention her special devotion and witness (cf. Lk 24). Similarly, Joanna is a long-standing disciple, present with Mary at the tomb and the upper room. She is the wife of Chuza who manages Herod’s estate. Obviously, she was a woman of some means and prominence. What is especially noteworthy of her presence among Jesus’ followers is that apparently she had left her home and family to become a follower and travelling companion of Jesus.48 The third woman Susanna, though perhaps known to Luke’s audience, is not mentioned elsewhere in the Gospel. Luke wants us to understand that these three women were the most prominent among the disciples travelling with Jesus.
• Women Disciples at the Cross
In the passion narrative Luke alone notes the presence of women along the way of the cross. He portrays Jesus as addressing them in a brief apocalyptic discourse.49 Women are seen weeping and lamenting for Jesus (Lk 23:27). Luke also adds the presence of men in his account of the crucifixion: “All who had known him and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance and saw these things” (24:49). With the use of the word “all”, Luke seems to be implying that the Eleven and perhaps other male disciples were present. Tetlow50 makes an insightful observation on Luke 23:27 which says, “a large crowd of people followed him; among them were some women who were weeping and wailing for him.” Tetlow is of the view that Luke minimised the Marken tradition of the women by not mentioning any of the women by name.
The construction and grammar of Luke 23:27 with “who” in Greek referring only to the women, indicate that Luke has added “of the people and” to a source fragment dealing only with the women: this type of addition will be made again in Luke 23:49.51 Luke did, however, use the verb “follow” (synakolouthein) in the case of the women, which implies their discipleship.52
Women also witness the crucifixion of Jesus at the place called “The Skull” (Lk 23:33). Luke puts women along with others who “stood at a distance to watch” (23:49). According to Mark and Matthew, only women followers witnessed the crucifixion (Mk 15:40; Mt 27:55). John names four women along with the male “beloved disciple” (Jn 19:25-26). Mark emphasises the importance of the women’s witness to the crucifixion and burial by naming them three times in the space of a few verses (Mk 15:40,47; 16:1). Although Luke does not name the women or mention their service at this point in the narrative, he does recognise their presence.53
The emphasis on the fact that women were witnesses to the Master’s life and ministry from Galilee down to the dramatic events of his crucifixion and death is significant here. This should be seen in the Hebrew context in which, from the juridical point of view, a woman’s witness had no value. Jesus in effect challenged this mentality by bringing women into the most privileged circle of those gathered around him. He made them effective witnesses to his life and message. F. Pereira accentuates the fact that “in the Synoptic tradition, women are the sole witnesses to the burial of Jesus and ‘only they are brought into connection with all four stages of the traditional confession preserved in 1 Cor 15:3-5: death, burial, resurrection [= empty tomb], and resurrection appearance.’ ”54
Women at the foot of the cross demonstrate not only their concern for Jesus but also their heroic courage and fidelity. Together with Mary the Mother of Jesus, they stand by their Master at the trying moments of his life. They suffer the anguish of so many women who are helpless in the face of unjust torture inflicted on their daughters and sons. In a situation of powerlessness, Mary stood by her Son as he offered his life for the integral liberation of humankind. Mary’s motherhood finds its beautiful expression in her acceptance of Jesus’ will: “Woman, behold your son. . ., behold your Mother!” (Jn 19:25-27). By this act, Mary rededicates herself to her mission of nurturing and animating the community. Indeed the women disciples of Jesus seem to have understood the cost of discipleship, which in turn energises them for mission or action on behalf of the Master.
• Women in Mission
The discipleship of women does not end beneath the cross. They are on a mission to anoint the body of their guru (teacher). After the body of Jesus is wrapped and laid in a tomb, “the women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments” (Lk 23:55-56).
Once the Sabbath is over, women are the first to go to the tomb. The presence of the women at the empty tomb and their being the first witnesses of the resurrection are attested by all four evangelists (Mt 28:1-10; Mk 16:1-8; Lk 24:1-11; Jn 20:1-2, 11-18). In contrast to the male disciples who lock themselves up in a room out of fear of the Jews, the fearless women rush to the tomb of their Friend and Master to be the first recipients and messengers of the good news of his resurrection.
The point of the episode for Matthew is the message of the angel to the women (disciples): “Go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him”(Mt 28:7). As they run in joy and excitement to communicate this, Jesus himself meets them, greets them (vv. 8-9) and confirms them in their mission to be his heralds: “Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me” (v. 10). Matthew avoids all mention of the proof that the tomb was empty. Mark ends his passage with an emphatic statement, “Trembling and astonishment had come upon them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (Mk 16:8). Perhaps he wanted to emphasise that the witness of the disciples was entirely independent of that of the women.
Luke’s account of the empty tomb is different from the narratives of the other evangelists. There is no explicit reference in Luke to women being commissioned to tell the disciples that they will see the risen Jesus in Galilee. Nevertheless, “the women remembered his words, returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven disciples and all the rest” (Lk 24:8-9). At this point Luke names the women: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary, the mother of James. Other women are believed to have been with them (24:10). Mary Magdalene and Joanna appear also in Luke 8:2, and Mary the mother of James in Mk 16:1. Only Mary Magdalene is found associated with the empty tomb in all the four canonical Gospels and in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter.55
The fact that Mary Magdalene is constantly placed in the list of the group shows that she is a reference point for the others. Furthermore, her special relationship with Jesus and probably her personality could have given her some authority over the other women. Her leadership role in the resurrection episode (Mk 16:10; Mt 28:8,10; Lk 24:8-10; Jn 20:17) cannot be questioned. Though her testimony is usually questioned or completely discounted by the male disciples (Mk 16:10; Lk 24: 10-11), at the end the evangelists uphold her and validate the authority of her witness.56
Luke concludes his resurrection narrative stating that the report of the women seemed to the apostles “an idle tale”, and they did not believe them (24:11). Their faith in the promise of Jesus’ resurrection was too weak to believe the message of the women disciples. Okure attributes their refusal to believe the women’s proclamation to cultural conditions; it was not a gospel response.57 No wonder Jesus will later say to them “How foolish you are, how slow you are to believe…” (Lk 24:25). It is rather strange that in Luke the risen Jesus does not appear to women. No commission is given to the women to go and tell his disciples that Jesus is risen (cf. Mt 28:7) and/or to tell them to meet him in Galilee (cf. Mk l6:7; Mt 28:10). Instead, they are reminded of how Jesus told them about his suffering, crucifixion and resurrection (Lk 24:6-7). Their eye-witness does not seem essential to the Christian faith because they are treated like minors. Seim makes an interesting observation:
In the story of the empty tomb in Luke 24:l-10, it becomes clear how certain factors operate in silencing women. The peculiar Lukan version of this story may help to explain the remarkable gap between the Gospel’s emphasis on the role of women on the one side and on the other side Acts’ reduction of them to invisibility in favour of the healing and preaching activity of the leading men. By the use of almost ironic devices, the women become simultaneously recognised and rejected.58
The episode of the empty tomb is ignored in the preaching of the early church; nor does it appear in the letters of Paul or in the Acts of the Apostles. The Apostles’ proclamation of the resurrection is based on the positive evidence of eyewitnesses of the risen Christ rather than the negative evidence of the empty tomb (1 Cor 15:3-7). Their silence on the episode of the empty tomb may be due to the fact that the witnesses were women, whose testimony was not valid according to the Jewish law. The criterion of maleness in Acts 1:21 excludes women from testifying to the resurrection of Jesus.
Whatever be the prejudice against the women disciples, the fact is that they were the first to hear the news: “He is risen!” Though culturally women’s testimony had no legal standing, Jesus acted counter-culturally when he made women’s witness as the bedrock of Christian faith (cf. 1 Cor l5:7). Not only Mary Magdalene, but also the women witnesses of the resurrection can be called apostles. Jesus commissioned them as a group (Mt 28:10): “Go tell”. Indeed, the women who figure in the Resurrection stories are models of true discipleship. They could rightly say, “ that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you so that you may have fellowship with us” (1 Jn1:3).
It is fascinating to unearth the vigorous involvement of women in the missionary activity of the early church. They exercised leadership functions in the realms of teaching and preaching, prophecy, prayer, worship and administration (Acts 18:26; 21:8-9; 16:14-15; Rom 16; 1 Cor 16:19). The charismatic conception of service in the church, which allowed a profusion of different gifts, made it possible for women to take an active part in the building up, the leadership and the life of the early Christian communities. It is beyond the scope of this paper to enumerate their activities.
6. Conclusion and Call to Action
Applying the hermeneutics of suspicion, intuition, vision and hope, we can confidently establish that women had played an active role in the Jesus’ movement (and in the early church, though not discussed here). The group of women who gathered around Jesus, as depicted in Luke 8:1-3, forms an entity alongside the Twelve, with its autonomous character. Our examination of the text reveals that in effect only two groups followed Jesus: the Twelve and the Women. In this context, Luke places the women in the first rank alongside the Twelve with particular reference to their travelling with (syn auto) and closeness to Jesus.59 Moreover, Jesus chose them (especially Mary Magdalene) to bring the good news of his resurrection to his male disciples. They also received the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:14) and were empowered for the mission of proclaiming Jesus and bearing witness to him.
By the very fact women have excelled in discipleship, they are eligible for leadership in the Christian community. There is no theological, psychological, or pastoral reason for preventing women from exercising any function in the church. Women ought to realise the fact that differentiation of the role of sexes in keeping with the socio-cultural perceptions of male-centred societies, has been contingent on a given historical situation; one cannot deduce from it a divine, immutable model that would apply to other different circumstances. The criterion for ministry is not the biological factor of being male or female, or the social construction of gender roles. The deciding factor should be the charisma of the individual for a particular ministry/service.
a) Challenges to Indian/Asian Women
Far from rejecting the Bible because of its androcentric and anti-women characteristics, and the many discrepancies within the text, Asian women are engaged in exploring new insights into methodology and hermeneutics. Making use of the tools of historical criticism on the one hand and the hermeneutics of liberation on the other, Asian women are making a substantial contribution to the ongoing research in the field. This is evident in In God’s Image, journal of Asian Women’s Resource Centre for Culture and Theology.
In the context of India’s/Asia’s multi-religious and pluri-cultural reality, it is imperative that we also search in the Scriptures of other great religions and engage in dialogue with women and men of other faiths who are as eager as we are to “move into a healthier, more just world after patriarchy”.60 Lina Gupta, in her fascinating rediscovery of the power of goddess Kali,61 writes:
The evidence that the systematic subjugation of women has often been sanctioned by mythological stones, symbols and images in world religions is too overwhelming to overlook. However, we have reached a point in history when it is simply not enough merely to recognise and analyse the patriarchal mindset and its effects on our religious and social lives. It is essential for us to seek new forms of religious experience and expression, either through the reinterpretation and reconstruction of our traditions or through alternative models of Ultimate Reality that will emphasise as well as include female experience.62
In another section, Lina Gupta calls for a creative and constructive reading in the light of Tantric scriptural interpretation, which “can allow the Kali with her terrifying appearance to emerge as a powerful symbol of life and liberation to women in their passage to post-patriarchy… Under her assurance we confront who we are in reality opposed to what we perceive ourselves to be through the subjugated roles we play.”63
Lina Gupta’s insights serve as a powerful stimulus in our reconstruction process from an Indian/Asian perspective. Rooted in the sufferings, struggles, hopes and aspirations of the silenced and silent women and the marginalised in all strata of our society, our hermeneutical method has necessarily to challenge the socio-cultural, religio-political and economic systems, and caste and gender based oppression of a patriarchal society. It is equally important to denounce the prejudice of male chauvinistic prescriptions on women’s sexuality, as well as to question the prevailing exclusive male God symbolism, invisibility of women in the Lectionary perpetuated by their absence and sexist language for God and humanity. Simultaneously, we have to promote a life-affirming, change-oriented and contextual reading of the Bible and theologising.
As we owe a great deal to the secular women’s movements in India for stimulating our theological reflections, it is necessary to work in collaboration with them. They have in fact fuelled the development of feminist consciousness in the church. Participation in movements for political action and social transformation gives authenticity to our faith. Another challenge is to facilitate the process of networking among women’s organisations and like-minded people’s movements at the local, regional, national and international levels. This becomes all the more useful in combating the increasing religious fundamentalism, resulting in communal violence.
Aware of India’s/Asia’s religious pluralism, commitment to inter-faith dialogue as a means of mutual learning needs to be reiterated. My experience of involvement in interreligious activity since 1992 in our locality at Bandra, Mumbai has deepened my conviction that followers of other religions are our partners in our common search for truth. They are not mere objects of theological discourse. In the process of journeying together, we have learned the skill of giving and receiving, as well as the art of participatory leadership.
b) Challenge to Church Leadership
To make the church a community of discipleship of equals, a radical transformation at all levels – Church’s theology, doctrines, structures and culture – is necessary. Power and leadership must be brought under the guidance of the Spirit of Jesus. Women and men have to work together for an inclusive Church, where both have equal access to decision-making positions. Life in the community (koinonia) is to be translated into shared leadership roles, acceptance and nurturing of the gifts and vocation of each member for the building up of the whole community. Women’s active involvement and women in leadership are essential for the church in order to deepen and enrich its own identity and legitimise its mission as a community of equals, a process which cannot take place when only males are decision makers.
Church authorities should be prepared to initiate structural changes in the existing patriarchal systems by allowing women to participate in all (including ordained) ministries and at all levels of decision-making within the church. They are to ensure the inclusion of competent women in the doctrinal, biblical, liturgical and other Commissions in the church at the local, national and international levels. Church leadership ought to strive for a participatory Church that is people-centred, and is open to Ecumenical partnership and to other religions, scriptures and ideologies, a church that allows the poor and marginalised to evangelise its structures and ministries.
Today, when women have proven their leadership in many parts of the secular sphere, Christian women and all right-thinking persons should urge ecclesiastical authorities to recognise the potential of women for leadership roles and accept their theological and spiritual insights for the benefit of the whole community. Women’s (applicable also to men) efforts at structural change must result in the creation of a church and society free from sexism, tokenism, classism, casteism, racism, clericalism and all forms of violence against women and other marginalized groups, as well as nature. It is therefore of vital importance to develop strategies, which help promote the acceptance of new research findings, the feminist method and the egalitarian model of church. This would gradually bring about attitudinal and structural transformation and work towards the realisation of a community of discipleship of equals as envisaged by Jesus (Mt 23:8.10; Gal 3:26-27) for the benefit of all God’s people and the whole of creation.
A brief note on Ram, Hanuman and Arjuna is called for:
Rama is supposed to have lived during the 8th or 7th BC. Vaalmiki, who wrote the story of Rama, i.e., the epic known as the Ramayana about the 4th century BC, presents Rama only as a noble warrior endowed with high human qualities, and not as a divine incarnation. He came to be considered as an avatar of Vishnu around the beginning of the Christian Era. By the 8th century A.D. devotion to Rama began to take a definite religious shape. With the appearance of the vernacular Ramayanas, devotional movement to Rama as god spread rapidly. The recent Ayodhya events speak loudly of the popularity of Rama bhakti (devotion). This is a summary of “Ram Navmi” by Swami Shilananda, A Rainbow of Feasts: An Inter-religious Appreciation (Bombay: Better Yourself Books, 1995), p. 31.
It is said that there are 33 crore gods and goddesses in Hinduism. Legend has it that some gods and goddesses decided to take avatar (to take birth) in the form of vanaras (monkeys). Hanuman, the most powerful and the cleverest of all the monkeys is considered to be the avatar of Vayu (wind). A devotee of Rama, Hanuman (also known as Maruti) undertook the mission of liberating Sita from Ravana. He was a bramachari or celibate. Because of his heroic deeds, he is also believed to be an avatar of Shankar (or Shiva). This piece of information has been obtained form Swami Shilananda, A Rainbow of Feasts: An Inter-religious Appreciation, pp.41-42.
Arjuna appears in the centrepiece of the Mahabharata epic, the Bhagavad Gita, as a noble man “confronting a terrible moral dilemma: should he fulfil his dharma as a warrior even though the enemy are his own kin?” Throwing away his weapon, Arjuna begins to dialogue with Krishna, his charioteer and bosom friend. Krishna tries to convince Arjuna of his duty to fight. The entire doctrine of Gita is presented in this setting. This information is from John Renard, Responses to 101 Questions on Hindu, pp. 39-40.
5. Pandit A. M. Srinivasachariar, Valmiki Ramayana (Madras: G. A. Natesan, 1953), p. 98.
6. Sandra L. Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (New York & London: Routledge, 1990), p.16. Bartky points out that for many feminists, this involves the experience of a profound personal transformation, an experience which goes far beyond the sphere of ordinary human activity.
7. Phoolan Devi was shot dead on 25th July 2001 in the highest security zone of the country, New Delhi. “She will always be remembered as the ‘Bandit Queen’: untamed, aggressive, wild. And her life shall be a colourful collage of the Great Indian Story fraught with caste-wars, gender exploitation, blood and gore.” Cited by S. P. Banarjee, “Not a Player but a Plaything,” Indian Currents (August 5, 2001), p. 16.
8. Hisako Kinukawa, Women and Jesus in Mark - A Japanese Feminist Perspective (Maryknoll, NY.: Orbis Books, 1994), p. 4. See also Nirmala Vasanthakumar, “Reading the Scripture – A Hermeneutical Process,” in M. R. A. Kanyoro, ed., Asian Women’s Theological Experiences (Geneva: WICAS, 1991), pp. 15-23.
9. Clarice J Martin, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in Schüssler Fiorenza, ed., Searching the Scriptures, Volume Two: A Feminist Commentary (New York: Crossroad, 1994), p. 772.
10. E. Schussler Fiorenza, Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation (New York: Orbis Books, 2001), p. 167. For further reading on feminist hermeneutics and theology, see Chapter IV in my book Discipleship...
11. Mary Ann Tolbert, “Defining the Problem: The Bible and Feminist Hermeneutics,” Semia 28 (1983), p. 120. See also her book Protestant Feminists and the Bible, the Pleasure of Her Text (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990).
12. It is said that a pious Jew thanked God daily for not having been born a Gentile, a woman or a slave. See ET in A. L. Williams, ed., Tractate Berakoth: Mishna and Tosephta (London: SPCK, 1921), p. 84. For Schüssler Fiorenza’s comments on this, see In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), pp. 217 f. See also F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians (Exeter: Paternoster, 1982), p. 187.
13. C. F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament (Naperville, Ill: Alice R. Allenson, Co., 1967), p. 65. See also Dorothy Sayers, Are Women Human? (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1971).
14. “Q” (from the German Word Quelle) meaning “source” is a collection of the sayings of Jesus. Most Scripture scholars hold that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, and that they have also utilised Q. This explanation is known as the “Two-Source Hypothesis”, according to which Mark’s is the oldest of the Gospels. For this information, see K. Luke, Companion to the Bible, Vol. II (Bangalore: TPI, 1994), p. 7. See also Oscar Lukefahr, A Catholic Guide to the Bible (Mumbai: St. Pauls, 2003), p. 164.
15. Jane Schaberg, “Luke,” in Newsom and S. H. Ring, eds., The Women’s Bible Commentary (London: SPCK, 1992), p. 278.
16. For an interesting study on “Gender Pairs: Inclusiveness and Segregation,” see Turid K. Seim, “The Gospel of Luke,” in Searching the Scriptures, Vol. Two. . ., pp. 729-731.
17. The findings in this section are based to a great extent on Schaberg’s scholarly work. See “Luke,” p. 279. For more examples, see pp. 280-281.
18. B. E. Beck, Christian Character in the Gospel of Luke (London: Epworth Press, 1989), p. 95. For Katechethes in this sense in 1:4, see Acts 18:25.
19. I am indebted to Kathleen S. Hurty whose article has given me a comprehensive view of leadership. Kathleen S. Hurty, “Ecumenical Leadership: Power and Women’s Voices” in Melani A. May, ed., Women and Church: The Challenge of Ecumenical Solidarity in an Age of Alienation (New York: Wm. B. Eerdman Publishing Co., 1991), pp. 90-93. For a discussion on spiritual leadership, see J. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership (London: Lakeland, 1977).
20. R. E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), esp. the chapter on “The Role of Women in the Fourth Gospel”.
21. Adele Reinhartz, “The Gospel of John,” in Searching the Scriptures, Vol. Two, p. 591. While most commentators assert that these women - Jesus’ mother, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene – are disciples, apostles, or at least believers, this is made explicit only in the case of Mary Magdalene (20:1-18).
22. It is important to bear in mind that the feminist reading of biblical texts goes far beyond the words about and images of women. For the elaboration of this view, see especially the works of E. Schüssler Fiorenza, Bread not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation and “Transforming the Legacy,” in Searching the Scriptures, Vol. One (New York: Crossroad, 1993).
23. C. Ricci makes an interesting observation: Perhaps if the evangelists had been able to refer to the presence of the apostles (men disciples) at the foot of Jesus’ cross, they would have (perhaps) omitted to mention the presence of women there. Elsewhere she also calls the reader’s attention to take note of the silence surrounding the presence of women at the Last Supper. See C. Ricci, Mary Magdalene and Many Others: Women who followed Jesus (Kent TN: Burns & Oates, 1994), pp. 19-28.
24. Ibid., p. 27.
25. Asian Women’s Theology Conference, “Who is Mary?” In God’s Image (December 1988), p. 9.
26. For an illustration of the pattern and further discussion, see Francis J. Moloney, Woman: First Among the Faithful, A New Testament Study (Bombay: St. Paul Publications, 1988), pp. 40-64.
27. John L. McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible (Bangalore: ATC, 1983), p. 913. It is said that normally the virgin was married shortly after she reached puberty.
28. Ibid, p. 42.
29. B. Menahoth 43b; A. Cohen. Everyman’s Talmud (New York: Schocken, 1975), p. 159.
30. Teresa Okure, “The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament: Implications for Women in Mission,” Journal of Inculturation Theology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (October 1995), p. 210.
31. William F. Maestri, Mary: Model of Justice, Reflections on the Magnificat (New York: Alba House, 1987), p. 6.
32. R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah. A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1977).
33. The theme of ‘reversal’ is not a Lukan invention, it is found in Mark (e.g., 12:41-43; 5:24-34, 14:3-9) the first of the evangelists. Nevertheless Mark too is not the inventor of the theme. ‘Reversal’ is a theme that runs through the Old Testament. Examples include: the choice of David (1 Sam 16:1-13), the vocation of some of the prophets (Jer 1:6-8; Amos 7:14-15; Isa 7).
34. Tissa Balasuriya, Mary and Human Liberation (Sri Lanka: CSR, 1990), p. 114.
35. R. J. Raja, You are Free: Women in the New Testament (Bangalore: NBCLC, 1993), pp. 5-7; the following explanation is found on p. 7, no. 10: The verbs put in the Greek gnomic aorist tense means this is how God did in the past, this is how God is doing in the present, and this is how God will do in the future, provided we participate in this liberative task.
36. R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p. 361.
37. Shaun O’Meara, “Mary’s Magnificat,” Sisters Today, Vol. 60, No. 1 (August/September 1988), p. 5.
38. T. Balasuriya, Mary and Human Liberation, p. 74.
39. R. E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 106.
40. Regina Coll, “A Look at Mary of Popular Tradition,” Sisters Today, Vol. 60, No. 1 (August/September 1988) p. 14.
41. For an elaborate view, see my findings based on Carla Ricci’s analysis of Luke 8:1-3 in my book Discipleship.., p. 138.
42. Since most families did not have house slaves, especially in Palestine, the task of serving fell on the women of the family. See T. K. Seim, “The Gospel of Luke,” in E. Schüssler Fiorenza, ed., Searching the Scriptures, Vol. Two, pp. 728-762.
43. Francis Pereira, Jesus the Human and Humane Face of God: A Portrait of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel (Mumbai: St. Pauls, 2000), p. 161.
44. T. K. Seim, “The Gospel of Luke,” p. 742. For further discussion on this, see pp. 742-745.
45. J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology (ET, London: SCM, 1971), p. 43.
46. Rengstorf, ‘epta’, TDNT, Vol. II, pp. 630-631.
47. T. Okure, “Contemporary Perspectives on Women in the Bible,” Word & Worship, Vol. 33, Nos. 2 & 3 (March-April & May-June 2000), p. 101. The Gerasene demoniac (Mk 5:1-20) was possessed by a legion of unclean spirits, yet nobody thinks of him as a male prostitute. But in the case of Mary Magdalene, demon possession had been equated with prostitution.
48. Ben Witherington III, Women in the Ministry of Jesus (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984, rpt. 1988), p. 117.
49. E. M. Tetlow, Women and Ministry in the New Testament (New York: Paulist Press, 1980), p. 105.
50. Ibid.
51. J. Schaberg, “Luke”, p. 290.
52. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge University Press, 1957), p. 791.
53. Some feminists are of the view that Luke has undermined the importance of women’s role at the crucial moments of Jesus’ life. Besides those cited above, see the comments of C. F. Parvey, “The Theology and Leadership of Women in the New Testament,” in R. R. Ruether, ed., Religion and Sexism (New York: Simon and Schuster, l974), pp. 1l7-149, who attempts a short description of the passages on women in Luke and Acts but does not give a critical evaluation of Luke’s theological tendencies.
54. F. Pereira, Jesus the Human and Humane. . ., p. 167.
55. J. Schaberg, “Luke”, p. 291. For a comprehensive review on the prominent role of Mary Magdalene, see K. L. King, “The Gospel of Mary Magdalene,” in Searching the Scriptures, Vol. Two, pp. 601-634.
56. The Gospel of Peter also gives Mary Magdalene a pre-eminent place as the first witness to the empty tomb, although the material about Mary may be a second-century tradition, influenced by the canonical gospel tradition. See also E. Schüssler Fiorenza, in Memory of Her. . ., pp. 332-333.
57. T. Okure, “Contemporary Perspectives on Women in the Bible,” p. 102. The motif of the apostles’ skepticism toward the message of the women is even further developed in the Epistula Apostolorum, an apocryphal document of the second century. According to this account Mary Magdalene and Sarah (in the Coptic version it is Martha and Mary) are sent to announce to the apostles that Jesus had risen. But the apostles did not believe them. Finally, the Lord himself goes with Mary and her sisters to them, but they still do not believe. Only after they touch him do they know “that he has truly risen in the flesh.” See Hennecke and Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. l, pp. 195ff. This information has been gathered from E. Schüssler Fiorenza in R. R. Ruether, et al., Women of Spirit: Female Leadership in the Jewish and Christian Traditions (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979), p. 52.
58. T. K. Seim, “The Gospel of Luke, “ p. 748.
59. C. Ricci, Mary Magdalene and Many Others. . ., p. 160. The Lukan view of the Twelve and the Women is that of those set around the Master as in concentric circles.
60. Lina Gupta, “Kali the Saviour,” in Paula Cooey, et al., eds., After Patriarchy: Feminist Interpretations of the World Religions (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1992), p. 15.
61. Kali, meaning “dark” is a female name-form associated with Shiva, and is portrayed as the most famous of the terrifying goddesses. “With her fierce, wild-eyed visage, tongue lolling out between blood-dripping fangs, necklace of skulls, and skirt of severed arms, Kali is the other aspect of the charming Parvati…. Kali epitomises the uncontrollable feminine.” She identifies the female as the energy, the divine spark at the heart of reality, which bestows on creation the power of transcendence. Kali is the embodiment of woman power destroying all evil forces. For this information, see John Renard, Responses to 101 Questions on Hinduism (Mumbai: Better Yourself Books, 1999), pp. 145-146. For further details on Kali and other Hindu goddesses, see pp. 142-153 of the same book. See also David Kinsley, The Sword and the Flute – Kali and Krsna: Dark Visions of the Terrible and the Sublime in Hindu Mythology (Berkely: University of California, 1975).
62. Ibid., p. 15-16.
63. Lina Gupta, “Kali the Saviour,” p. 24.
PS: This Paper was presented at a joint Study Workshop on the theme, A Reconstruction of the Early Christian Origins -- An Asian Feminist Perspective, organised by AWRC, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in January 2006.
Bandra (W)
INDIA
Email: paulinec_dsp@yahoo.com
