Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 9

Bercot claims “much of the pseudo-history…is done in an effort to promote feminism” and that “Jesus never directly taught anything that supports their agenda”; how do you respond to that charge, and what criteria would you use to distinguish a faithful reading of Jesus’ treatment of women from an attempt to recruit Jesus for a modern movement?

Another way to ask: How do you respond to the claim that bad history is used to promote feminism and that Jesus didn’t support that agenda? What guidelines would you use to tell the difference between a fair reading of how Jesus treated women and using Jesus to push a modern cause?

Direct Answer Based on Bercot’s teaching, the charge should be taken seriously by testing whether an interpretation comes from the text or from a modern agenda that needs Jesus to be “revolutionary.” A faithful reading sticks to what the passage actually highlights (like Jew-Samaritan hostility) rather than importing claims (like “men didn’t talk to women”) to score modern points.

Support from Transcript:

He says pseudo-history is often used “in an effort to promote feminism.”
He claims the motive is that “Jesus never directly taught anything that supports their agenda,” so allies “take every situation…involving women and try to turn it into…groundbreaking.”
Example #1: John 4 is turned into Jesus starting “the feminist movement,” but Bercot says the text’s stated issue is Jews and Samaritans.
Example #2: Matthew’s genealogy is called “extraordinary” for naming women; Bercot counters it’s not unusual because many OT genealogies name women and 1 Chronicles names “over 50 women.”
His repeated method is to compare the claim with the Bible’s own data and broader Scripture patterns.

Discussion Follow-ups What would it look like to honor Jesus’ real interactions with women without exaggerating them into a modern campaign slogan?

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 9 of 10