Jesus was a gentleman

JESUS WAS A GENTLEMAN
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Definition of a Gentleman
John Henry Newman's EssayIs a Prime Example of CharacterWriting
Updated February 25, 2019
A leader in the Oxford Movement and a cardinal in the RomanCatholic
Church, John Henry Newman(1801-1890)was a prolific writer and one of the
most talented rhetoricians in 19th-century Britain. He servedas the first
rectorof the Catholic University of Ireland (now University College Dublin)
and was beatified by the Catholic Church in September 2010.
In "The Idea of a University," originally delivered as a series of lectures in
1852, Newmanprovides a compelling definition and defense of a liberal arts
education, arguing that the primary purpose of a university is to develop the
mind, not dispense information.
From Discourse VIII of that work comes "A Definition of a Gentleman," a
superb example of characterwriting. Note Cardinal Newman's reliance on
parallel structures in this extended definition -- in particular his use of paired
constructions and tricolons.
'A Definition of a Gentleman'
[I]t is almosta definition of a gentleman to sayhe is one who never inflicts
pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is
mainly occupiedin merely removing the obstacleswhichhinder the free and

unembarrassedaction of those about him, and he concurs with their
movements rather than takes the initiative himself.
His benefits may be consideredas parallel to what are calledcomforts or
conveniences in arrangements of a personalnature: like an easychair or a
goodfire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature
provides both means of rest and animal heat without them.
The true gentlemanin like manner carefully avoids whatevermay cause a jar
or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast;--all clashing of opinion, or
collisionof feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his
greatconcernbeing to make everyone at their ease and at home.
He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle
towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he canrecollectto
whom he is speaking;he guards againstunseasonable allusions, ortopics
which may irritate; he is seldomprominent in conversation, and never
wearisome.
He makes light of favours while he does them, and seems to be receiving when
he is conferring. He never speaks ofhimself except when compelled, never
defends himself by a mere retort, he has no ears for slander or gossip, is
scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and
interprets everything for the best.
He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never
mistakes personalities orsharp sayings for arguments, or insinuates evil
which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the

maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our
enemy as if he were one day to be our friend.
He has too much goodsense to be affronted at insults, he is too wellemployed
to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient,
forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain,
because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because itis irreparable, and to
death, because it is his destiny.
If he engages in controversyof any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves
him from the blundering discourtesyof better, perhaps, but less educated
minds; who, like blunt weapons, tearand hack insteadof cutting clean, who
mistake the point in argument, waste their strength on trifles, misconceive
their adversary, and leave the question more involved than they find it.
He may be right or wrong in his opinion, but he is too clear-headedto be
unjust; he is as simple as he is forcible, and as brief as he is decisive. Nowhere
shall we find greatercandour, consideration, indulgence:he throws himself
into the minds of his opponents, he accounts for their mistakes.
He knows the weaknessofhuman reasonas well as its strength, its province
and its limits. If he be an unbeliever, he will be too profound and large-
minded to ridicule religion or to act againstit; he is too wise to be a dogmatist
or fanatic in his infidelity.
He respects piety and devotion; he even supports institutions as venerable,
beautiful, or useful, to which he does not assent;he honours the ministers of
religion, and it contents him to decline its mysteries without assailing or
denouncing them.

He is a friend of religious toleration, and that, not only because his philosophy
has taught him to look on all forms of faith with an impartial eye, but also
from the gentleness andeffeminacy of feeling, which is the attendant on
civilization.
Not that he may not hold a religion too, in his own way, even when he is not a
Christian. In that case, his religion is one of imagination and sentiment; it is
the embodiment of those ideas of the sublime, majestic, and beautiful, without
which there canbe no large philosophy.
Sometimes he acknowledgesthe being of God, sometimes he invests an
unknown principle or quality with the attributes of perfection. And this
deduction of his reason, or creationof his fancy, he makes the occasionofsuch
excellentthoughts, and the starting-point of so varied and systematic a
teaching, that he even seems like a disciple of Christianity itself.
From the very accuracyand steadiness ofhis logicalpowers, he is able to see
what sentiments are consistentin those who hold any religious doctrine at all,
and he appears to others to feel and to hold a whole circle of theological
truths, which existin his mind no otherwise than as a number of deductions.
In a world that is often harsh and demanding,
there is One whose heart remains tender towards you.

Jesus Is A Gentleman
He will open a door,
But He will not push you through it.
He will speak to you,
But He will not shout to make you hear.
He wants to spend time with you,
But He will not force you to meet with Him.
He knocks on the door of your heart,
Then He waits for you to invite Him in.
He gives you choices,
(freedom or bondage, light or darkness, His Way or your own),
But He will not tell you how to decide.
He loves you,
Without expectations of perfectionor harsh demands.
Jesus is a gentleman,
You can trust Him with the depths of your soul.
https://alittlemadeenough.com/content/things-to-know/jesus-is-a-gentleman/
The Christian Gentleman
by: Bill Bratt
Email: info@icogsfg.org

"Anyone can be heroic from time to time, but a gentleman is something you
have to be all the time." Luigi Pirandello (1867-1936)Italianauthor and
playwright.
What is a gentleman? Webster’s Dictionary defines "gentleman" as:"A
polite, gracious orconsiderate man with high standards of propriety or
correctbehavior".
Polite is having considerationfor others, being courteous. Graciousis
characterizedby kindness, being merciful and compassionate. Proprietyis the
quality of being proper, conformity to prevailing customs and usages.
If we wanteda Biblical example of the definition of a "gentleman", we would
have to look to Jesus Christ.
Jesus was a Gentleman!
Jesus was polite and had considerationfor others. An example of this was at
the wedding in Cana. John 2:1-10 (NKJV) "On the third day there was a
wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. {2} Now both
Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. {3} And when they ran
out of wine, the mother of Jesus saidto Him, "Theyhave no wine." {4} Jesus
said to her, "Woman, what does your concernhave to do with Me? My hour
has not yet come." {5} His mother said to the servants, "WhateverHe says to
you, do it." {6} Now there were setthere six waterpots of stone, according to
the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons
apiece. {7} Jesus saidto them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled
them up to the brim. {8} And He said to them, "Draw some out now, and take
it to the masterof the feast." And they took it. {9} When the masterof the
feasthad tastedthe waterthat was made wine, and did not know where it
came from (but the servants who had drawn the waterknew), the master of
the feastcalledthe bridegroom. {10} And he saidto him, "Every man at the
beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then
the inferior. You have kept the goodwine until now!"

Jesus was considerateofHis mother’s request and miraculously answeredher
request with His first public miracle of turning the water into wine.
Jesus is also gracious, kind, merciful and compassionate.Let’s look at an
example of this in: Mat 15:32-39 (NKJV) "Now Jesus calledHis disciples to
Himself and said, "I have compassiononthe multitude, because theyhave
now continued with Me three days and have nothing to eat. And I do not want
to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way." {33} Then His disciples
said to Him, "Where could we get enough bread in the wilderness to fill such a
greatmultitude?" {34} Jesus saidto them, "How many loaves do you have?"
And they said, "Seven, and a few little fish." {35} So He commanded the
multitude to sit down on the ground. {36} And He took the sevenloaves and
the fish and gave thanks, broke them and gave them to His disciples;and the
disciples gave to the multitude. {37} So they all ate and were filled, and they
took up seven large baskets full of the fragments that were left. {38} Now
those who ate were four thousand men, besides women and children. {39} And
He sent awaythe multitude, got into the boat, and came to the region of
Magdala."
Jesus was gracious, kind, merciful and compassionate to the multitude. He
wanted to share a meal with them before He sent them away. Gracious people
love to share meals with others. Some of our best memories relates to when we
have shared a meal with friends or relatives.
Jesus definitely had high standards of propriety and correctbehavior. Jesus
was the son of God. Jesus was God(John 1:1, 3:16). He was perfectand did
not sin.
1 Pet 2:21-22 (NKJV) says:"For to this you were called, because Christ also
suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:{22}
"Who committed no sin, Nor was deceitfound in His mouth";"
What is sin? The Bible defines sin as: "Whosoevercommitteth sin
transgressethalso the law: for sin is the transgressionofthe law." 1 John 3:4
(KJV) .

Jesus’high standards and correctbehavior were basedon God’s ten
commandments. Jesus saidin John 19:17 (NKJV): "So He said to him, "Why
do you call Me good? No one is goodbut One, that is, God. But if you want to
enter into life, keepthe commandments."
Gentleness
One of the fruits of God’s holy spirit is gentleness.Gal5:22-23 (NKJV) "But
the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, {23} gentleness,self-control. Againstsuchthere is no law."
Gentleness is being considerate, kind and patient. A gentleman must use
wisdom when he speaks and rule with kindness when he gives instructions.
The Christian gentleman must seta right example in being gentle and kind in
all of his dealings with his wife, children, friends, relatives and neighbors.
Provide for your Family
A gentleman must provide for his family. Notice the stern warning in 1 Tim
5:8 (KJV): "But if any provide not for his own, and speciallyfor those of his
own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
Which one of the ten commandments commands us to work? Would you
believe that it is the one that commands you to rest? Exodus 20:8-11 (NKJV)
"Rememberthe Sabbath day, to keep it holy. {9} Six days you shall labor and
do all your work, {10} but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your
God. In it you shall do no work:you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor
your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger
who is within your gates. {11}Forin six days the LORD made the heavens
and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and restedthe seventh day.
Therefore the LORD blessedthe Sabbath day and hallowedit."
Live like a Deacon
Not every Christian gentleman will be ordained a deacon, but he should try to
live his life like a deacon. Let’s look at the qualifications of deacons in: 1 Tim
3:8-15 (NKJV) "Likewise deaconsmust be reverent, not double-tongued, not
given to much wine, not greedy for money, {9} holding the mystery of the faith

with a pure conscience. {10}But let these also first be tested;then let them
serve as deacons, being found blameless. {11}Likewise their wives must be
reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. {12} Let deacons be
the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. {13}
For those who have servedwell as deacons obtain for themselves a good
standing and greatboldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus."
The Gentleman and his Wife
Let’s notice how a Christian gentlemanshould treat his wife. Eph 5:23-33
(NKJV) says:"Forthe husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of
the church; and He is the Savior of the body. {24} Therefore, just as the
church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in
everything. {25} Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the
church and gave Himself for her, {26} that He might sanctify and cleanse her
with the washing of waterby the word, {27} that He might presenther to
Himself a glorious church, not having spotor wrinkle or any such thing, but
that she should be holy and without blemish. {28} So husbands ought to love
their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. {29}
For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the
Lord does the church. {30} For we are members of His body, of His flesh and
of His bones. {31} "Forthis reasona man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." {32} This is a
greatmystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. {33}
Nevertheless leteachone of you in particular so love his own wife as himself,
and let the wife see that she respects herhusband."
The Christian gentleman should love his wife and exhibit gentle "loving
authority" to his wife instead of "loving authority" over his wife. There is no
excuse for a Christian man to abuse his wife or children.
The Gentleman and his Children
There is a stern warning to fathers in (Eph 6:4 NKJV): "And you, fathers, do
not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and
admonition of the Lord." Don’t say things to embarrass your children.
Remember that they have feelings too. Be fair with your children. Don’t

punish one for an offense and not the other child. Children know if a parent is
not being fair. Notice that this verse also says that a father is responsible for
the children’s spiritual training.
In conclusion:A Christian gentleman must be a polite, gracious and
considerate man with high standards of propriety and correctbehavior based
on God law and God’s word. He should live as Jesus lived!
the Holy Spirit is a gentleman, God is a gentleman
September 26, 2013 by Tim
Sharing shortcuts:
Save
Gmail
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
(Reading Time: 7 minutes)
The saying “God (or the Holy Spirit) is a gentleman” doesn’t mean that God
wears a top hat and a monocle and speaks in a funny accent. It suggeststhat
God politely waits for you to ask him for something before he provides it.

Sometimes God makes the first move, and sometimes he sits back and waits to
be askedbefore he makes a move. That’s the idea behind the sayings “Godis
a gentleman” and “the Holy Spirit is a gentleman.”
These sayings are usually invokedin conversations aboutmiraculous healing
and the charismatic gift of speaking in tongues. The idea behind the saying is
that God waits for us to ask him before he does something miraculous because
he wants to confirm that it’s something we really want. In other words, God
doesn’t want to override our wishes if we don’t really want him to actin our
life in that way.
As you can perhaps imagine, there is a lot of theologicalmaterialhere that
Christians canhave a lively debate over!
Some Christians argue that God loves us and that he doesn’t wait for our
permission before he does something goodfor us. After all, God didn’t wait
for us to ask before he sentJesus to save us. He just did it because he knew
that we needed Jesus’s help.
But other Christians saythat God places a high value on our free will and that
he won’t force blessings orcharismatic gifts on Christians who don’t want
them or don’t feelthat they’re ready for them. These people say that God
wants to give us the blessings that we ask for. They saythat God likes to work
this way so that we get in the habit of always asking him for whatever we
need.
There’s no easyway to prove that either side on this issue is all right or all
wrong. This is just a complex area of Christian theologyand practice.
On the plus side, however, now you will have an idea of what someone is
talking about if they refer to God as a gentleman.
gentleman n. See the run-on entry below.

¶ the Holy Spirit is a gentleman Also the Holy Ghostis a gentleman;God is a
gentleman; Jesus is a gentleman. A catchphrase that affirms the belief that
God strictly honors eachperson’s free will and won’t actin someone’s life
(such as by healing, granting the ability to speak in tongues, or saving from
sin) until he is askedto do so.
Sometimes the expressionis used specificallyto affirm the importance of
orderliness and decorum at church services in which people are speaking in
tongues or manifesting other charismatic behaviors (see citations for 1966b,
1972, 1982).
Some Christians criticize the catchphrase’s implication that God can’t or
won’t act in a person’s life until he receives permissionto do so (see citations
for 1994a, 1994b, 1995, 1999,2002, 2006).
There are references to God’s being a gentleman that predate the citations
given below, but these references have to do specificallywith the conceptionof
God as being similar in personality and morals to the Englishgentry. For
example: “The Third Earl of Shaftesbury made another contribution to the
reconstructionof the conceptionof God. The Hebrew and Christian God had
been regardedand described as an arbitrary, jealous, inconsistent, crueland
revengeful being…. The gentle and esthetic Shaftesbury was repelled by all
this…. He held that, while the attitudes and qualities of God in all probability
far transcendedthe human imagination, we could at leastgo as far as to credit
God with the urbanity and decencypossessedby a cultivated English
gentleman of the year 1700. It is for this reasonthat Shaftesbury is often
describedas the first man to discoverthat God is a gentleman” (Barnes World
Politics in Modern Civilization (1930)72);and: “They followedthe advice of
the first Lord Shaftesbury, ‘to be gentlemen and to believe that God is a
gentleman who would hardly send one to hell for a few gentlemanly sins.’It
was these gentlemen, cool, rational, cultured, aristocratic, andloyal to old
tradition and ritual, who voted with the Tory Lords againstthe Reform Bill in
1831” (Harrold, Templeman English Prose of the Victorian Era (1938)xxxi).
• 1966 Collins, Defeating Alcoholismthe Fairview Way 250 : God will never
force his wayinto a life until that life freely opens the door, steps aside, and

says, “Come in, God.” God is a gentleman. He will not intrude where he is
unwanted. 1966 NicholPentecostalism229 : That a greateremphasis has been
placed on teaching Pentecostals to controltheir emotionalism is evidencedby
the appearance ofadmonitions such as this one: It has been well saidthat the
Holy Spirit is a gentleman—He does not disturb meetings. There is a proper
time and place for manifestations of the Holy Spirit and it is not a time when
it will inject a harsh note into the meeting and disturb either speaker, singer,
or audience. 1969 BashamA Handbook on Holy Spirit Baptism 54 : The Holy
Spirit is a gentleman. He works in our lives only to the extent that we are
willing. He prompts and leads and woos andpersuades, but He does not force.
1971 Mumford Take Another Look at Guidance 41 : We know that the Holy
Spirit is a gentleman. He never forces His entry into our lives. He must be
invited. 1972 Samarin Tongues ofMen and Angels:The Religious Language
of Pentecostalism162 : The rule that applies here is the saying, “The Holy
Spirit is a gentleman.” The sensitive glossolalisttherefore looks foropenings
very much in the way a conversationalistdoes.1974BennettThe Holy Spirit
and You 000 : As David du Plessissays, “The Holy Spirit is a Gentleman!”
1974 Link Help in Understanding the Bible 16 : God is a gentleman who will
not force himself or his service on those who do not have a genuine desire.
Likewise, the Holy Spirit is available only to those who want his teaching and
leadership. 1974 Hagin Bible Faith Study Course 76 : The Holy Ghost is a
gentleman. He’s not going to come in you and just take you over and run
things on His own. You can find no scripture on any such thing. Devils,
demons, and evil spirits will do that. They’ll make peoople do things they
don’t want to do and force them into doing things but the Holy Ghost, all
through the Bible, leads, guides, prompts, urges, or He’ll give you a gentle
push. 1982 Ortlund Up with Worship: How to Quit Playing Church 29 : We
have come to the conclusionthat the Holy Spirit is a Gentleman. We have
never seenexcessesin behavior. He is seemly! But we’ve seenHis
characteristicsexhibited in living color:greattenderness, greatcompassion
for those embarrassedby their own sin. 1990 HarperGifted People 29 : I have
found that the Holy Spirit treats us with respect. He is a “gentleman” as David
du Plessis usedto say. 1990 EcumenicalRev. 108 : David du Plessis, the
“patriarch” of the Pentecostalmovement, often said: “The Holy Spirit is a
gentleman. He does not force himself on us but comes only where he is

welcome!1994 ChevreauCatchthe Fire: The Toronto Blessing:An
Experience of Renewaland Revival 101 : John Arnott often reminds those
gatheredthat there is no Scriptural basis for the common belief that “the Holy
Spirit is a gentleman, and does nothing without our consent.” 1994Alpha
(Sep.) 3 : God is not a gentleman; God is God. 1995 Porter, RichterThe
Toronto Blessing, orIs it? 28 : Proponents of the Blessing have repeatedly
statedthat the old idea that “Godis a gentleman” (both polite and English!) is
out of date and inaccurate. It is repeatedly claimed that there is no biblical
basis for the belief that “the Holy Spirit is a gentleman, and does nothing
without our consent.” 1997 LotzGod’s Story xxxiv : Have you kept Him [=the
Holy Spirit] standing outside your life because you have been unwilling to
repent of your sin and have never invited Him to come inside? The Spirit of
God is a gentleman. Although you canbe aware that He looks longingly into
your life, yearning to enter into all that you are, He will not force His way into
your life. He waits to be invited. 1999 Heidler Experiencing the Spirit:
Developing a Living Relationship with The Holy Spirit 19 : We’ve been taught
that the Spirit is a “gentleman” who would never do anything you didn’t ask
Him to do. That only shows how little we understand the grace of God. There
are times when God’s love for us demands that He move in forceful ways.
2002 BovierMore God: From the Twelve Steps Into DeeperFaith84 : In
Twelve Step meetings I’ve often heard that God is a gentleman and won’t
intrude where he’s not welcome. Idon’t agree. While God is patient in many
respects, the more I know him, the more I recognize him at work, and the
more I can see that he was active in my life long before I was willing to
acknowledge his presence. 2004BartkowskiThe Promise Keepers:Servants,
Soldiers, and Godly Men 89 : As it was explained to me by severalPromise
Keepers, Jesus is a “gentleman.” The implication here is that a gentleman
does not intrude but waits until he is askedto enter. 2005 Williams, Lee
Spirit-Led Days:Day by Day with the Holy Spirit 9 : Kathryn Kuhlman said
many times, “The Holy Spirit is a Gentleman. He will never do anything to
embarrass or hurt you.” 2006 TuckerGodTalk:Cautions for Those Who
Hear God’s Voice 73 : Describing God as a “Gentleman” who requires an
invitation is a weak effortto ascribe to God status and sophisticationthat is
wholly unnecessary. In Scripture we find God speaking to many people
uninvited, and there are scenesin the Psalms and elsewhere when God does

not speak evenwhen invited. 2008 CarsonThe Doors of the Church Are
Closed96 : I am fond of saying that God is a “gentlemanGod,” which means
that Jesus will not force His way through the door any more than God would
have forced Adam’s obedience in the Garden. We refer to this in theologyas
free moral agency. 2009 Giles If You’re Going Through Hell, Keep Going 62 :
How many of you have heard the evangelicalbunkum that the Holy Spirit is a
gentleman and that when He wants to getyour attention, He’ll woo you like a
lover? I know, kinda weird, eh? 2011 CreedAwakening 32 : “Jesus is a
gentleman, Charles. He would not heal someone who does not want to be
healed.” https://www.dictionaryofchristianese.com/the-holy-spirit-is-a-
gentleman-god-is-a-gentleman/
Jesus the Gentleman
by Dennis Pollock
That Jesus was born in a stable seems one of history’s greatestironies. God
makes an appearance upon the stage ofhuman drama, and is born as a baby
in a habitation for livestock. What we sometimes miss is the profound
principle that dictated the necessityof such a birthplace. Even as a baby
making His entrance into the world of sin-steepedhumanity, Jesus was
demonstrating one of the most fundamental principles we canever grasp
about the nature of our Creator – a conceptthat many have missed to their
own peril. Jesus was notborn in a stable due to a natural preference for lowly
things. When you take your first tour of heaven you will find that God has a
distinct preference for beauty and order. The presence of goldenstreets,
pearly gates, dazzling robes, and absolute perfection of form and designtestify
that God is a lover of things beautiful and majestic.

No, our Saviorended up in the barn for the same reasonHe has been castout
and kept out of people’s lives for the lasttwo thousand years – there was no
room for Him in the inn. Behind this simple thought is a truth that affects
every one of us every day. Even as a newborn, Jesus was demonstrating a
simple, yet powerful reality, and that reality is this: Jesus is a Gentleman who
goes where He is made welcome and quietly leaves whenit is made clearHe is
not welcome. We find this scatteredthroughout the gospels in such a way as to
be unmistakable. It is summed up in this: Jesus was always powerfullydrawn
to those people and places where He was welcomedand sought after, but soon
left those situations and places where He was not wanted.
When Jesus beganto talk with the Samaritanwoman at the well of Jacob, she
knew immediately He was no ordinary man. Within a short conversation, He
revealedHis knowledge ofher five previous husbands, her present immoral
relationship, and proclaimed Himself as the Fountain of Living Waters. She
was so impressed that she went back home without her waterpot. Gathering
her neighbors and townspeople together, she brought them to Jesus. When
they found out for themselves the divine grace and mysterious attractionof
this Jewishprophet, they “urged Him to stay with them” (John 4:40).
Jesus clearlyhad a busy schedule and a divine agenda. But a big part of that
agenda had to do with responding to the requests of those whom God had
touched. Thus we find that He didn’t make an excuse, orinform them of His
crammed itinerary – He simply stayedthere two more days, just as they had
requested.
The 1stProphecy Experts
A similar occurrence happenedafter His resurrection. Jesus appearedto two
men who were walking from Jerusalemto a nearby village, and He gave them
the Bible study of all Bible studies. He sharedfrom the Old Testament
Scriptures all the prophecies that pertained to His first coming. (They must
have been walking very slowlyand He must have been talking very rapidly!)

These two men surely became the first “Bible prophecy conference speakers”
as they no doubt shared the things they had learned with the disciples and any
who would listen.
At the end of their sevenmile walk, we learn a curious fact: “Then they drew
near to the village where they were going, and He indicated that He would
have gone farther” (Luke 24:28). Jesus was preparedto go on His way. Had
He done so, they might never have realized that it was Jesus Himself who
shared these wonderful prophecies with them. But they could not bear to let
Him go. We read: “TheyconstrainedHim, saying, ‘Abide with us, for it is
toward evening, and the day is far spent’” (Luke 24:29).
Once againJesus yields to human request. The Bible tells us that Jesus
changes His schedule, and agrees to have a meal with them, or at least, the
beginning of a meal. As He blesses the bread and breaks it, the disciples’eyes
are openedand they recognize that this remarkable Bible teacheris none
other than Christ Himself. Their insistence upon His staying with them
resulted in an incredible revelation and a moment that would impact their
hearts and lives for the rest of their days.
Accessible Savior
We find that the Jesus revealedin the gospels is a very accommodating
Savior. Mosthighly successfulmen keepthemselves on strict schedules, and
woe to that man or woman who tries to persuade them to deviate from their
pre-set plans. Yet the most important Man that ever lived, the Man who had
no time for Himself was always readyto change everything to respond to the
request of a single common man or woman. When people askedHim to come
and heal a loved one, He always responded. We have no recordwhatsoeverof
Jesus telling someone that He simply was too busy to do that. It seems that a
simple requesthad a mysterious influence over Jesus, making Him willing to
change His plans and bringing all His formidable powers and will to bear on
the particular problem at hand.

In the last book of the Bible, we find Jesus summing up this awesome reality
by declaring, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My
voice and opens the door, I will come in to him, and dine with him, and he
with Me” (Revelation3:20). Jesus standing at the door and knocking!!! He
doesn’t need to knock. He is holding the very atoms of that door togetherby
the word of His power. And yet, He knocks. GraciousGentlemanthat He is,
He waits to be invited, unwilling to go where He is not welcome.
Becoming Receivers
People who enter houses uninvited are thieves and trespassers.Jesus is
neither. He will either enter by invitation, or He will stay outside. To make
Jesus and His gifts welcome is the essenceofthe Christian life. We begin by
receiving His gift of eternallife and the forgiveness ofour sins. We continue
through life as “receivers,” asking, trusting, and receiving His awesome grace
in our lives from day to day, and from glory to glory. As receivers, we base
our confidence upon the characterof Jesus as revealedin the Scriptures. We
take Him for what the Bible reveals Him to be: a willing Savior and bountiful
bestowerofgrace to all who come to Him.
PeterbeggedJesus to allow him to walk on the water. Now to most of us that
might seema pretty trivial request. We might have told Petersomething like,
“Forgetaboutwalking on waterand concentrate onwalking with God.”
Jesus, howevergrantedthe request. He gave no scolding for asking a silly
thing; He simply said, “Come.”
Even demons found Jesus willing to accommodate them at times. When He
was about to expel them from Legion, the demoniac, the demons beggedHim
to let them go make their home with the pigs. While their dwelling proved
extremely temporary, nevertheless our Lord’s response was in the affirmative,
even to the demons (Mark 5:12,13).

The Jesus we find in the gospels is amazingly accessible and compliant. He
goes where He is asked, grants requests to those who utter them, heals those
who come to Him, and changes His schedule immediately to satisfythe
demands of those who need His personalattention. Is it any wonder that
enormous crowds constantlysurrounded Him? Until Jesus came, the Jews
saw God as the One who thundered from Mount Sinai, and whose presence
inspired terror. Now God was revealing Himself in a whole new way. Without
compromising His holiness, He was showing, through Jesus, that He is our
compassionateand caring Father, whose goodpleasure it is to respond to the
hurts and requests of His children.
Understanding the accessibility of Jesus encouragesus to pray as almost
nothing else does. Let’s face it – prayer as a duty has never been a sufficient
motivator. Some mistakenly think that the reasonfor Christian prayerlessness
is laziness. The truth is that it is the result of poor vision. BecauseChristians
do not realize the incredible opportunities available to them in prayer, their
mouths are silent and their devotional times erratic.
Suppose, as you retire for bed one evening, you are startled to find a ten foot
figure in your bedroom. With shining hair and glowing face, you quickly
conclude this is no ordinary man. The angelsays to you, “Don’tbe afraid. You
have found favor with God. And He has sent me to tell you that at precisely
6:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, and for the next thirty minutes He will hear and
answerevery request you may utter. No prayer will be turned down, and all
that you ask, you will receive.”
Do you suppose you might have any trouble getting up early that next day for
prayer? I should think not. Whatever else you had planned for that morning,
you would be on your knees promptly at six praying hard and fast. You’d
probably even pray a little past the 6:30 deadline just to be on the safe side. It
is highly unlikely that such an event will ever happen to you. But God has

made you some promises in His Word. He has said, “Ask and it will be given
to you” (Matthew 7:7). He has said, “Whateverthings you ask when you pray,
believe that you receive them, and you will have them” (Mark 11:24). So why
don’t we believe Him?
As willing as the Fatherand the Son are to bless us, it seems that they have
ordained that prayer play a keyrole in the dispensing of their mercies. James
tells us that “You do not have because you do not ask” (James 4:2). The
Father invites us to “Callto Me, and I will answeryou, and show you great
and mighty things which you do not know” (Jeremiah33:3). Jesus exhorts, “If
you ask anything in My name I will do it” (John 14:14). It seems Godalmost
goes out of His way to impress His willingness upon us. He asks us not to try
to wrestle blessings out of His hands, but to open our arms to receive that
which He delights to give. But we must ask!
Open Mouths & Full Hearts
The writer of Hebrews tells us that he who would come to God “must believe
that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him”
(Hebrews 11:6). In Psalms, Godinstructs His people, “Openyour mouth wide,
and I will fill it” (Psalms 81:10). Closedmouths are hard to fill.
What a Savior we have! Awesome and yet approachable, spotless yetmerciful,
as we read the gospels we see the willing Jesus – willing to forgive, willing to
respond to our requests, and willing to come into our lives and situations with
His magnificent grace, andbring about positive change.
There is but one question to consider. Is the Jesus we callupon in heaven a
different Jesus than the One we read about in the gospels? DidHe somehow
change when He took His position seatedat the right hand of the Father? Is
He no longermoved with compassionatthe feelings of our infirmities? Has
He lost His willing nature by spending time in the realm of glory? Do His tears
of compassionno longerflow?

The Bible’s answeris a resounding No! Jesus is “the same yesterday, today,
and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). The same loving, compassionate, accessible,
concerned, caring, powerful Saviorwho walkedthe dusty roads of Israel two
thousand years ago is now seatedat the right hand of the Father. He still
cares, He still listens to the stumbling requests of desperate men and women,
and He still makes His dwelling place in the lives and hearts of those who want
Him. But He must be invited. He must be asked. He is a Gentleman.
https://www.spiritofgrace.org/articles/nl_2015/00_jesus_gentleman.html
Jesus the Gentleman
June 14, 2011 FeaturedOpinion
Written by: Lauren
Lauren Patrick is a native Southerner and the editor of Pretty Southern.com.
She’s a member of the Atlanta BloggerNetworkand Atlanta FoodBlogger
Society. #LovetheSouth#GoDawgs Follow Laurenon Twitter
Jesus Christ has severalnames including Son of God, Emmanuel, Lord &
Savior yet as Southerners we sometimes fail to notice the most ubiquitous
aspectof His character.
He was a gentleman. Look up the definition of chivalry and see how wellHe
fits a gentleman’s suit. Jesus representedthe ideals of truth, beauty, freedom
and unending love which is what ever true gentleman should also epitomize.
When it comes to defining a gentleman, one of the greatestSoutherners to
ever live , GeneralRobert E. Lee wrote it best:
“The forbearing use of powerdoes not only form a touchstone, but the
manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages overothers is a test
of a true gentleman.

“The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the
employed, the educatedover the unlettered, the experiencedover the
confiding, even the cleverover the silly–the forbearing or inoffensive use of all
this poweror authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it,
will show the gentleman in a plain light.”
“The gentleman does not needlesslyand unnecessarilyremind an offender of a
wrong he may have committed againsthim. He cannot only forgive, he can
forget; and he strives for that nobleness ofself and mildness of character
which impart sufficient strength to let the pastbe but the past.”
“A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling
others.”
There you have it. We canall agree that basedon these qualifications Jesus
was a gentleman.
4 Signs Of A True Gentleman
by Dale Partridge
Share
660
Pin
3K

Tweet
3
Share
WhatsApp
Buffer
Email
3K
Shares
After having a daughter earlier this year, I find myself eagerto exemplify a
version of a man she cantruly admire. A man who canbe her hero. A man
who is a true gentleman.
After searching through severalbooks andcountless articles, I was left only
with shallow examples and definitions lacking wisdom. Nobody else needs to
hear that being a gentlemen is opening a door for your girlfriend.
A gentleman is a man who understands the value of another. His candor is
compassionate, thoughtful, polite and brave. He is strong, anchored, and
humble. He is a protectorand provider.
He is a one who learns while maintaining respectfor authority. He is well
groomed, well planned, and well prepared. And most importantly, a true
gentleman has maintained a goodname.
In my limited bout of research, I found a few items which resonatedwith my
heart. I have listed them below.

Disclaimer:This article is not anti-feminist nor aimed to make women feel
they “need” a man. My intention is only to articulate a healthy definition of an
honorable man.
4 Signs Of A True Gentlemen
1. He Puts All Women Before Himself
Being a gentlemen has no bounds of an intimate relationship. It is a badge a
man should carry with him at all times. A true gentlemen treats his mother,
sisters, female friends and all feminine acquaintances withadmiration and
regard. He is in constantsearchof ways to honor and uphold the value of his
female counterpart. Whether through listening, defending or affirming, a true
gentlemen is a source ofstrength to all women, not just the one he desires.
2. He TeachesA Women Her Value
In a world full of voices tearing womendown, a gentlemen replaces lies with
truth. He goes beyond merely telling her valuable words and simplistic
compliments. He is deliberate and purposeful in his actions to restore
emotional order in her heart and remind her to see how valuable she truly is.
3. His Confidence Is In Wisdom, NotPower
Too often, men believe that money or poweror influence drive a woman's
attraction. While a true gentlemen may attain these things, he is able to
sustain his confidence even without them. Furthermore, he seeks outwisdom
from those who have earned it and surrounds himself with leaders who have
permission to speak into his life. A true gentleman is one who's mind is
healthy and in constantalert for information that may distort what is truly
important.
4. He Is Wise With His Finances
He who lacks the ability to manage his finances lacks the ability to manage a
relationship. As many of you know, finance is an important component to
every marriage. A man's personalfinances are a greatearly detectorof his
ability to stewarda future spouse or family. Does he make his money
honorably? Does he have debt? Does he buy items outside of his pay grade to

impress people? Does he hide or lie about money? What does he save for? Is
he generous with others? These answers offerdeep insight to the heart of
man's true desires. As it says in the Bible, “where a man's treasure is, there
his heart will be also.”
What do you see as signs of a “true gentleman”? Doesmy list fit in your
definition?
Leonard Swidler, ProfessorofCatholic Thought & Interreligious Dialogue,
ReligionDepartment, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA An Editor of the
Journal of EcumenicalStudies and a member of religion department at
Temple University, Philadelphia, PA at the time this article was written. The
article first appeared in Catholic World. January, 1971.
E-mail: dialogue@temple.edu
NOTE BY EDITOR
All of the above is an introduction to another issue and that
is, was Jesus a feminist or not. Strong feelings exist on both
sides of the issue, and I include both in the following studies,
but the real issue in my mind is this-was Jesus a gentleman
in relationship to women. It is my conviction he was even if
He was not a feminist.
JESUS WAS A FEMINIST
by Leonard Swidler

Thesis:Jesus was a feminist
Definition of Terms: By Jesus is meant the historical personwho lived in
Palestine two thousand years ago, whomChristians traditionally acknowledge
as Lord and Savior, and whom they should "imitate" as much as possible. By
a feminist is meant a personwho is in favor of, and who promotes, the
equality of women with men, a person who advocates andpractices treating
women primarily as human persons (as men are so treated) and willingly
contravenes socialcustoms in so acting.
To prove the thesis it must be demonstrated that, so far as we cantell, Jesus
neither said or did anything which would indicate that he advocatedtreating
women as intrinsically inferior to men, but that on the contrary he said and
did things which indicated he thought of women as the equals of men, and that
in the process he willingly violated pertinent socialmores.
The negative portion of the argument can be documented quite simply by
reading through four Gospels. Nowhere does Jesus treatwomenas "inferior
beings." In fact, Jesus clearlyfelt especiallysentto the typical classes of
"inferior beings," such as the poor, the lame, the sinner--and women--to call
them all to the freedom and equality of the Kingdom of God. But there are
two factors which raise this negative result exponentially in its significance:
the status of women in Palestine at the time of Jesus, and the nature of the
Gospels. Bothneedto be recalledhere in some detail, particularly the former.
The Status of Womenin Palestine
The status of women in Palestine during the time of Jesus was very decidedly
that of inferiors. Despite the fact that there were severalheroines recordedin

the Scriptures, according to most rabbinic customs of Jesus'time--and long
after--women were not allowedto study the Scriptures (Torah). One first-
century rabbi, Eliezer, put the point sharply: "Rathershould the words of the
Torahbe burned than entrusted to a woman ...Whoeverteacheshis daughter
the Torahis like one who teaches her lasciviousness. "
In the vitally religious area of prayer, women were so little thought of as not
to be given obligations of the same seriousnessas men. For example, women,
along with children and slaves, were not obliged to recite the Shema, the
morning prayer, nor prayers at meals. In fact, the Talmud states:"Let a
curse come upon the man who must needs have his wife or children say grace
for him . . ." Moreover, in the daily prayers of Jews there was a threefold
thanksgiving: "Praisedbe God that he has not createdme a gentile; praised
be God that he has not createdme a woman; praised be God that he has not
createdme an ignorant man." (It was obviously a version of this rabbinic
prayer that Paul controverted in his letter to the Galatians:"There is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free, there is neither male nor female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.")
Women were also grosslyrestrictedin public prayer. It was (is) not even
possible for them to be counted toward the number necessaryfora quorum to
form a congregationto worship communally--they were againclassifiedwith
children and slaves, who similarly did not qualify (there is an interesting
parallel to the current canon 93 of the Codex Juris Canoniciwhich groups
married women, minors, and the insane). In the greattemple at Jerusalem,
they were limited to one outer portion, the women's court, which was five
steps below the court for the men. In the synagogues,the womenwere also
separatedfrom the men; and, of course, they were not allowedto read aloud
or take any leading function. (The same is still true in most synagogues today
- cannon 1262 ofthe CJC also states that "in church the women should be
separatedfrom the men.")

Besides the disabilities women suffered in the areas ofprayer and worship,
there were many others in the private and public forums of society. As a
Scripture scholar, PeterKetter, noted, "A rabbi regardedit as beneathhis
dignity, as indeed positively disreputable, to speak to a woman in public. The
Proverbs of the Fathers'contain the injunction: "Speak not much with a
woman." Since a man's own wife is meant here, how much more does not this
apply to the wife of another? The wise men say: 'Who speaks much with a
woman draws down misfortune on himself, neglects the words of the law, and
finally earns hell. . . If it were merely the too free intercourse of the sexes
which was being warned against, this would signify nothing derogatoryto
woman. But since the rabbi may not speak even to his wife, daughter or sister
in the street, then only male arrogance canbe the motive. Intercourse with
uneducated company is warned againstin exactly the same terms. One is not
so much as to greeta woman. In addition, save in the rarestinstances, women
were not allowedto bear witness in a court of law. Some Jewishthinkers, as
for example, Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, thought women ought not leave
their households exceptto go to the synagogues(and that only at a time when
most of the other people would be at home); girls ought even not cross the
threshold that separatedthe male and female apartments of the household.
In general, the attitude toward women was epitomized in the institutions and
customs surrounding marriage. For the most part, the function of womenwas
thought rather exclusively in terms of childbearing and rearing; women were
almost always under the tutelage of a man, either the father or husband, or if
a widow, the dead husband's brother. Polygamy--in the sense ofhaving
severalwives, but not in the sense ofhaving severalhusbands--was legal
among Jews atthe time of Jesus. Although probably not heavily practiced, he
merely had to give her a writ of divorce. Womenin Palestine, on the other
hand, were not allowedto divorce their husbands.
Rabbinic sayings about women also provide an insight into the attitude
toward women: "It is well for those whose children are male, but ill for those

whose children are female . . . At the birth of a boy all are joyful, but at the
birth of a girl all are sad . . . When a boy comes into the world, peace comes
into the world; when a girl comes, nothing comes . . . Even the most virtuous
of women is a witch . . . Our teachers have said: ‘Four qualities are evident in
women: They are greedyat their food, eagerto gossip, lazy and jealous.’"
The condition of women in PalestinianJudaism was bleak.
The Nature of the Gospels
The Gospels, ofcourse, are not the straight factualreports of eyewitnesses of
the events in the life of Jesus ofNazarethas one might find in the columns of
the New York Times or in the pages of a criticalbiography. Rather, they are
four different faith statements reflecting at leastfour primitive Christian
communities who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the Lord and Saviorof
the world. Theywere composedfrom a variety of sources, writtenand oral,
over a period of time and in response to certain needs felt in the
commonalities and individuals at the time; consequently they are many-
layered. Since the Gospel writers-editors were not twentieth-century critical
historians, they were not particularly intent on recording ipissima verba
Christi, nor were they concernedto winnow out all of their own cultural
biases and assumptions; indeed, it is doubtful they were particularly conscious
of them.
This modem criticalunderstanding of the Gospels, ofcourse, does not impugn
the historicalcharacterof the Gospels;it merely describes the type of
historicaldocuments they are so their historicalsignificance canmore
accuratelybe evaluated. Its religious value lies in the fact that modern
Christians are thereby helped to know much more preciselywhat Jesus meant
by certain statements and actions as they are reported by the first Christian

communities in the Gospels. With this new knowledge ofthe nature of the
Gospels it is easierto make the vital distinction betweenthe religious truth
that is to be handed on and the time-conditioned categoriesand customs
involved in expressing it.
When the fact that no negative attitudes by Jesus towardwomenare
portrayed in the Gospels is set side by side with the recently discerned
"communal faith-statement" understanding of the nature of the Gospels,the
importance of the former is vastly enhanced. Forwhatever Jesus saidor did
comes to us only through the lens of the first Christians. If there were no very
specialreligious significance in a particular conceptor custom, we would
expectthat current conceptor custom to be reflectedby Jesus. The factthat
the overwhelmingly negative attitude toward womenin Palestine did not come
through the primitive Christian communal lens by itself underscores the
clearly greatreligious importance Jesus attachedto his positive attitude--his
feminist attitude--toward women: feminism, that is, personalismextended to
women, is a constitutive part of the Gospel, the GoodNews, ofJesus.
Women Disciples ofJesus
One of the first things noticed in the gospels aboutJesus'attitude toward
women is that he taught them the Gospel, the meaning of the Scriptures, and
religious truths in general. Whenit is recalledthat in Judaism it was
consideredimproper, and even "obscene,"to teachwomen the Scriptures, this
actionof Jesus was anextraordinary deliberate decisionto break with a
custom invidious to women. Moreover, womenbecame disciples ofJesus, not
only in the sense oflearning from Hun, but also in the sense of following Him
in His travels and ministering to Him. A number of women, married and
unmarried, were regular followers of Jesus. In Luke 8:1 ff., severalare
mentioned by name in the same sentence with the Twelve:"He made his way
through towns and villages preaching and proclaiming the GoodNews of the

Kingdom of God. With him went the Twelve, as well as certain women . . .
who provided for them out of their resources." (Cf: Mk.15:40f. The Greek
word translated here as "provided for" and in Mark as "ministered to" is
diekonoun, the same basic word as "deacon;" indeed apparently the tasks of
the deacons in early Christianity were much the same as these women
undertook.) The significance of this phenomenon of women following Jesus
about, learning from and ministering to Him, canbe properly appreciated
when it is recalledthat not only were womennot to read or study the
Scriptures, but in the more observantsettings they were not even to leave
their household, whether as a daughter, a sole wife, or a member of a harem.
The intimate connectionof women with resurrectionfrom the dead is not
limited in the Gospels to that of Jesus. There are accounts of three other
resurrections in the Gospels--allcloselyinvolving a woman. The most obvious
connectionof a woman with a resurrectionaccountis that of the raising of a
woman, Jairus' daughter (Mt. 9:18ff.; Mk 5:22ff.; Lk. 8:41ff.) A second
resurrectionJesus performed was that of the only son of the widow of Nain:
"And when the Lord saw her, he had compassionon her and he saidto her,
'Do not weep.'” (Cf. Lk. 7:13ff.) The third resurrectionJesus performed was
Lazarus' at the request of his sisters Martha and Mary (Cf. Jn. 11:43-44).
From the first, it was Martha and Mary who sent for Jesus because of
Lazarus' illness. But when Jesus finally came, Lazarus was four days dead.
Martha met Jesus and pleaded for his resurrection:"Lord, if you had been
here, my brother would not have died. And even now I know that whatever
you ask from God, God will give you." Later, Mary came to Jesus and said
much the same. "WhenJesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with
her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled; and he said,
"Where have you laid him?" They said to him, "Lord, come and see." Jesus
wept. Then followedthe raising from the dead. Thus, Jesus raisedone
woman from the dead and raised two other persons largelybecause ofwomen.

There are two further details that should be noted in these three resurrection
stories. The first is that only in the case ofJairus' daughter did Jesus touch
the corpse--whichmade him ritually unclean. In the cases ofthe two men,
Jesus did not touch them but merely said, "Young man, I say to you, arise,"
or "Lazarus, come out." One must at leastwonder why Jesus chose to violate
the laws of ritual purity in order to help a woman, but not a man. The second
detail is in Jesus'conversationwith Martha after she pleaded for the
resurrectionof Lazarus. Jesus declaredhimself to be the resurrection, ("I am
the resurrectionand the life.”) the only time he did so that is recorded in the
Gospels. Jesus,here again, revealedthe centralevent, the centralmessage in
the Gospel--the resurrection, His resurrection, His being the resurrection--to a
woman.
Women as Sex Objects
There are, of course, numerous occasionsrecordedin the Gospels where
women are treated by various men as second-classcitizens. There are also
situations where women were treatedby others, not at all as persons but as
sex objects, and it was expectedthat Jesus woulddo the same. The
expectations were disappointed. One such occasionoccurredwhenJesus was
invited to dinner at the house of a skepticalPharisee (Lk. 7:36ff.) and a
woman of ill repute entered and washedJesus'feetwith her tears, wiped them
with her hair and anointed them. The Pharisee saw hersolelyas an evil
sexualcreature: "The Pharisee . . . said to himself, 'If this man were a
prophet, he would know who this woman is who is touching him and what a
bad name she has.’" But Jesus deliberately rejectedthis approach to the
woman as a sex object. He rebuked the Pharisee andspoke solelyof the
woman's human, spiritual actions;he spoke of her love, her non-love, that is,
her sins, of her being forgiven, and her faith. Jesus then addressedher (It was
not "proper" to speak to women in public, especially"improper" women) as a
human person: "Your sins are forgiven . . .Your faith has savedyou; go in
peace."

A similar situation occurredwhen the scribes and Pharisees useda woman
reduced entirely to a sex objectto set a legaltrap for Jesus. It is difficult to
imagine a more callous use of a human person than the "adulterous" woman
was put to by the enemies of Jesus. First, she was surprised in the intimate act
of sexual intercourse (quote possibly a trap was setup aheadof time by the
suspicious husband), and then draggedbefore the scribes and Pharisees,and
then by them before an even larger crowdthat Jesus was instructing:
"making her stand in full view of everybody." They told Jesus that she had
been caught in the very act of committing adultery and that Moses had
commanded that such women be stoned to death. (Deut. 22:22ff.) "What have
you to say?" The trap was partly that if Jesus said"Yes" to stoning, He would
be violating the Roman law, which restrictedcapital punishment; and if He
said "No," He would appearto contravene Mosaiclaw. It could also partly
have been to place Jesus'reputation for kindness toward, and championing
the cause of, womenin oppositionto the law and the condemnation of sin.
Jesus, ofcourse, eluded their snares by refusing to become entangledin
legalisms and abstractions. Rather, he dealt with both the accusersand the
accuseddirectly as spiritual, ethical, human persons. He spoke directly to the
accusersin the context of their own persona1 ethicalconduct: "If there is one
of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." To
the accusedwomanhe likewise spokedirectly with compassion, but without
approving her conduct: "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned
you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neitherdo I condemn
you; go, and do not sin again."
(One detail of this encounter provides the basis for a short excursus relatedto
the status of women. The Pharisees statedthat the woman had been caughtin
the actof adultery and, according to the law of Moses, was, therefore, to be
stoned to death. Since the type of execution mentioned was stoning, the
woman must have been a "virgin betrothed," as referred to in Deut. 22:23f.
There provision is made for the stoning of both the man and the woman
although in the Gospelstory only the woman is brought forward. However,

the reasongivenfor why the man ought to be stoned was not because he had
violated the woman, or God's law, but "becausehe had violated the wife of his
neighbor.” It was the injury of the man by misusing his property--his wife--
that was the greatevil. )
Jesus'Rejectionofthe BloodTaboo
All three of the synoptic Gospels insertinto the middle of the accountof
raising Jairus'daughter from the dead the story of the curing of the woman
who had an issue of blood for twelve years (Mt. 9:20ff; Mk. 5:25ff.; Lk.
8:43ff.). Especiallytouching about this story is that the affected woman was so
reluctant to projectherself into public attention that she, "said to herself, 'If I
only touch his garment, I shall be made well." Her shyness was not because
she came from the poor, lowerclasses;for Mark pointed out that over the
twelve years she had been to many physicians--with no success--onwhom she
had spent all her money. It was probably because for the twelve years, as a
woman with a flow of blood, she was constantly ritually unclean (Lev.
15:19ff.), which not only made her incapable of participating in any cultic
actionand made her in some sense "displeasing to God" but also rendered
anyone and anything she touched (or anyone who touched what she had
touched!) similarly unclean. (Here is the basis for the Catholic Church not
allowing women in the sanctuaryduring Mass--she might be menstruating
and hence unclean.) The sense ofdegradationand contagionthat her
"womanly weakness" workedupon her over the twelve years doubtless was
oppressive in the extreme. This would have been especiallyso when a
religious teacher, a rabbi, was involved. But not only does Jesus'powerheal
her, in one of His many acts of compassionon the downtrodden and afflicted,
including women, but Jesus also makes a greatto-do about the event, calling
extraordinary attention to the publicity-shy woman: "And Jesus, perceiving
in himself that powerhad gone forth from him, immediately turned about in
the crowd, and said 'Who touched my garments?'And the disciples saidto
him, ‘You see the crowdpressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched
me?' And he lookedaround to see who had done it. But the woman, knowing
what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before
Him and told Him the whole truth. And He said to her, 'Daughter, your faith
has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease." It seems

clearthat Jesus wantedto call attention to the fact that He did not shrink
from the ritual uncleanness incurred by being touched by the "unclean"
woman (on severaloccasions Jesus rejectedthe notion of ritual uncleanness ),
and by immediate implication rejectedthe "uncleanness" ofa woman who
had a flow of blood, menstruous or continual. Jesus apparently placed a great
importance on the dramatic making of this point, both to the afflicted woman
herself and the crowd, than He did on avoiding the temporary psychological
discomfort of the embarrassedwoman, which in light of Jesus'extraordinary
concernto alleviate the pain of the afflicted, meant He placed a greatweight
on the teaching of this lessonabout the dignity of women.
Jesus and the SamaritanWoman
On anotheroccasion, Jesus againdeliberatelyviolated the then common code
concerning men's relationship to women. It is recordedin the story of the
Samaritan womanat the well of Jacob(John 4:5ff). Jesus was waiting at the
well outside the village while His disciples were getting food. A Samaritan
woman approachedthe well to draw water. Normally, a Jew would not
address a Samaritan as the woman pointed out: “Jews,in fact, do not
associate withSamaritans." But also normally a man would not speak to a
woman in public (doubly so in the case ofa rabbi). However, Jesus startled
the womanby initiating a conversation. The womanwas aware that on both
counts, her being a Samaritan and being a woman, Jesus'actionwas out of
the ordinary; for she replied: "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a
woman of Samaria?" As hated as the Samaritans were by the Jews, it is
nevertheless clearthat Jesus'speaking with a womanwas considereda much
more flagrant breach of conduct than His speaking with a Samaritan. John
related: "His disciples returned and were surprised to find him speaking to a
woman, though none of them asked, 'Whatdo you want from her?' or 'Why
were you talking to her?’" However, Jesus, bridging of the gap of inequality
betweenmen and women, continued further; for in the conversationwith the
woman He revealedhimself in a straightforward fashionas the Messiahfor

the first time: "The woman saidto him, ‘I know that Messiahis coming' . . .
Jesus saidto her, 'I who speak to you am he.’"
Just as when Jesus revealedHimself to Martha as "the resurrection," and to
Mary as the "risen one" and bade her to bear witness to the apostles, Jesus
here also revealedHimself in one of his key roles, as Messiah, to a woman who
immediately bore witness of the factto her fellow villagers. (It is interesting to
note that apparently the testimony of women carriedgreaterweight among
the Samaritans than among the Jews, forthe villagers came out to see Jesus:
"Many Samaritans of that town believed in him on the strength of the
woman's testimony . . ." It would seemthat John the Gospelwriter
deliberately highlighted this contrastin the wayhe wrote about this event, and
also that he clearly wishedto reinforce thereby Jesus ' stress onthe equal
dignity of women.)
One other point should be noted in connectionwith this story. As the crowd
of Samaritans was walking out to see Jesus, Jesus was speaking to His
disciples about the fields being ready for the harvest and how He was sending
them to reap what others had sown. He was clearlyspeaking ofthe souls of
men and most probably was referring directly to the approaching Samaritans.
Such exegesisis standard. It is also rather standard to refer to others in
general, and only Jesus in particular, as having been the sowers whose harvest
the apostles were aboutto reap (e.g., in the JerusalemBible). But it would
seemthat the evangelistalso meant specificallyto include the Samaritan
woman among those sowers;for immediately after he recorded Jesus’
statementto the disciples about their reaping what others had sown, he added
the above mentioned verse:"Many Samaritans of that town had believed in
him on the strength of the woman's testimony . . .”
Marriage and the Dignity of Women

One of the most important stands of Jesus in relationto the dignity of women
was His position on marriage. His unpopular attitude towardmarriage (cf.
Mt. 19:10: "The disciples said to Him, 'If such is that case ofa man with his
wife, it is not expedient to marry.’") presupposeda feminist view of women;
they had rights and responsibilities equal to men. It is quite possible in Jewish
law for men to have more than one wife (this was probably not frequently the
case in Jesus’time, but there are recordedinstances, e.g.,Herod, Josephus)
though the reverse was not possible. Divorce, ofcourse, also was a simple
matter, to be initiated only by the man. In both situations, womenwere
basicallychattels to be collectedordismissed as the man was able and wished
to. The double moral standard was flagrantly apparent. Jesus rejectedboth
by insisting on monogamy and the elimination of divorce. Boththe man and
the womanwere to have the same rights and responsibilities in their
relationship toward eachother (cf. Mk.10:2ff;Mt. 19:3ff.). This stance of
Jesus was one of the few that was rather thoroughly assimilatedby the
Christian Church (in fact, often in an over-rigid way concerning divorce, but
how to understand the ethicalprescriptions of Jesus is another article),
doubtless in part because it was reinforcedby various sociologicalconditions
and other historicalaccidents, suchas the then current strength in the Greek
world of the Stoic philosophy. However, the notion of equal rights and
responsibilities was not extended very far within the Christian marriage. The
generalrole of women was Kirche, Kinder, Kuche--and only a supplicant's
role in the first.
The Intellectual Life for Women
However, Jesus clearlydid not think of woman's role in such restrictedterms;
she was not to be limited to being only a housekeeper. Jesus quite directly
rejectedthe stereotype that the proper place of all women is "in the home,"
during a visit to the house of Martha and Mary (Lk. 10:38ff.). Martha took
the typical woman's role: "Martha was distractedwith much serving." Mary
however, took the supposedly "male" role: she "satat the Lord's feetand

listened to his teaching." Martha apparently thought Mary was out of place
in choosing the role of the "intellectual," forshe complained to Jesus. But
Jesus'response was a refusalto force all womeninto the stereotype;he
treated Mary first of all as a person(whose highest faculty is the intellect, the
spirit} who was allowedto set her own priorities, and in this instance has
"chosenthe better part." And Jesus applauded her: "It is not to be taken
from her." Again, when one recalls the Palestinianrestriction on women
studying the Scriptures or studying with rabbis, that is, engaging in the
intellectual life or acquiring any "religious authority," it is difficult to imagine
how Jesus couldpossibly have been clearerin his insistence that women were
calledto the intellectual, the spiritual life just as were men.
There is at leastone other instance recordedin the Gospels whenJesus
uttered much the same message(Lk. 11:27f.). One day as Jesus was
preaching, a woman from the crowdapparently was very deeply impressed
and, perhaps imagining how happy she would be to have a son, raised her
voice to pay Jesus a compliment. She did so by referring to His mother, and
did so in a way that was probably not untypical at that time and place. But
her linage of a woman was sexually reductive in the extreme (one that largely
persists to the present): female genitals and breasts. "Blessedis the womb
that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!" Although this was obviously
meant as a compliment and although it was even uttered by a woman, Jesus
clearly felt it necessaryto rejectthis "baby-machine" image of women and
insist againon the personhood, the intellectual and moral faculties, being
primary for all: "But he said, 'Blessedrather are those who hear the word of
God and keepit!" Looking at this text, it is difficult to see how the primary
point could be anything substantially other than this. Luke and the
traditional and Christian communities he depended on must also have been
quite clearabout the sexual significance ofthis event. Otherwise, why would
he (and they) have kept and included such a small event from the years of
Jesus'public life? It was not retained because Jesus saidblessedare those who
hear and keepGod's word, but because thatwas stressedby Jesus as being
primary in comparisonto a woman's sexuality. Luke, however, seems to have
had a discernment here and elsewhereconcerning whatJesus was aboutin the

question of women's status that has not been shared by subsequent Christians
(nor apparently by many of his fellow Christians); for, in the explanation of
this passage, Christians fortwo thousand years did not see its plain meaning--
doubtless because of unconscious presuppositions aboutthe status Christians
gave it. For, in the explanation of this passage,Christians for two thousand
years did not see its plain meaning--doubtless because ofunconscious
presuppositions about the status.
God as a Woman
In many ways, Jesus strove to communicate the equal dignity of women. In
one sense, thateffort was cappedby his parable of the womanwho found the
lost coin (Lk. 15:8ff.), for here Jesus projectedGod in the image of woman!
Luke recordedthat the despisedtax collectorsand sinners were gathering
around Jesus;and, consequently, the Pharisees and scribes complained.
Jesus, therefore, relatedthree parables in a row, all of which depicted God
being deeply concernedfor that which was lost. The first story was of the
shepherd who left the ninety-nine sheep to see the one lost--the shepherd is
God. The third parable is on the prodigal son--the father is God. The second
story is of the woman who soughtthe lost coin--the woman is God! Jesus did
not shrink from the notion of Godas feminine. In fact, it would appearthat
Jesus included this womanly image of God quite deliberately at this point for
the scribes and Pharisees were among those who most of all denigrated
women–justas they did “tax-collectorsand sinners.”
There have been some instances in Christian history when the Holy Spirit has
been associatedwith a feminine character, forexample, in the Syrian
Didascalia where, in speaking ofvarious offices in the Church, it states:"The
Deaconesshowevershouldbe honored by you as the linage of the Holy
Spirit." It would make an interesting investigationto see if these images of
God presentedhere by Luke were ever used in a Trinitarian manner--thereby

giving the Holy Spirit a feminine linage. A negative result to the investigation
would be as significant as a positive one, for this passage wouldseemto be
particularly apt for Trinitarian interpretation: the prodigal son's father is
God the Father (this interpretation has in factbeen quite Common in
Christian history). Since Jesus elsewhere identified himself as the Good
Shepherd, the shepherd seeking the lost sheep is Jesus, the Son (this standard
interpretation is reflectedin, among other things, the often-seenpicture of
Jesus carrying the lost sheepon his shoulders). The womanwho sought the
lost coin should "logically" be the Holy Spirit. If such an interpretation has
existed, it surely has not been common. Should such lack of "logic" be
attributed to the generalcultural denigration of women of the abhorrence of
pagangoddessesalthoughChristian abhorrence of pagangods did not result
in a Christian rejectionof a male linage of God?
Conclusion
From this evidence it should be clearthat Jesus vigorouslypromoted the
dignity and equality of womenin the midst of a very male-dominated society:
Jesus was a feminist, and a very radical one. Can his followers attempt to be
anything less--De Imitatione Christi?
Leonard Swidler has published a book by the same name, Jesus Was A
Feminist which you may purchase at http://www.amazon.com/
Review of Jesus Was A Feminist
Leonard Swidler’s book, Jesus Was A Feminist, is one of the most
empowering books everwritten for women! How exhilarating to find women
have been so primary, so central, so chosen!Swidler clearlyshows not only
how much Jesus loved womenbut also how very valuable their witness has
been to Christianity. Jesus came for “the poor, the broken-hearted, the

captives, the blind, the marginal, and the oppressed.” Onevery page, Jesus
defended women, honored and healedthem, threw awaythe taboos, and
fought for their equality with men. Swidler analyzes how Jesus treatedeach
woman with dignity, especiallygiving them a voice. Without women’s telling
and re-telling their stories, we would not have much in the Gospels and would
still not know He rose from the dead if they had remained silent.
Swidler shows Godhas always loved women. Then, Jesus showedit. He chose
to reveal the most profound information only to women as we read in the
Gospels. He chose only women to be the first witnesses to His Resurrection.
You will be surprised to find out how extremely valuable Mary Magdalene
was. According to Swidler, women wrote parts of the gospels!Swidler
explains the problem passagesand shows Jesus did not rejectdivorce and
remarriage. Jesus was a feminist who did more for womenthan we have been
taught. This book is one which cannotsit on the book shelf but is a precious
pearl that must be passedaround. - Adele Hebert
Was Jesus Christ a Feminist?
January 28, 2015 / biblicalgenderroles
If you look online you will find multiple blogs and articles touting that Jesus
was a feminist. In factthere are even books teaching that Jesus was a feminist.
As Christians, the basis for our beliefs should never be our feelings or our
culture but what the written Word of God says. So here we will examine the
supposed“Biblical proofs” that show Jesus was a feminist.
Vicky Beeching has a post entitled “Christian Feminism is not an oxymoron”
and I think she does a goodjob of summarizing the position held by many
today that Jesus was in fact a feminist. Her full post can be found at
http://vickybeeching.com/blog/christian-feminism-is-not-an-oxymoron/

Vicky Beeching states:
“Jesus was a feminism and so am I. The manner in which he treatedwomen in
his socialera was revolutionary. He gave them respect, dignity and worth. His
behaviour meshes perfectly with the definition of feminism:
“Feminism: a collectionof movements aimed at defining, establishing and
defending equal political, economic, socialrights and equal opportunities for
women.”
First let me say where I agree with Vicky Beeching and many other Christian
Feminists and Egalitarians. Womenwere often times mistreated or
dishonored, both before, during and after the time of Christ. However, I will
not concede thatall men dishonored their wives or other women, but there
were many that did.
I would also agree that that Paul’s callto men in Ephesians 5 to love their
wives as their ownbodies, and Peter’s call for men to “honor” their wives as
“the weakervessel” were revolutionaryfor their time.
Having said all that, there is a huge difference betweentelling men to love and
honor their wives (and their mothers (Ephesians 6:2) and telling men that
they had to make women equal in political, economic and socialcircles.
Let’s see if Vicky Beeching proves that Jesus Christsupported anything more
than giving respectand honor to women:
“He broke numerous cultural traditions by taking women seriouslyand giving
them equal respectand dignity.”
Agreed – Christ gave women equal respectand treatedthem with dignity, but
I don’t see Christ telling his disciples that women had to be given equal social,
economic or political rights anywhere in the Scriptures.
“Forexample, talking with the woman at the wellwhile his disciples watched
with total shock.”
Agreed – it was a shock forhim to talking to a woman, and a non-Jew, and
woman of disrepute as she was. He was treating a non-Jew and woman with

equal respectand dignity, no question there. However I still don’t see him
telling his disciples that she should have equal social, economic and political
rights to men.
“Or having friends like Mary Magdalene whose pastwas dubious.”
Again – Yes Jesus was a friend to sinners, and the down trodden of society.
Howeverwe don’t see Jesus advocating forequal social, economic orpolitical
rights, but only respectas a human being.
“Or choosing not to judge the womancaught in adultery.”
Jesus not allowing the womancaught in adultery to be punished for her
adultery was an act of mercy, not a statementthat women should be given
equal social, economic orpolitical rights to a man.
“Or choosing a woman to be the first personwho saw his resurrectedbody.”
Yes Jesus alloweda woman (Mary Magdalene)to see his resurrectedbody
first. But there is absolutelyno evidence, no statementby him, saying that by
this acthe meant for womento have equal political, socialor economic rights
to men.
“Or choosing womento be among the group of disciples who followedhim
everywhere.”
Again the fact that Jesus allowedwomento follow him may have been
revolutionary for the time, but there is absolutely no evidence that he statedto
anyone that this was a symbol of his support for equal political, socialand
economic rights for women.
Vicky states:
“Granted, there were no womenchosenwithin the twelve disciples, but to me
that is related to the culture of that era and the lack of education available to
women, rather than being a doctrinal statement. There also weren’t any non-
Jews chosen, so does thatmean that only Jews canbe Christians?! The
disciples had brown hair, so does that mean blonde people can’t be
Christians?!The logic is flawed.”

Here Vicky has been forced to make a big concession. If Jesus was in fact in
favor of full equality for women, and he wanted to make this clearto all, then
why would not even one of his twelve disciples be a woman? This a huge
problem for Christian Feminists and they know this so has to address this
problem.
Vicky talks about it having to do with “the culture of that era” –really? So
Jesus would be a revolutionary but only to a certain point? He would allow
women to follow him, which was not common, but would stopat making them
one of his twelve?
Then Vicky talks about “lack ofeducation available to women” – is she not
aware that some of Christ’s twelve disciples were fishermen and not very
educated?
She then talks about the factthat there were not any non-Jews chosenand
makes a horrible statementthat “does that mean that only Jews canbe
Christians?” If Vicky had studied her Bible more closelyshe would know why
Christ only chose only Jews as his twelve disciples:
“He came unto his own, and his own receivedhim not. But as many as
receivedhim, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them
that believe on his name:”
John 1:11-12(KJV)
Christ came to his own, the Jewishpeople. After his resurrectionhe senthis
Apostles to the gentiles (non-Jews), and Paul was given this main task to go to
the gentiles (although some of the other Apostles did as well). That is why his
twelve disciples were all Jews.
Then Vicky makes anotherridiculous statementabout the disciples all having
“brown hair” – how does she know that? Maybe some of them had black
hair?
I believe I have clearlyshown that Vicky’s logic is the “logic that is flawed
here”. She has not been able to answerwhy all of Christ’s twelve disciples
were men if he was such a big feminist as she claims he was.

I would agree with her that it is not necessarilya doctrinal statementthat
Jesus had no female disciples, exceptthat Vicky has built practically her
entire case that Jesus was a feminist basedon his behavior toward women.
Not having a female disciple is a huge blow to a position that is built
completely on example, and not on express commands.
Vicky states:
“Despite its reputation for being patriarchal, the Bible contains some pretty
powerful portraits of women.”
The Bible does not just have a “reputation for being patriarchal” but it has
clearstatements supporting a Biblical conceptof Patriarchy, and it even
explains the reasons forPatriarchy while we live in these earthly bodies:
“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the
church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is
subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave
himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of
waterby the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church,
not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and
without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He
that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh;
but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:”
Ephesians 5:22-29(KJV)
The Word of God is crystal clearthat not only is patriarchy God’s command
for marriage, but in marriage it is a picture of Christ and the Church. The
husband is to model Christ’s role in loving, leading, protecting and providing
for his Church. The wife is to play the role of the church, submitting to her
husband’s leadershipin “everything” as the Church is to submit to Christ in
“every thing”. The womanplaces her dependence on her husband for his
leadership, protection and provision, as the Church places its dependence on
Christ for its leadership, protectionand provision.

As far as “powerful women” goes that is a largersubject that I dedicatedan
entire post to – please see “Doesthe Bible allow for a woman to be President
of the United States?”
Vicky continues:
“Farfrom not being central to the core of Jesus’ministry, womenwere
actively supporting the entire operation. “But they were helping administrate
rather than teach”, you may say. Well, take another look at the story of Mary
and Martha. Here Jesus gave teaching that was shocking to his era. Rather
than affirming the cultural limitations of women doing domestic work, Jesus
declares that Mary wanting to sit at his feet (as one learning from a Rabbi)
and to engage in theologicalstudy was goodand in his words ‘the better
part’.”
Vicky is alluding to Luke 10:38-42 where Mary “satat Jesus’s feet, and heard
his word” (vs 39). The optimal word is -”heard”. Mary was hearing Christ’s
word, while Martha was worried about serving and doing house work, which
could have waited. She should have come and heard Christ’s word as well.
But there is ZERO evidence that Mary taught anything, or engaged“in
theologicalstudy” or even askedany questions. Even if she had askeda
question, this is not the same as teaching.
So once again – Vicky has proven nothing here about womenbeing able to
teachmen from this incident.
Nearthe end she alludes to Deborah, and then Proverbs 31. I have answered
the “Deborahquestion” in the link I gave previously about a woman being
President. I answer Vicky’s Proverb 31 assertions thatthis is a woman with a
“powerful career” here “Cana womanwork outside the home?”
Conclusion
In the end Vicky has not proven either by Christ’s words or example that he
was a Feminist supporting equal political, economic and socialrights for
women with men. Yes Christ honored women, and he treated them better
than many men of their age did. But Christ never said anything against
Patriarchy – in fact he commanded it!

One of the biggestmistakes thatChristian feminists make is in separating the
words of Jesus Christ, from the words of Paul, Peterand other Biblical
writers. When we understand that “All scripture is given by inspiration of
God” (II Timothy 3:16) and the Scriptures are not “the word of men, but as it
is in truth, the word of God” (I Thessalonians2:13)then we know when
Christ’s Apostles wrote these words it was as if Jesus Christ himself said
them:
When Paul said in Corinthians 11:3 that “the head of the woman is the man”,
he was speaking the very Words of Jesus Christ, as he was inspired by God to
do.
When Paul said in Ephesians 5:23 that “the husband is the head of the wife,
even as Christ is the head of the church” – he was speaking the very Words of
Christ, as he was inspired by God to do.
When Peter said“ye wives, be in subjectionto your own husbands”, he was
speaking the very Words of Jesus Christ, as he was inspired to do.
BecauseChristianFeminists and Egalitarians are loyalfirst their ideologyof
total equality for men and women in every area of life, they must sacrifice a
belief in the inerrany of the Scriptures.
I have shownhere, or in articles that have I have linked to, that Christian
Feminism is in fact – an OXYMORON. In order to embrace Christian
Feminism, you have to ignore the very clearcommands of God’s Word as well
as the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.
https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2015/01/28/was-jesus-christ-a-feminist/
Was Jesus Christ a Feminist?
Phylicia Masonheimer

phyliciamasonheimer.com
If you Google “feminism”, it has a simple definition: “The advocacyof
women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.”
That sounds like common sense, andit is.
If this were normative feminism – the kind hopeful Christians attempt to
embrace – I’d be on board too. But this definition is not all that feminism is –
or ever has been. Feminism has morphed over the years, rising in waves,
changing with the tide of public priority and opinion. The feminism of today is
not the feminism of women’s suffrage. It is not the feminism of Gloria Steinem
and Hillary Clinton. It is a new, intersectionalfeminism; a worldview based
on self-actualization, freedom of “choice”, andmoral relativity. Feminism
today is far more than women’s rights and equality.
Watch my full video on the history of feminism here.
Why then are Christians flocking to this label? Becauseuntil now, the church
has had no framework for embracing female believers. So much time has been
spent telling womenwhere not to be, little has been said about woman’s part
in the GreatCommission. We have no framework for showing womenhow
they can impact the kingdom for God’s glory. We have no talking points for
confronting abuse in the church. Our women’s ministries talk about how
beautiful-in-God’s-eyes we are instead of equipping women to engage
theologically.
Christian women are being sold short of God’s greatintentions, and they
know it. The monstrous void within the church has led many womento
feminism as the answer. The problem? Feminism won’t fix this.
Photo Courtesy: Thinkstock

The Final Touches
Jesus was not a feminist. Contrary to the Besseys andHeld-Evans of the
world, Jesus’pro-womanstance had nothing to do with a cultural, secular
worldview peppered with racism, eugenics, socialism, Marxism, misandry,
and murder. Jesus exaltedwomen long before the feminist movement came
into existence. Before MaryWollstonecraftattackedthe institution of
marriage; before Elizabeth Stanton and Susan Anthony pushed for suffrage;
before MargaretSangeradvocatedfor eugenics and abortion to prevent
poverty; before Germaine and Gloria and Sheila and Betty had their say,
Jesus advocatedforwomen in a culture where women were denied their most
basic rights. And Jesus did not make the gospelany less exclusive, orthe truth
any less hard, in order to do so.
The way Jesus walkedwith womenis often adopted by Christian feminists as
“proof” that Jesus was onboard with the mission. But Jesus’actions were not
dictated by or confined to any ideologicalbox. Jesus doesn’tgeton board with
human ideas. We get on board with His. Jesus’view of women is consistent
both with God’s view of womenin the Old Testament(since Jesus and God
are one)and with Peterand Paul’s discussionof womenin the New (for those
who know the historicaland literary context).
To God, women are utterly equal. They are the magnum opus of Creation;the
final touch, the “very good”. Theywere meant to be man’s one companion in
a relationship outlined at the beginning (Genesis 2). We are as much a part of
man’s work and mission as he is, partners in producing fruitful labor, in
creating and making and echoing God in this world.
So what happened? Where did the church so miss God’s intentions that we
must run to feminism as a solution?
Photo Courtesy: Unsplash

Partners in the GreatCommission
The church went wrong when it deemed women as people to be “managed”,
not as partners in the GreatCommission. When texts were takenout of their
historicaland literary context, when decisions were made in fear instead of
faith, and when people became more interested in the “right roles” than in
God’s divine purpose, womenwere shoved to the corners of church history.
Not surprisingly, we didn’t like it there – not because we’re all feminists, but
because Goddesignedus for more. God’s initial design was for women to
make man better at what he was calledto do, and vice versa. Women bring
something to God’s table that men do not. That is not selfishor self-exalting to
say; it’s fundamental to our sexuality and gender. God intended for womento
be part of His mission – and not just as mothers and wives. (More on the bible
+ gender roles here.)
But because the church has denied this for many years and in many
capacities,we’re told we should all be feminists, because then maybe
something would change.
I fully acknowledge thatsomething needs to change. But feminism is not the
answer, and it never has been. Here’s why:
We Do Not NeedCultural Frameworks to Accomplish God's Will
God’s will is yesterday, today, and forever. He has workedin countless
cultures and kingdoms. He has accomplishedHis will regardless ofmovement
or march. So while we should understand the cultural and worldview

frameworks around us, we do not need them to accomplishwhat God has set
out to do. God has given us His Holy Spirit for that express purpose. He has
given us His Word to guide our actions. And He has calledus to a Commission
outside ourselves.
It is popular to call oneselfa Christian feminist. It is acceptable and
applaudable. But to adopt a cultural framework and read it into Scripture is
completely backward. As Christians, the word of God is our starting point. It
is not a nice option to weave into our existing worldview. We start with God’s
Word and we check allother frameworks againstit. What does not line up
with God’s vision for discipleship and justice, we reject. And the things that
do fit with God’s vision for men and womencome secondto His existing
commands.
Photo Courtesy: Lightstock
Clarity of Worldview is Absolutely Essentialin this Culture
There has never been a time in the history of the world when clarity of
worldview was more essential. We live in the literal New Age. Morality is
relative. Everyone has his own truth. People regularly discuss belief and faith.
This is an incredible opportunity for Christ followers to spreadthe gospel.
But calling ourselves feminists associates us with a movement whose core
values fly in the face of the Christian worldview. Unless we have time to sit
down and explain exactly which feminist priorities we agree with and which
we reject, we are in dangerof leading countless unbelievers and young
believers into confusion. These people need clarity regarding the Christian
worldview. How do we explain that yes, we believe women are equal and
deserve equal rights in every way – but that women’s rights are not the same
as LGBTQ rights? Do we have time to lay out to eachpersonwho hears us

call ourselves “feminists” that no, we don’t believe abortion is acceptable, but
we do want to improve support for teen moms?
It would be far simpler to stoppicking up the feminist label and instead have
these conversations as someonewho is simply pro-woman – like Jesus was.
Photo Courtesy: Unsplash
Reading Feminism into Scripture is Awful Exegesis
Since the bible precededfeminism, it cannot rightly be called“feminist” –
though many people try. Proof-texting arguments to support their claims,
they are particularly fond of Jesus’interactions with women as examples of
His so-calledfeminism.
But as previously stated, Jesus exaltedwomenbased on their divine design
and purpose – not because He held to a worldview of equality. In fact, equality
was the bare minimum Jesus calledfor among His disciples. In the Sermon on
the Mount of Matthew 5-7, Jesus continually brings people back to the “spirit
of the Law”:The heart of selflessness andlove that God intended His people
to display. We’re not to settle for treating men and women as “equals”;we are
to treat them as better than ourselves (Matt. 5:43-48, Lk. 6:30-36). This theme
is consistentin both the Old Testamentand the New. In Leviticus 25, God
points out that treating the poor, the foreigner, or any human among us with
disrespectand dishonor is offensive to Him. In Romans 12:10 we are called to
“outdo one another in showing honor” and in Philippians 2:3 to “count others
as more significant than ourselves”.
We do not need feminism in order to honor women. We need a proper
exegesisofGod’s Word and hearts ready and willing to act on it. We need to
stop worrying about whether or not women are “in their roles” and instead

partner with our brothers and sisters to provide for the underprivileged and
further the Great Commission.
Women Must Maximize Our Current Mobility
Today, Christian womenhave more rights, privileges, and cultural mobility
than ever before – at leastin Westernculture. In other cultures, we are seeing
greatstrides made, but much work has yet to be done. And that’s just it:
There is work to be done. Feminism HAS accomplishedsome goodthings, but
what was accomplishedremains empty if the gospelis not furthered through
those victories.
Do I think you can be a Christian and a feminist? I don’t doubt the faith of
those who claim both worldviews, but I do doubt whether most Christian-
feminists are aware offeminism’s history and current role in society. Most
truly believe that the Google definition is THE definition of feminism. They
want to separate the label from the legacy, and that’s simply not possible.
Even the best “versions” offeminism – pro-life feminism, new wave feminism,
equality feminism – are almost100% anti-God or universalist, pro-self, pro-
LGBTQ, and adamantly opposedto biblical values.
Be Pro-Woman
I don’t expect to change minds with this post, but I hope it makes you think.
Think about the implications of trying to merge Christianity and feminism.
One or the other must be diluted from its true nature.

That’s why I suggest, as Christian women, that we maximize our current
mobility. Drop the labels and actually do something. Be more than a feminist.
Be fully and utterly pro-woman, adding value, radiating kindness, listening
well, and bringing the truth just like Jesus did.
Be pro-woman to the mom considering abortion.
Be pro-woman to the immodest girl.
Be pro-woman to your lesbianneighbor.
Be pro-woman to the older woman in your church who doesn’t ‘get it’.
Be pro-woman to your more liberal friend.
Be pro-woman to the unborn baby girl.
Be pro-woman to the legalisttrapped by Christian patriarchy.
Be pro-woman to the secularfeminist.
Be pro-woman. Then maybe we – we the Church – won’t fail women
anymore.
And we won’t need feminism to fix a problem we had the answerto all along.
Listen to the full podcastepisode on this topic and read this post on God’s
view of women.
Phylicia Masonheimeris the author of Christian Cosmo:The Sex Talk You
NeverHad, a book teaching young womenhow to understand sexuality from a
biblical perspective and overcome sexualsin. She blogs about God’s design for
single sexuality, marriage, dating, and motherhood. GET HER BOOK HERE!
Top 4 ReasonsJesusIs My Favorite Feminist

By Adam Ericksen
Mar 11, 2013
Share
Last Friday was International Women’s Day. It was a day of celebrating how
far we’ve come, but also a reminder of how far we need to go.
I’m reminded of an experience I had with a member of my youth group a few
years ago. We were volunteering for a social service project. A member of the
group happened to be named Eve and we thought it was fun to play up the
joke. I’d start greeting people, “Hi! I’m Adam,” and then Eve would chime in,
“and I’m Eve!”
We always receivedthe strangestlooks,which, of course, is why we did it. But
this time it was different. A man at the service project actuallysaid,
“Oh. So you’re the one to blame.”
Eve was able to laugh it off and respond with grace, but I was pissed. I
instinctively scowledatthe man. It was a deep blow to me because, once again,
religion was being used to put women down. But this time it was personal.
Religionwas being used to put down a member of my youth group.
Of course, religionhasn’t always been goodto women. Or, maybe it would be
better to saythat religious men have used religion as a weaponto make
women feelinferior. Whenever we blame someone else it’s a sign of our own
weakness andinsecurities. We don’t have the courage to deal with our own
inner turmoil so we blame someone else. This is classic scapegoating andwe
men have been scapegoating womenin this way since the beginning of human
history. It’s pathetic. International Women’s Dayis a reminder to me that
women and men need to work togetherto end the religious bigotry against
women.
My model for this is Jesus, my favorite feminist. [1]

Jesus was a gentleman

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was a gentleman

Similar to Jesus was a gentleman (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was a gentleman