The Priestess Question, and other Evils of “Christological Subversion”

This entry is part 2 of 3 in the series Simmons: Confronting Witt's "Icons of Christ"

Simmons: Confronting Witt's "Icons of Christ"

Confronting William G. Witt’s “Icons of Christ”
The Priestess Question, and other Evils of “Christological Subversion”
The Priestess Question and Egalitarianism

Witt Responds

Witt responded to my first essay in this series.

In response to earlier criticisms of his book, Witt announced that there were “key chapters” untouched by those criticisms. Now, in response to my first essay, he has announced I didn’t address his “key point.”

A recent reviewer claims to have read this essay: “Witt declares what he believes is the most important part of his book.” In that light I had thought that the author would address what I have claimed is the key issue of the book – how it is that all Christians (not just men) resemble Christ — through cruciform discipleship. He did not do that, however, but instead followed the predictable pattern – not at all addressing the key point of the book but rather (once again) offering a defense of the hierarchical complementarian position – beginning with an interpretation of the account of the creation of man and woman in Genesis 2.

I invite any reader to compare what I wrote with his description of what I wrote. I said explicitly, “I’ll just march through Professor Witt’s key chapters, examining them section by section. I’ll get through chapter 5 in this installment.”

I was going to go through Witt’s professed “key chapters.” Now I’m told this isn’t enough, that I should have addressed his “key point.”

The “key point” he says I missed—cruciform discipleship—is not discussed until Chapter 7. Throughout his blog post, Witt never mentions the fact that I was only writing about chapter 5, instead constantly suggesting to his readers that I did not read his whole blog post. I am tempted to say he hides the fact that I was only discussing chapter 5.

I will get to this “key point” when I discuss chapter 7 of his book. But even then, I’m sure I won’t understand the “key part” of the “key point” once I do address it.

Quick Recap

In my last essay, I responded to (1) Witt’s interpretation of Genesis 1-3 and (2) his claim that “division of labor,” including gender roles, was a result of sin that was partially remedied by Jesus and then more completely remedied by the Industrial Revolution.^[1]

First, in light of Genesis 3:16, excluding women from rule in politics or positions of leadership in the church cannot be considered a sin. Women who have natural births, men who do hard manual labor, and institutions that prefer male-only leadership cannot be considered offensive to God. Witt does not respond to this.

Second, Christianity is not a religion opposed to the division of labor, or gender roles. Christianity, with its disciples and priesthood, establishes a division of labor with the purpose of linking the lowliest human beings to the fruits of its priesthood, which is supposed to transmit the salvific truth and Christian way of life from one generation to the next. Witt didn’t respond to this.

Lastly, historically, wishing to abolish the division of labor has been considered Marxist.^[2] I said Witt’s desire to abolish the division of labor was Marxist. I maintain that the debate over priestesses is a debate about the division of labor and the necessary acceptance of hierarchy behind every division of labor. Witt didn’t address my arguments about the division of labor, only taking offense at the word “Marxist.” I’m happy to use whatever words he wants so long as the issue remains clear.

Without further ado, I come to Chapter 6 of William G. Witt’s Icons of Christ.^[3]

Chapter 6

In Chapter 6, Witt appeals to a principle called “Christological subversion.”

The principle of Christological subversion is found in the way that the narrative structures of the four gospels each develop a Christology that is subversive of “common sense” and turns our world upside down. (78)

Unfortunately for Witt, to find his “subversive” Jesus, he has to produce contorted readings of the Bible. This principle of “Christological subversion” requires a flight to “symbol and narrative,” away from “the Reformation” with its “traditional theology and Christian ethics focused on the specific ‘rules’ or ‘principles’ found in a ‘literal reading’ of Scripture…” (77). Witt seeks to “subvert simplistic literalism” (79). He must call literal readings simplistic or “flat-footed” because he’s not allowed to just throw out the “literal reading.” He must claim his reading is also “literal.” He must call the Western tradition of theology and Biblical exegesis “simple” or “flat footed” because he’s bound to the authority of the Bible.

What is “Christological subversion”? Unfortunately for Witt, he has to admit things like “Jesus did not explicitly challenge the economic order” and “Jesus simply accepted and did not challenge the existing social orders of religion, politics, economics, and family.” (81 & 82) The principle of “Christological subversion” saves Jesus from these embarrassments, for, if we pay attention to the narrative, and consider the symbols employed by the writers, then we see that Jesus and the Gospel writers were in fact challenging all these things for the sake of equality. Jesus doesn’t say women should be “treated equally,” but he teaches women things, and, since we have historical studies saying teaching women things was shameful, we can say that Jesus was “subverting” patriarchal attitudes towards women.

There are other religions and political ideologies where such a “nuanced literalism” would not be necessary. I leave that question to him. For now, let’s take a look at Witt’s examples of “Christological subversion.”

Examples of “Christological Subversion.”

Witt’s Jesus does it all: he “subverts” property, family, politics, ethnicity, honor, and basic natural rights like self-defense. Addressing all of these misinterpretations, one by one, is beyond the scope of this essay. I’ll focus on Witt’s examples of “subversion” on behalf of gender equality, found in the section “Jesus and Women.” This section has 5 subsections: For the sake of gender equality, Jesus (1) “crosses boundaries,” (2) advocates a “return to Creation,” (3) makes “women his disciples,” (4) values the “witness of women,” and (5) teaches servant leadership.

We can measure the validity of “Christological subversion”: supposing Witt has made good choices to illustrate the concept, does this principle of interpretation help Witt explain passages of Scripture, or does it require him to mangle Scripture to fit his principle of interpretation?

Crossing Boundaries

Witt interprets several stories where Jesus talks to women as examples of “Christological subversion”: the Samaritan woman at the well, the Syrophoenician woman, Mary sister of Martha, and the hemorrhaging woman.

With regard to the Samaritan woman, he writes:

By asking the woman for water, Jesus placed himself in a position of need, and humbled himself to be served. This gave dignity to the woman by allowing her to use her resources to help a stranger. In the subsequent conversation, Jesus engaged the woman’s concerns in a manner that shows that he took her seriously. Jesus did not condemn the woman for her presumed immorality. In consequence, this Samaritan woman became the first missionary or witness to Jesus in John’s Gospel, despite the traditional position that the witness of women is not reliable. (87-88)

The story of the Samaritan woman is much stranger than Witt says. But let’s look at each of these claims. Witt says, “Jesus humbled himself to be served”; “allowed the woman to use her resources to help”; “took her seriously”; and “did not condemn her immorality.”

Jesus says, “Give me a drink.” The NIV makes it a question, but it’s not a question.^[4] From the start, Jesus speaks to this woman with authority. He speaks with authority throughout. He’s not “humbling himself to be served.”

Did Jesus “take her seriously”? The Samaritan woman never understood that Jesus wasn’t talking about water. Jesus is talking about eternal life, but the height of her hope is not having to draw water every day (“Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water”). After it becomes clear that she does not understand him, Jesus tells her to go get her husband.

It is only once Jesus reveals to her his knowledge that she has 5 husbands that she is finally impressed by him. She isn’t thankful for “not being condemned,” she’s impressed by Jesus’ knowledge of what he could not have known.^[5]

Was she a “missionary or witness” subverting the “traditional position that the witness of a woman is not reliable”? Her witness is literally false. She goes and tells people in Samaria that Jesus “told me all I ever did,” when he certainly did not “tell her all she ever did.” She exaggerates greatly. She didn’t understand half of what he did tell her.

For some reason, the people of Samaria sought out grounds for belief beyond her word on the matter.

They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.” (John 4: 42)

Contrary to Witt’s imaginings, the story of the Samaritan woman at the well is a story of Christ’s authority. Jesus loved this woman. The story shows how Jesus can love the Samaritan woman, and how even such a woman—a frivolous woman—has charm and can play a significant role in God’s kingdom. But nowhere is there this equality read into the passage by Witt. If we make the Samaritan woman “impressive” and “someone to take seriously” the story loses the needful dynamic of Jesus loving her in spite of her failings and of her witness being powerful in spite of its dishonesty/frivolousness. Furthermore, the story is about the grounds for faith—how going to the source is more trustworthy than second-hand accounts.

The other examples Witt puts forward do not get as badly mangled by his principle of “subversion.” Nevertheless, in all the examples, the Samaritan woman included, Jesus is showing the glory and power of God, that it can use what is shameful or weak, and that what is shameful and weak have charms. But for all that, we are not to stop noticing shameful things and weakness.

Consider: a very strong man lifts a very heavy thing. Do you then go and say, “well, traditionally we found that stone heavy, but now we see it wasn’t!” We thank God for his greatness; to deny that there is anything wrong with these women is to take away from that greatness.

That there are shameful and weak things is integral to these lessons. It’s not good to have 5 husbands! It’s not good to be a dog! It’s not good to be a prostitute! It’s not good to hemorrhage blood for years! Christians are not supposed to deny that shameful things, or things born of weakness, are not shameful or weak. The point is, always, to not be shameful or weak. Through God, even the most shameful and the weakest can be made strong. Jesus said the sick needed a physician, not that we need to stop thinking of them as sick (Mark 2:17).

Return to Creation

Witt argues that Jesus is ushering in a “return to creation,” i.e., Jesus is beginning the historical process that will culminate in worldly utopia. This is “subversive” of existing orders, orders which Witt considers to be “the result of sin.” This “subversion” is good for women because the utopia is egalitarian. Witt cites 2 pieces of evidence that Jesus is doing this:

Jesus’ assurance to his disciples that they do not need to worry about their economic needs… indicated that he saw in the dawning of the kingdom of God a return to the original creation order that reflected a pre-fallen world without care or anxiety. Jesus’ call to trust in God as Father challenged the curse of a fallen world in which working by the sweat of one’s brow had resulted from the fall into sin (Gen. 3:18-19). (87)

For the second piece of evidence, Witt cites Jesus’ strict teaching on divorce as a sign of a return to creation, in Matthew 19 and Mark 10. (89) Except here, Witt has to admit that Jesus doesn’t actually think a return to creation has happened—there will still be adultery.

The world is not redeemed. There is still adultery. Men still have to work. But is the redeemed world we hope for what Witt claims it is?

I claim Witt doesn’t understand the Biblical ideal. But, even if his view is admitted, we wouldn’t be required to promote gender equality until the world was redeemed. Since the world is not redeemed, it is not a sin to act accordingly.

4 Examples of Female Disciples

Next, Witt next sets down four examples of women being disciples. The first two include the word “disciple.” Dorcas is called a disciple in Acts 9. And Jesus points to his disciples in Matthew 12. These are the only uses of “disciple” Witt marshals in favor of his thesis. And the second is questionable: Jesus might’ve been motioning towards the Twelve.

In any event, the word “disciple” (μᾰθητής) is used 261 times in the New Testament many times in reference to crowds. The upshot: Jesus and the writers of the Gospels do not consider everyone called a disciple the equal of every other disciple. For example, in John 6, we are told “many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”^[6]

So much for the first two examples. Yes, some women were called disciples—in all instances but one, as members of a crowd. This should pique our interest in Dorcas! But it doesn’t indicate equality with the Twelve.

The third example is a list of women in Luke 8 that travel with the disciples. These were women who had been saved and helped by the Disciples. They were thankful. “These women were helping to support them out of their own means.” No one’s saying that’s not allowed… So, what Witt does is suggest that traveling with women was “subversive.”

This would imply that they were spending nights in strange villages. Bailey notes that this is a practice that would not be allowed even in contemporary Middle Eastern culture, where women are allowed to travel with men, but must spend nights with their relatives. (90)

Nothing in the text leads the reader to think social norms were being undermined. It’s reasonable to assume that, whatever the norms were, they were adhered to by this group.

In any event, nothing in the text connotes equality. The women appear grateful and are helping the Twelve. They are not even called, and do not seem to be, “disciples,” as Witt brazenly calls them.

Lastly, and most importantly, are the examples of Mary and Martha.

Both Mary and the Good Samaritan model what it means to be a disciple of Jesus in ways that challenge first-century Jewish culture: a Samaritan was not supposed to be a model of what it means to be a neighbor; a woman was not supposed to sit at the feet of men as a disciple. (91)

This reading should be considered “a reach.” In fact, any reading that depends on phrases like “first-century Jewish culture” is a reach. Put differently: a faithful reader will obviously read the good Samaritan story as a criticism of Jewish pretensions. The Gospel author Luke makes it obvious the Samaritan should not be a better neighbor than a priest or a Levite. But there is nothing analogous in the story of Martha and Mary that suggests a similar challenge to “social pretensions.” The obvious reading is: “Jesus is staying in the home of friends on his way to Jerusalem.”

That Jesus is talking to women is important to the lesson or moral of the story, but not as a “subversive” element; nothing in the text suggests it is “subversive.” When Jesus eats with tax collectors; that is a clear challenge (I refuse to use this word “subversive” in my own voice) to Jewish pretensions. When we hear of the woman who gives what little she has, compared to the rich men who make a show, that is a challenge. There are plenty of examples where “contemporary mores” and “common sense” are clearly challenged. However, to make his case, Witt must create instances of “subversion” where none exists:

Mary’s sister Martha asked Jesus to rebuke her because she was, in effect, acting like a male, neglecting her duty to her sister to assist in the preparation of the meal, and bringing shame to her house by crossing a clear social boundary. (91)

This is what the Bible says:

But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” (Luke 10:40)

No reader of that verse could be compelled to agree with Witt’s view that Martha is complaining about Mary “acting like a male” or worried about Mary “crossing a clear social boundary.” A reader would have to want to agree with Witt to come to the conclusions he does.

Why would a reader prefer Witt’s explanation to what I consider a much more obvious one: Martha is upset that Mary isn’t doing her fair share. I might go further (though I couldn’t compel agreement) and say, “this concern for doing one’s ‘fair share’ is more applicable to friendships between women.” How could anyone choose between my reading and Witt’s? He couldn’t based on the passage alone.

The only reading compelled by the passage is the staightforward reading: Martha felt she wasn’t being treated fairly by her sister.

The moral of the story is found in Christ’s reply:

Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her (Luke 10: 41-42).

A “subversive” Jesus might have taken this opportunity to tell the women “subversive” things about the patriarchy. What a useful teaching moment this story could have been. The reader has no idea what teaching Jesus was giving. It’s possible that what he taught Mary was too dangerous to be reported by Luke!

All we can be sure of is that Jesus points Mary and Martha to God, through Himself. He teaches the women what is most necessary.

Witt’s only potentially compelling observation on this passage is that Mary, by sitting at Jesus’ feet, has taken the posture of a disciple. It is true, she is learning from Jesus. Maybe Jesus considered her a disciple (we can’t know for sure). Even if he did, that does not mean she is on an equality with the Twelve.

In sum: women clearly adored Jesus. Jesus clearly loved women. It’s hard to imagine women and John the Baptist having the same relationship. Witt tries to make this affinity into something it isn’t, namely a “subversive” affinity. Witt’s scanty evidence for his thesis isn’t very strong, as I’ve shown. And when one steps back and looks at how Jesus himself treated men and women differently, the strength of Witt’s interpretations comes to little: Jesus singled out twelve male disciples. There were no women at Christ’s last supper. He did not give the great commission to any women. There were no women with Him at his ascension. And to top it all off: there were no complaints from women about these “gaps” in treatment. If only an agitator were there to tell those loyal women how unjustly they were being treated, how they shouldn’t settle for some “subversion” or some slight, but not pronounced, rejection of First Century social norms—I mean this is the Son of God come to Conquer Death. If He wanted, I think He could have conquered the Patriarchy while He was at it.

Women as Witness

In this section Witt argues that the women behaved admirably at the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, and that the Twelve behaved poorly. The women act fearlessly while the Disciples are afraid their association with Jesus is going to sink them. Then of course there is the treachery of Judas.

It is in the events surrounding Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection that the gospels bring the testimony of women to the fore. … After his crucifixion, it is women who are the first to visit his tomb and women who provide the first and primary witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection. While the women believe immediately, the male apostles are portrayed as both doubting the testimony of the women as to his resurrection, and hiding out of fear during the time of his first post-resurrection appearance to them. In the gospels, it is women who are portrayed as Jesus’ most faithful disciples during the time of his passion, and women who are the first witnesses concerning the truth of his resurrection from the dead. It is women whom the gospels portray as the church’s first evangelists. (91-92)

These women disciples of Jesus were among the first public witnesses to Jesus, and, when Jesus’ male apostles deserted at his crucifixion, stayed by him in his death and were the first to witness to and proclaim his resurrection. When the male apostles failed, the women were faithful disciples. (95)

These kinds of arguments never accomplish what they seem. They rely point-blank on a claim that there is a difference between men and women. “Women are superior to men, therefore they should have the roles the men have.”

Jesus’ women acted admirably, no doubt. One is tempted to say they acted admirably in this situation because they were women and the disciples failed to act rightly because they were men. Nothing more is needed to sustain the classical and traditional view that men do some things well, while women do other things well. Even if Witt’s reading of the passage is correct, it merely bolsters the view that there are differences between men and women, differences that tell in the relative virtues and vices of the sexes.

But Witt’s reading is contorted, as I’ll show by setting down each Gospel account of the role women played in Christ’s death and resurrection.

Matthew

27. ⁵⁵There were also many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, ⁵⁶among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

⁵⁷When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. ⁵⁸He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. ⁵⁹And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud ⁶⁰and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away. ⁶¹Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.

28. Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. ²And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. ³His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. ⁴And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. ⁵But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. ⁶He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he^[^a^] lay. ⁷Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” ⁸So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. ⁹And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. ¹⁰Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”

Mark

15. ⁴⁰There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. ⁴¹When he was in Galilee, they followed him and ministered to him, and there were also many other women who came up with him to Jerusalem.

⁴⁶And Joseph bought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb that had been cut out of the rock. And he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. ⁴⁷Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.

16. When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. ²And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. ³And they were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” ⁴And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back—it was very large. ⁵And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. ⁶And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. ⁷But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” ⁸And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

⁹Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. ¹⁰She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. ¹¹But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.

Luke

23. ²⁶And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it behind Jesus. ²⁷And there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women who were mourning and lamenting for him. ²⁸But turning to them Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. ²⁹For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ ³⁰Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ ³¹For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

⁴⁸And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts. ⁴⁹And all his acquaintances and the women who had followed him from Galilee stood at a distance watching these things.

⁵⁵The women who had come with him from Galilee followed and saw the tomb and how his body was laid. ⁵⁶Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments. On the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

24. But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices they had prepared. ²And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, ³but when they went in they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. ⁴While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel. ⁵And as they were frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living among the dead? ⁶He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, ⁷that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and on the third day rise.” ⁸And they remembered his words, ⁹and returning from the tomb they told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. ¹⁰Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, ¹¹but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them. ¹²But Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen cloths by themselves; and he went home marveling at what had happened.

John

19. ²⁵but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. ²⁶When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” ²⁷Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

20. Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. ²So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”

¹¹But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. ¹²And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. ¹³They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” ¹⁴Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. ¹⁵Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” ¹⁶Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Aramaic,^[^b^] “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher). ¹⁷Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” ¹⁸Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord”—and that he had said these things to her.

Reading those passages impresses one with a sense of great loyalty—these women loved Jesus. At the same time, nothing in the Gospels is pitting women against men, i.e., there is no measuring going on. It’s clear from the stories that the women were women, that they had a role in Jesus’ ministry different from the men.

It wasn’t “first Century Middle Eastern” oppression that led the women to take spices to the tomb for Jesus’ body. This is a job women would do better than men. It was done out of love and gentleness.

When the Angel tells the women to go tell the Eleven, did the women stop and protest “why don’t you go tell them yourself? When will we get the respect we deserve from these angels? The disciples behaved badly!”

Jesus tells the women to “go tell his brothers.”

In sum: the devotion of the women to Jesus is touching and worthy of emulation. But Witt is forced to mangle the story, and denigrate masculinity, to get the outcome he desires: he has to ignore the fact that the role women play is not the role the men play, that the Angel acknowledges these different roles, that Jesus acknowledges these different roles, and that Jesus spends time exclusively with his Eleven, with men, before the ascension. Witt has to pretend like the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus should have had the same effect on the men and women close to Jesus.

The meaning behind the dynamic Witt points out (it is true that the women were more loyal to Jesus in this time of trial), if it is considered at length, could end up being something like this: there was a time of trial and preparation, of maturation, for the Eleven after the resurrection of Jesus. Like men often do, they overestimated their courage, Peter most of all. Christ’s crucifixion was a defeat for them in a way it wasn’t a defeat for the women. Christ’s crucifixion posed a danger to them that it didn’t to the women. The women were stronger in the face of the crucifixion, already being knowers of weakness and aware of how quickly it can turn to strength. The women did not need what the men needed because the women knew things the men didn’t. For these reasons, the women played an integral role in the maturation of the Eleven after the resurrection of Christ. Without the women, the great commission would not have been possible. The women served this necessary role as messengers from Christ to his brothers, from the Angel to the Eleven.

Servanthood and Submission

In this final section, Witt outlines a teaching on servant leadership. He promises to show how this is relevant to women and priestesses later. “This notion will be discussed in more depth when examining the apostle Paul’s discussion of the relation between men and women in Ephesians 5.” I’ll address it at that time (chapter 7).

Conclusion

I’ve shown the poverty of this “Christological subversion” principle, by showing how it constrains Witt to reading the Bible through a lens marred by tenuous and tedious historical claims and in the service of a merely contemporary concern. (A concern which, I tried to show in my last essay, is the result of political decline.)

Only an interpretive lens at peace with hierarchical narratives and virtues can interpret all of Scripture without needing to distort it. An egalitarian simply cannot deal with some of the things Jesus says, much less most of the values championed in the Old Testament. Consider the remark in Matthew 7, that few will enter through the narrow gate, i.e., that “the way is hard that leads to life” and will be rejected by the majority and then some. How is that to be interpreted? An egalitarian must believe the work of salvation is an easy thing, otherwise on what grounds does he say human beings are genuinely equal? Further consider: we are told not to throw pearls before swine. How is it egalitarian to know who is swine, who is a dog? An egalitarian cannot cope with these and other sayings of Jesus. They are what Witt calls “problem passages.” For the Christian who admits hierarchy, there are no problem passages. There are passages that console and encourage the poor. There are passages that humiliate the proud. There are passages that challenge and orient the powerful. There are passages sanctifying distinctions of rank between men. All of this is meet in the eyes of those who admit the principle of distinction.

Notes

“In traditional rural economies before the industrial revolution, most necessities of life were produced at home, and families were largely self-sustaining. Children were a more reliable source of labor than servants because the loyalty of servants is unpredictable. Without a social system to provide for retirement income, children were also a necessary support in parents’ old age. Miles relies on economist Gary S. Becker, who traces the traditional “sexual division of labor” in premodern cultures to the basic biological reality that women give birth to children and produce breast milk, and men do not. The need for many children to produce labor, combined with the necessity that women need to be near infants in order to feed them, meant that the kinds of work that women could do was restricted to work that could be done in a domestic setting: spinning, clothing construction, cooking, nursing the sick and the aged, being involved in household businesses. Men’s work was the work that could be done in the absence of children.” (68) ↑
“The division of labour offers us the first example of how… man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.” (Marx, The German Ideology) ↑
I have made a full response to Witt’s blog post here: https://localteacher.substack.com/ ↑
The word used is δός, which is the imperative of δίδωμι. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B4%CF%8C%CF%82) ↑
John Calvin offers a slightly different view. He thinks the woman must understand what Christ is saying but is mocking and scoffing. I see no reason to make that assumption. Either way, this woman’s obtuseness—”Sir, give me this water, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.”—is what leads to Christ telling her to go fetch her husband. (Calvin, Commentary on John. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.html) ↑
A useful discussion of “disciple” in the Bible can be found here (https://concerninghim.com/blog/2022/01/11/disciple-in-the-new-testament). ↑

Series Navigation<< Confronting William G. Witt’s “Icons of Christ”The Priestess Question and Egalitarianism >>

About Cole Simmons

Cole Simmons teaches high school literature and rhetoric at Redeemer Classical School, in McGaheysville VA. He earned his doctorate from the Institute of Philosophic Studies at the University of Dallas. He is a member of the Anglican Church in North America and worships at The Church of the Lamb, in Penn Laird VA.