Paul, Women, and Contemporary Evangelical Feminism

By H. Wayne House

[H. Wayne House, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Greek, LeTourneau College, Longview, Texas.]

Various approaches have been used in recent years to explain the Apostle Paul’s statements on the role of women in the church. To today’s new feminine consciousness the apostle appears to be a formidable foe. He is not considered an obstacle to the secular feminist, but Paul must be considered by the evangelical Christian before one makes a final statement of conviction. This article examines how the apostle is understood by different interpreters today, and interacts with some recent developments in the interpretation of Paul on women among some feminists who claim to be within evangelicalism.[1]

Approaches to Paul’s Thinking about Women

Paul as a Misogynist

The apostle is seen by many feminists as one who hates women, or at least as one who accepts the inferiority and debasedness of the female. The contention is that Paul must be interpreted in the light of intertestamental rabbinic misogyny. It is argued that since Paul received his training under Gamaliel, one of the most famous rabbis, and since he was a man socialized in a very chauvinistic society, it was natural for Paul to believe in the inferiority of women.[2] In line with this idea is Richardson who says, “The goal in Paul’s exegesis appears to be, without I hope being unduly harsh, greater conformity with the Jewish (or Palestinian) view of subordination of women (1 Tim 2:11ff; 1 Cor 11:7ff, especially vv. 10, 12 ).”[3]

According to this view, Paul must be understood in the light of his training in the Old Testament, which purportedly denigrates women, but the intertestamental writings and rabbinic sources exerted an even greater influence on Paul’s low view of women.[4]

Paul as a Philogynist

Rather than considering Paul a hater of women, others have perceived him to have been one attracted to women. But if that be so, what about those supposed “anti-feminine, pro-subordination-of-women passages”? One solution is suggested by Walker, in his discussion on 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 as an interpolation:

This means, of course, that the passage (1 Cor 11:2–16) cannot be used as a source for determining Paul’s attitude toward the proper status and role of women. If the authenticity of 1 Tim 2:8–15; Tit 2:3–5; Eph 5:22–33; Col 3:18–19; and 1 Cor 14:33–36 (or 34–35) is similarly rejected on critical grounds, as I am inclined to do, then the genuine Pauline corpus contains none of the passages which advocate male supremacy and female subordination in any form. On the contrary, the only ‘direct Pauline statement on the subject is Gal 3:28, which insists on absolute equality in Christ.[5]

Walker’s assumptions on Pauline philogyny become of primary importance in his rejection of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16.[6] So then, one may excise seemingly conflicting statements and have blissful harmony; Paul is not “the all-time chauvinist,” but instead, “the one clear voice in the New Testament asserting the freedom and equality of women in the eschatological community,” in the words of Scroggs.[7]

A more positive approach to the Pauline corpus is taken by Leonard, who quotes Holzner as saying that “St. Paul was the first person who saw the value of women as workers in the Church and used them extensively in the development of the missions.”[8] He is presented as one who worked with, preached to, and accepted men and women on an equal plane. Examples of this abound: Phoebe carried important papers for Paul (Rom 16:1–2); the apostle sent equal greetings to men and women (Rom 16); he urged both to do the work of deacons and deaconesses (1 Tim 3:11); he had a high regard for Priscilla and Aquila (Rom 16:3–4); and Paul regarded highly the information he received from Chloe’s household at Corinth (1 Cor 1:11).[9] Where did Paul receive this attitude? It came, according to Leonard, from Paul’s interpretation of Christ’s message of equality.[10]

Paul as a Theological Schizophrenic

In contrast to the two foregoing opinions about Paul and women a third option is now being offered by many, among whom are some evangelical feminists, whose basic presupposition is as follows: “All of us as Christians are called to forsake the ways of the world which include domination and lording it over others…. In Christ there is no chain of command but a community founded by self-giving love.”[11] With this basic assumption as the rudder for interpretation, evangelical feminists (or biblical feminists) see a tension in the thinking of Paul who supposedly accepted an equal status for women “in Christ” but at the same time put them in an inferior position. Virginia Mollenkott pointedly says, “There are flat contradictions between some of his theological arguments and his own doctrines and behavior.”[12]

Stendahl recognizes the dichotomy between the social order and one’s position before God in the New Testament, but he sees a direct contradiction between the two. The most important breakthrough in the proper attitude toward women is Galatians 3:28. Unlike other Pauline writings, this verse is a theological statement directed against what is called the order of creation, and it creates a tension with those biblical passages used to subordinate women.[13]

Paul is thus viewed as both an enslaver and deliverer of women. He gave the great emancipation theology, it is said, in Galatians, bringing to written and didactic fulfillment the attitudes and actions of Jesus toward women. On the other hand, he is charged with supporting their inferiority throughout his writings. Some feminists view Paul at times as a rabbi and at other times as a Christian.

Paul as a rabbi. In reference to Galatians 3:28 Jewett says that Paul was more cautious in the implementation of his own insight, since he had spoken of women as being subordinate and unequal.[14] But why would Paul act that way? According to Mollenkott this contradiction in the apostle is because of his rabbinical training: “For Bible believers the problem is that the apostle Paul seems to contradict his own teachings and behavior concerning women, apparently because of inner conflicts between the rabbinical training he had received and the liberating insights of the gospel.”[15]

Also Jewett accepts this rabbinic spell on Paul. In discussing Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11, Jewett says, “It appears from the evidence that Paul himself sensed that his view of the man|woman relationship, inherited from Judaism, was not altogether congruous with the gospel he preached.”[16] He then concludes, “Here we have what may be the first expression of an uneasy conscience on the part of a Christian theologian who argues for the subordination of the female to the male by virtue of her derivation from the male.”[17] Thus Paul is viewed by Jewett as having a continual struggle between his programmed rabbinic chauvinism and his new insights in Christ.

Paul as a Christian. In what way did Paul as a Christian differ from Paul as a rabbi? Paul, according to Jewett, accepted the equality of male and female in Christ not simply as a theory but he acted out this truth remarkably, especially for a former rabbi. Though he did not implement this new view completely, he did let it begin to take effect in his own life and in the church.[18]

Galatians 3:28 was the great charter of Christian equality, and to many this passage is the key to the male/female problem. It holds the key to bringing harmony, and removes the clash that necessarily occurs when one sex is viewed as inferior to the other.[19] But what about the other Pauline passages on women and men’s relationship? They are all concerned with practical issues of personal relationships or behavior in worship services.[20] The passages in which Paul supposedly contradicts Galatians 3:28 are viewed as a misunderstanding, on Paul’s part, of the creation narratives. Paul inappropriately draws the conclusion, it is said, that man is to exercise authority over woman because man was created first (1 Tim 2:13) and because woman was derived from man (1 Cor 11:7–9).[21]

How is an evangelical supposed to react to these misinterpretations of Paul? Mollenkott gives one answer:

We must open our eyes to these conflicts, demonstrating faith in the God who allowed them to appear in the New Testament. We must conquer our fear that honest attention to what we see in the Bible will undercut the doctrine of inspiration. We must allow the facts of Scripture to teach us in the way it is inspired, rather than forcing Scripture to conform to our own theories about it.[22]

Thus the consensus of many feminists within evangelicalism declares that a tension existed within the Apostle Paul, which sometimes caused him to regress to rabbinical misogyny and at other times led him to the higher view of women that the Lord Jesus possessed. Christians are asked to accept this contradiction in the writings and teachings of the apostle and to develop a view of Scripture in line with this conclusion.

Some Problems with the Contemporary Evangelical Feminist Approach

Two major problems exist in much of the current feminist argumentation: (1) a low view of inspiration, and (2) an improper hermeneutic.

Its Low View of Inspiration

Scripture is presented by many evangelical feminists as having erroneous teaching on the role of women. Pinnock, in a recent work on inerrancy, acknowledges that “moderate” evangelicals (advocates of limited inerrancy) tend to handle the Bible like liberals. He avers that Jewett does so in Man as Male and Female since he attributes to Paul a sub-Christian view on women in Paul’s passages that cannot be harmonized with Galatians 3:28. Pinnock argues that if this is so then God does not always speak in Scripture, and therefore the reader must determine when God does and when He does not. He observes, “In principle this seems to be liberal, not firmly evangelical, theological methodology, and therefore a disturbing doctrinal development.”[23]

Similar to Jewett, Mollenkott has boldly declared that Paul contradicted himself in his teaching on women.[24] Interestingly, while she says that Paul misinterpreted the Genesis 2 account, she does hesitate to call Paul’s position an error in Scripture. She says that Paul was thinking aloud trying to work through his conflicts.[25] (One wonders how broad a meaning the term “error” may have, or exactly who in this discussion is contradictory.) Mollenkott believes that Paul interpreted Genesis 2 the way he did because of what he had been socialized to think is natural.[26]

It appears to this writer that the aforementioned procedure opens a Pandora’s box in regard to biblical interpretation. Whatever one disagrees with in Scripture may be simply relegated to socialization. Could not one consider the holy wars of Joshua cultural? Or were not Paul’s views on homosexuality merely socialization? Mollenkott answers that the words “and God said ‘Go down and smite them’“ are to be regarded as socialization, and therefore the words “God said” were only an assumption of Joshua.[27] In addition, she and Scanzoni have recently written that evangelical opposition to some forms of “legitimate” homosexuality is because of homophobia in present-day society rather than the teaching of Scripture.[28]

What about those evangelicals who reject this line of reasoning about socialization and the de-absolutizing of biblical culture because of their belief in the full inspiration of Scripture? Mollenkott answers that they will come to a more scholarly approach to the Bible and will learn the difference between faith and fear.[29] Mollenkott continues, “Things have come to a bad pass when we have to avoid seeing certain facts of Scriptures (or to avoid admitting that we see them) in order to preserve our preconceived notions about inspiration.”[30]

There can be little question that the transgression of the above-mentioned feminists in the matter of inspiration goes beyond acceptable limits in evangelical theology. If areas of disagreement may be eliminated merely by an appeal to socialization, then interpretation has no controls, and the idea of limited revelation or degrees of inspiration can hardly be avoided. Are Paul’s arguments on the doctrine of sin coming from one man to be discounted in view of contemporary anthropological studies? Or is it to be argued that Paul merely borrowed his ideas on original sin from rabbinical theology? These obviously must be answered in the negative. But the real question is whether one will be submissive to the revealed Word of God.

Its Improper Hermeneutic

Did Jesus contradict the Old Testament? The citation of Scripture against Scripture seems to be characteristic of many feminists. Justification for this is offered by Jewett when he says that Christ is his example in his interpretive method. In Mark 10:3–5 Christ was asked if His view of divorce was in harmony with the Mosaic law. Jesus, he says, in a sense appealed to Scripture against Scripture. While Jesus acknowledged that the Mosaic legislation allowed for divorce, He recognized that it did not express the true intent of creation in regard to monogamous marriage. Jesus, in citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, said that the permission given in Deuteronomy 24:1 was on account of hardness of hearts—a cultural conditioning—and was not the will of God. Jewett then applies this reasoning to his interpretation of Paul on women:

Such reasoning, we submit, is analogous…to that which we have followed in seeking to understand the Pauline statement of sexual hierarchy in the light of the creation ordinance of sexual partnership. To say that a man may write a bill of divorce and put away his wife, or to say that woman by definition is subordinate to the man, is to come short of the revealed intent of the Creator; it is to break the analogy of faith.[31]

Severe fallacies are present in Jewett’s presentation: (a) Jesus was not contradicting the passage in Deuteronomy 24 by His appeal to the creation narrative. He expressed God’s original intention over and against God’s concession. God inspired the Deuteronomic legislation (Deut 12:1; 26:16–27:1 ); it was not merely a socialization apart from God’s direction. In reality this case-law gave women protection that would not necessarily have been so generous if it originated purely from a male-dominated society. Jewett seems to recognize the tenuousness of his argument when he uses the phrase “in a sense” when referring to Jesus’ appeal to Scripture against Scripture. However, Jesus really did not contradict Scripture. It is a non sequitur to say that one Scripture passage may be cited against another. (b) To assert that Paul must be interpreted against himself is to assume that he misinterpreted the Old Testament in practically all of his writings on women (with Galatians 3:28 being the one exception). The reason this latter passage becomes all-important to feminists is that it is the only real passage in epistolary literature that is amiable (prima facie) with their desired teaching on women. However, it is not at all certain that Galatians 3 is concerned with the question of the social equality of male and female. Nor is it self-evident (as will be discussed later), that tension exists between this text and the other Pauline teachings on the subject.[32]

Did Paul contradict himself? Evangelical feminists contend that Paul was divided in himself about his view of women and was not faithful in bringing proper completion to the teachings of Christ, and that he misinterpreted the second creation narrative to propagate the inferiority of women. Mollenkott writes, “Each of these Pauline contrasts reinforces the impression that according to his rabbinical training Paul believed in female subordination but that according to his Christian vision he believed that the gospel conferred full equality on all believers.”[33] This writer’s contention, however, is that there was no contradiction in Paul, that he was in perfect harmony with Jesus’ view on the equality and role of women, and that he correctly understood the presentation of man and woman in Genesis 1 and 2 and deduced proper implications from those narratives for the responsibilities of man and woman in the church and the home.

Those feminists who see a contradiction in Paul make several false assumptions that lead them to wrong conclusions.

First, it is assumed that equality between persons requires interchangeability of roles. Since Paul regarded women as equal with men (Gal 3:28), but did not let them teach or exercise authority over men (1 Tim 2:12), he was contradictory. But this assumption is without support both in experience and in the Scriptures. Parents and children, employers and employees, the president and citizens of the United States are all equal as persons, but they have definite role differences. Also, while church members are equal in Christ, some members are in positions of authority in the local congregation (1 Thess 5:12; Titus 1:5; Heb 13:17; 1 Pet 5:1–5).

Second, evangelical feminists assume that Paul borrowed his views on feminine subordination from rabbinic sources rather than the Old Testament, or that when he did go to the Old Testament he interpreted it in a rabbinical fashion, which caused him to arrive at wrong conclusions.[34] Rabbinic influence on the New Testament writers is very debatable since most of the sources were written centuries later, and even isolated ‘Talmudic statements may only represent individual thought and not a generally held opinion. Whether Talmudic ideas were influential on Paul is not part of this debate. The point is that if they were influential, they were not necessarily wrong, nor was the Apostle Paul wrong in using them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Third, evangelical feminism’s position on Paul leads to a rejection of his authority as an apostle. In writing to the Corinthians about his authority, Paul spoke of his own teaching and that which is based on oral tradition from the earthly Jesus. But he did not consider the acceptance of his teachings as optional (1 Cor 11:1–2; 14:33b–38). Thus modern-day feminism falls into the Corinthian error of attempting to consider some of Paul’s teachings optional.

Fourth, evangelical feminists insist that all the other passages on women are in practical contexts while Galatians 3:28 is the only theological one. “Of all the passages concerning women in the New Testament, only Galatians 3:28 is in a doctrinal setting; the remainder are all concerned with practical matters.”[35] They are saying, then, that Galatians 3:28 is a more important passage for this issue in the Pauline Epistles than his others. Whether this is true or not, their major fallacy is that they distinguish between the theological and the practical in Paul’s argumentation, as Dunham so aptly says:

The fact is, that Galatians is not completely doctrinal and 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy completely practical. Anyone who knows the style of the apostle Paul…will remember that he characteristically sets forth his doctrine, then brings the practical implications out of that. Further, his reason for writing the letter to the Galatians was a practical and a theological one. Our practice is solidly built upon our theology, and so was his. The problem of circumcision—practical, arose because of the misunderstanding of the relationship between Law and Grace, and the new covenant versus the old—theological.[36]

Fifth, it is wrongly assumed that Galatians 3:28 teaches the elimination of hierarchical structure because all are one in Christ. Such an interpretation is beside the point in the passage at hand. Rather than doing away with societal distinctions, this verse concerns the subject of justification and the believer’s relationship to the Abrahamic covenant. Paul was not seeking to demonstrate social equality relationships among the classes he mentioned; instead he wished to show that all, regardless of standing in society, may participate by faith in the inheritance of Abraham, to be sons of God. To draw social implications from Galatians 3:28 is to go beyond the text. Boucher says that “the ideas of equality before God and inferiority in the social order are in harmony in the New Testament. To be precise, the tension did not exist in first century thought, and it is not present in the texts themselves. The tension arises from modern man’s inability to hold these two ideas together.”[37] If Boucher is correct in her analysis, there is an implicit admittance of female subordination on the apostle’s part even in this text usually marshalled for an egalitarian view of sexual relationship.

Did Paul contradict Christ? There can be little argument against the fact that Jesus had a high view of womanhood. Albrecht Oepke has written: “We never hear from the lips of Jesus a derogatory word concerning woman as such. In holding out the prospect of sexless beings like that of angels in the consummated kingdom of God…He indirectly lifts from woman the curse of her sex and sets her at the side of man as equally the child of God.”[38] Also Jewett recognizes Jesus’ high view of woman, when discussing His actions recorded in Luke 10:38–42:

What Jesus did in this case must have been absolutely incomprehensible to them. They would never dream of entering a house occupied by two unmarried women, let alone discoursing with them, especially concerning spiritual things. Jesus is here showing an utter disregard for custom in order that he might do his kingdom work. And so he fellowshipped with these women who were his disciples even as he fellowshipped with men who were his disciples. He showed the same intimacy and esteem toward Mary and Martha as he showed toward men.[39]

Is Paul to be seen as the betrayer of Christ in reference to women? Some view Paul as seeking greater conformity with the Jewish view of women rather than following Christ’s new freedom. For example, Richardson states that Paul “has not pushed Jesus’ new view of women any further, but has rather retreated, in the face of local factors that threaten the stability of the struggling community of believers, to a more Judaic and rigidly Pharisaic view.”[40] Mollenkott adds that “Jesus doesn’t seem to matter much to traditional evangelicals; Paul is the one who counts.”[41]

Was Christ’s perception of women really contradictory to Paul’s? Though Jesus did treat women with kindness and respect[42] and considered them equal before God, the biblical records say nothing at all about Him considering women equal to men in ministerial leadership or spiritual headship. There is no evidence that any woman was commissioned as one of the seventy or the Twelve.[43] Women are not represented among the Apostles to head the heavenly rule of Christ to come in the New Jerusalem. No amount of argument or rhetoric can change these facts.

How does Paul compare to Christ? The Book of Acts and Paul’s epistles reveal the tender heart Paul had toward women and his appreciation for their help in the gospel ministry.[44] But nowhere did he ordain them as overseers, nor did they serve as apostolic representatives to the churches. Richardson is correct; Paul has gone no further than Jesus—and neither should believers today.

Christ and Paul have no tension between equality and hierarchy as based on creation.

Did Paul misunderstand the Old Testament? The last problem posited by feminists concerns the apostle’s supposed misinterpretation of the creation narrative in his counsel on women in 1 Corinthians 11; 14; and 1 Timothy 2. Some think that God originally intended an egalitarian social relationship among men and women but that the curse (Gen 3:16) brought women into enslavement. Acceptance of Christ brings about an abrogation of this curse. Genesis 1:27 is viewed as teaching the simultaneous creation of male and female, with the result that the two are functionally and ontologically equal, whereas Genesis 2 presents woman created after man. Though Paul correctly interprets Genesis 1 in Galatians 3:28, it is argued, he draws improper conclusions on the subordination of the female from Genesis 2. Scanzoni and Hardesty assert this position in their discussion of 1 Corinthians 11:8–9: “The second creation narrative does say that woman was made from and for man, but the theological leap from this to woman’s subordination is a traditional rabbinic…understanding that is not supported by the text.”[45]

Who has misinterpreted Genesis 1 and 2 —Paul or some modern feminists? First, Genesis 1:26–28 has nothing to say about social relationships between male and female. It speaks of the ontological unity of male and female with both being image-bearers of God. From this passage Paul concludes that both have an equal right to the grace of God (Gal 3:28). Moreover, the text does not say they were created simultaneously as some have claimed.[46] There is no time frame given in Genesis 1 as there is in Genesis 2.

Second, Genesis 2 indicates that Yahweh created male, and then created female. This is true whether one takes the details literally or figuratively. The woman was to be a helper (not slave) to the man, corresponding to him. Since Adam named her, a prerogative in the Old Testament to the one having authority,[47] he demonstrated his authority over her. This priority in Paul’s teaching proved man’s responsibility for the woman, which is to be carried out with sacrificial love (Eph 5:22–33). Her responsibility is to follow his leading willingly. These roles stem from God’s creation, not from man’s Fall (1 Cor 11:8–9; 1 Tim 2:12–14).[48]

Third, Genesis 3:16 does not introduce the hierarchical structure of male and female. That structure is found in the creation narrative of Genesis 2. The Genesis 3 passage reveals the distortion of the original pattern. Rather than man lovingly ruling and woman willingly being submissive, the war of the sexes had begun. Man would seek dominance, with woman vying for his position.[49] This conflict, not the hierarchical structure, is gradually to be done away in Christ (Eph 5). Man is to love as he leads, and woman is to submit herself to her husband. In Christ the creation intentions for male and female are restored. Paul understood this; unfortunately the feminists do not.

Conclusion

The preceding material has been presented to draw attention to underlying presuppositions and methods of arguments by many influential feminists in evangelicalism. Whether these individuals have a proper right to the term evangelical is a difference of opinion, but that they have weakened the walls is undeniable. They have developed an obviously inadequate view of inspiration and an unacceptable hermeneutic. In seeking to cause the biblical text to speak their language, rather than learning its language, these feminists have often eisegeted the Scriptures and fabricated inconsistencies and tensions in Paul of which he was unaware.

Notes

1. In this article evangelical feminists are not to be considered a stereotype of all feminists but only of those who follow the thinking of those interacted with in this article. The author recognizes many legitimate grievances of some feminists.
2. Virginia Mollenkott, “A Conversation with Virginia Mollenkott,” The Other Side, May-June 1976, p. 26. Mollenkott would also consider Paul to have a philogynist side to his nature, so her views will be discussed later in this article.
3. Peter Richardson, “Paul Today: Jews, Slaves, and Women,” Crux 8 (1970): 37.
4. Tosefta Berakoth reads, “One should not trust a woman’s virtue or intelligence, since sin came about through her. They are all more or less given to witchcraft. Men who let themselves be led by women are ridiculed. Every pious Jew repeats the prayer of R. Judah: ‘Blessed be He who has not made me a woman’“ (vii.18, cited by Joseph Bonsirven, Palestinian Judaism in the Time of Jesus Christ [New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964], p. 100).
5. William O. Walker, “1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and Paul’s Views regarding Women,” Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (March 1975): 109. See the rebuttal to Walker’s arguments by Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, in his article, “The Non-Pauline Character of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16?” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (December 1976): 615-21.
6. Ibid., p. 104.
7. Robin Scroggs, “Paul and the Eschatological Woman,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 40 (1972): 302.
8. Joseph Holzner, cited by Eugene Andruss Leonard, “St. Paul on the Status of Women,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12 (July 1950): 317.
9. Ibid., pp. 315-19.
10. Ibid., p. 320.
11. Letha Scanzoni and Nancy Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1974), p. 22.
12. Mollenkott, “A Conversation,” p. 22.
13. Krister Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women, trans. Emilie T. Sander (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), p. 32.
14. Paul Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), p. 145.
15. Virginia Mollenkott, Women, Men, and the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1977), p. 96. One example of this dependence on rabbinical thought which she cites is 1 Corinthians 14:34 where women “are not allowed to speak, but must be submissive, as the Law says,” which Law she curiously interprets as being not the Old Testament, but as a reference to the social custom of first-century Judaism (ibid.).
16. Jewett, Man as Male and Female, p. 113.
17. Ibid.
18. Jewett illustrates this radical change of attitude on the part of the former rabbi: (a) In rabbinic usage a woman was designated only as the wife of another man, whereas Paul in Romans greets the women by name; (b) Priscilla’s name is mentioned before her husband’s; (c) Paul calls Phoebe, who delivered the Epistle to the Romans, a sister; (d) as a rabbi he hardly would address a group of women with no man present, yet he did this at Philippi without any hesitation (Acts 16:13); (e) he accepted the invitation of Lydia without the slightest scruple (Acts 16:15) (Jewett, Man as Male and Female, pp. 145-46).
19. Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be, p. 15.
20. Ibid., pp. 18-19. Mollenkott writes, “All those passages are addressed to very specific cases. But Galatians 3 which says there is no male or female is in a fully theological context. So that context tells us that Galatians is normative while the others are cultural” (“A Conversation,” p. 73).
21. Jewett, p. 142; Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be, pp. 27-28.
22. Mollenkott, Women, Men, and the Bible, p. 105.
23. Clark Pinnock, “Three Views of the Bible in Contemporary Theology,” in Biblical Authority, ed. Jack Rogers (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1977), pp. 69-70. Similarly Lindsell sounds an alarm, “At stake here is not the matter of women’s liberation. What is the issue for the evangelical is the fact that some of the most ardent advocates of egalitarianism in marriage over against hierarchy reach their conclusion by directly and deliberately denying that the Bible is the infallible rule of faith and practice” (Harold Lindsell, “Current Religious Thought, Egalitarianism and Scriptural Infallibility,” Christianity Today, March 26, 1976, p. 46).
24. Mollenkott, “A Conversation,” p. 25.
25. Ibid., pp. 27-28.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., p. 30.
28. Virginia Mollenkott and Letha Scanzoni, “Homosexuality: 2 Perspectives,” Daughters of Sarah, Nov/Dec 1977, pp. 6-7.
29. Mollenkott, “A Conversation,” p. 75.
30. Mollenkott, Women, Men, and the Bible, p. 103 (italics hers).
31. Jewett, Man as Male and Female, pp. 136-37.
32. If one were to follow the reasoning used by feminists cited in this article, it could be suggested that “male and female” in Galatians 3:28 is an early interpolation by a rare feminist scribe. Or it might be argued that the verse was written by a less experienced and mature apostle (late A.D. 40s). Sensing the radicalism of some first-century Christian feminists, based on this type of teaching found in Galatians 3:28, he excluded it from his subsequent writings. Colossians 3:11 (late A.D. 50s or early 60s) has a similar listing but omits the phrase “male and female.” Also the difference in 1 Corinthians (middle A.D. 50s) and 1 Timothy (middle A.D. 60s) may be noted.
33. Mollenkott, Women, Men, and the Bible, p. 103.
34. The idea that Paul is referring to rabbinic traditions when he uses “law” in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–35, as Mollenkott has suggested (ibid., p. 98), is pure conjecture.
35. Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be, p. 71.
36. Duane Dunham, “Women in the Ministry, Ephesians 5 and Galatians 3, ” chapel lecture (Portland, OR: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1968), p. 8.
37. Madeline Boucher, “Some Unexplored Parallels to 1 Cor 11:11–12 and Galatians 3:28: The NT on the Role of Women,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 (1969): 57-58 (italics hers). In her article she compares the “pairs” in Galatians 3:28 with that of rabbinical materials.
38. Albrecht Oepke, “γυνή,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament A-G, vol. 1, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), p. 785.
39. Jewett, Man as Male and Female, p. 99.
40. Richardson, “Paul Today: Jews, Slaves, and Women,” p. 37.
41. Mollenkott, “A Conversation,” p. 26.
42. One must recognize that the attitude of Christ to women was not unique in the Mediterranean world. The Epicureans had a high regard for women in their school; women were treated as equals. Even in Jewish society the common label of Jewish misogyny must be tempered. Epstein has demonstrated that women, before Talmudic times, were given access to worship in Judaism approaching that of men and there is some evidence they could read the Torah in mixed crowds. Certainly many rabbis had a high regard for women, even teaching them the Torah (Louis M. Epstein, Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism [New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1968], pp. 78-85).
43. Since culturally one would expect the seventy to be men, and since the Twelve were men, the burden of proof is on the one who wants to find women among the seventy commissioned by Jesus.
44. Cf. n. 18.
45. Scanzoni and Hardesty, All We’re Meant to Be, p. 28.
46. Mollenkott, “A Conversation,” p. 28.
47. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 2 vols., trans. Israel Abrahams, Part I: From Adam to Noah (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1961), p. 130.
48. Some argue against priority as a basis for man’s leadership. Scanzoni and Hardesty say, “Man was made from dust but this does not make him subordinate to the earth” (All We’re Meant to Be, p. 28). However, the Genesis narrative is discussing male as prior to female, and male and female as uniquely created by God; it is not simply discussing the question of priority in general.
49. See the excellent article by Susan T. Foh, “What Is the Woman’s Desire?” Westminster Theological Journal 37 (Spring 1975): 376-83.