Chapter One: Backgrounds to Paul’s Teaching Regarding Man and Woman
Payne begins Man and Woman, One in Christ with an examination of the various influences on Saul / Paul:
- his Hellenistic and Jewish cultural context, including Gamaliel his early teacher
- the Scriptures
- Jesus.
.
Hellenistic Culture: There was considerable variety in the treatment of Hellenistic women across the various regions. Women had more freedom in the western portions of the Hellenistic world and in Egypt. In 1st century Hellenism, women were generally treated as their husband’s property. There were strong social conventions so as not to give the appearance of an adulteress or prostitute. During Paul’s lifetime, women began to assume new roles. But most women lacked formal education.
Gamaliel and contrasting Jewish culture: See Acts 5:34; 22:3. Rabban Gamaliel I was held in high esteem. His sayings in the Mishnah indicate a favourable attitude toward women in sharp contrast to the rabbinic tradition as a whole. Payne notes that with few exceptions, the overall picture of Jewish tradition from around the time of Paul is fairly consistent in its low view of women – as witnessed in the writings of Josephus, Philo and Sirach.
The Scriptures: The OT was a key influence on Paul, and in relation to women, especially the OT account of creation and fall. Gen 1:26 reveals that God’s image is not restricted to the male, nor does the text imply any difference between the image of God in man and woman. Gen 1:28 shows that God’s blessings encompass both man and woman and highlight intimate personal relationships. The text of Gen 2-3 shows the equal status and mutual responsibility of man and woman. Payne notes that a counter position is argued by some, viz. man is in a position of authority over woman and hence it is Christian duty for women to be subordinate to men. Payne considers eleven arguments by such proponents, as follows:
- Man was created before woman and therefore should have authority over woman. Payne however notes that woman was created second highlighting man’s need for a partner – Gen 2:18-20 does not imply that man has authority over woman.
- Gen 2:18 stresses woman as ‘helper.’ Payne however states that the relevant noun is translated throughout the OT as ‘help, saviour, rescuer, provider.’ He concludes, “Only with her is he able to fulfill his command to multiply and fill the earth, and together they “rule over all creatures.”"
- Man has authority because he has more active roles. Payne responds: God is the active creator. At the crucial point of the creation of woman, man is entirely passive.
- The woman is morally inferior. Gen 3:6 does not support this contention. It simply tells us that the man was with the woman and he took the fruit from her.
- Eve usurped the man’s headship. Again Payne notes that Gen 3:6 does not support this argument. The sin is disobedience (Gen 3:11).
- Gen 3:9 implies that man is God’s appointed head. Payne – both man and woman are called to account together by God
- The man is responsible for religious decisions. Response: nothing in Gen 1-3 implies Adam’s religious or social leadership.
- The prophecy to the woman in Gen 3:16 is a command ie. ‘he should rule over you.’ Payne in response quotes Claus Westermann: “the domination of the husband and the consequent subordination of the wife is seen as something which is not normal (hence as punishment).” Man’s rule over a woman is a consequence of the Fall, and is not something good to be fostered.
- Gen 3:17 implies that Adam abandoned his headship because he listened to his wife. Payne notes rather that Adam was fully culpable for eating the fruit and God’s rebuke highlights both his disobedience and his refusal to take responsibility.
- The woman is not told that her curse flows from her deed. Adam, as the head, was finally responsible. Payne comments that Gen 3:13 shows that God does care about the woman’s deed, and God’s statement of consequences for the woman precedes the consequences for the man.
- God naming the human race ‘man’ in Gen 5:2 implies male headship. Payne – ‘man’ in Gen 1:26f and 5:1 refers to ‘man and female.’
Payne then lists twenty statements in Gen 1-3 that depict man and woman equally.
Having considered Gen 1-3, Payne looks at a woman’s marital position in Scripture. He notes that in Prov 31:10-31 the “excellent wife” has a broad range of important responsibilities.
In considering a woman’s social position in Scripture, Payne notes those who held political leadership – Miriam (Mic 6:4); Deborah (Judg 2:16, 18; 4:6); Esther (Esth 7:1-10).
The author then considers a woman’s religious position in Scripture. He notes that in the OT there is no command for women to be silent in religious gatherings, indeed note Isa 40:9; Ps 68:11. The prophetess Huldah is consulted by the priests (2 Kgs 22), when both Jeremiah and Zephaniah were available. See also Joel 2:28f. Payne postulates that the reason that women are not recorded in the OT as holding the office of priest is the association of priestesses in some heathen cults.
Jesus Christ: Jesus treated women as persons equal with God. Against the culture He accepted a woman’s testimony (John 20:14ff). He gives “no hint that the nature of God’s will for women is different than for men.” But what about the choice of only men as His disciples? Payne comments that women travelling with Jesus for three years would have raised legitimate suspicion, with the gospel undermined.
Comment: This is a helpful introductory chapter, examining the various influences on Saul / Paul. The historical data on Hellenistic and Jewish attitudes to women is quite extensive. The section on Gen 1 – 3 would have been assisted by verse-by-verse exegesis (at least the verses relating to the topic) rather than responding to somewhat disjointed objections.