Social Justice and Gender

Women are not the same as men. Men are more experienced, more capable of controlling their emotions, more suited therefore for leadership in the public arena, and women are better taking on roles in the household. This appears to have been the assumption of most men in the Greco-Roman and Jewish social world of the first century. ^[1] It was a natural conclusion to draw, since most people married, and most men married women significantly younger than themselves, i.e. the man around 30 and the woman in her teens, sometimes half his age. ^[2] Add to this the vulnerabilities related to frequent pregnancies and observations of physical strength, the male logic drew the following conclusion: women are inferior to us – flawed male reasoning which has survived well into our own day. ^[3]

It was not without its ideological underpinning. In the Timaeus, Plato depicts the first human beings as male. Females emerged as failed males and began a downward evolution of inferiority, reaching its lowest level with worms on the ground (41D). While the influence of the Timaeus on the Septuagint of the creation stories is a matter of debate, ^[4] the Greek text with its subtle changes in translation also assured men they were right. Using ἄνθρωπος to translate worked initially but was soon replaced in the text by Adam, a man’s name, supporting the view that the first human was a man. ^[5] The creation of woman, here not through failure but by divine intent, comes through in the Septuagint as an initiative paralleling the creation of the man. Thus, in 2:18 “I shall make” in the Hebrew () becomes like 1:26, “Let us make” (ποιήσωμεν) and the translator enhances the echo by using the word likeness (καθ᾿ ὁμοίωσιν 1:26; ὅμοιος αὐτῷ 2:20; cf. κατ᾿ αὐτόν 2:18; Hebrew for 2:18 and 20: ()). ^[6] Accordingly, man was made in the image of God and woman was made in the image of man. That is clearly how Paul reads it in 1 Corinthians 11, men reflecting the glory of God, women reflecting the glory of man (Aνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλὴν εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων· ἡ γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν) (11:7; similarly 11:3). ^[7]

Thus, the common human experience and the common male assumption found its secondary underpinning for the first-century Jews, including Christ followers, in scripture itself. Men and women are seen positively as the work of the creator, including their position in creation, i.e. men to rule creation and women not equal to men but nevertheless valued and respected.

In approaching what the New Testament says about women, we must begin with the world of their discourse. Were all women confined to household roles? By no means. There were exceptions. Queen Salome Alexandra was a famous exception as was the legendary Judith, ^[8] not to speak of the role of women prophets (Testament of Job 46–51; Luke 2:36; Acts 21:9), and in the Greco-Roman world the sibyl and Sappho. ^[9] Among Christ believers, there were also exceptions. Paul reflects this in needing to discuss women taking such roles in worship in 1 Corinthians 11, where he nevertheless insists that women not dress beyond their status, but where he also reminds men that while they rightly claim that woman came from man, nevertheless, all of them came from women – their mothers (11:12). ^[10] Acknowledging the difference in nature and status did not mean any less respect or love.

There are notable exceptions reflected also in Romans 16: Prisca, Mary, Junia (“prominent among the apostles” 16:7), Tryphaena and Tryphosa (16:3–12). It is not altogether surprising in a movement, which had its beginnings not among the male elite but among the poor, that the disempowered would assume roles not normally allowed in the public arena. ^[11] Women were part of Jesus’ itinerant group (Mark 15:40–41; 3:31–35; 10:30; Luke 8:2–3), ^[12] not just key players in hosting the itinerants in their homes (Mark 1:29–31; Luke 10:38–42; John 12:1–8). Is Magdala not a place but a nickname “the tower” given by Jesus to Mary, as Jesus gave Simon the nickname Cephas/Petros, “the rock”, as Joan Taylor has suggested? ^[13] Given the movement’s origins, it is understandable that women played a more significant role in the movement in the early decades than normally allotted to them in society. As Gentiles flooded in, pressure mounted to abandon the biblical requirement of circumcision set out in Genesis 17. They did. We find two independent accounts of the meeting in Jerusalem where they did just that (Gal 2:1–10; Acts 15:1–21), though not without controversy (cf. Gal 5:2–12). Such pressure did not, however, succeed in subverting the norms about women. The pressure to return to normal was too great.

The norm in church gatherings, as Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 14, was for women not to be vocal in public discourse but to remain silent, reflecting the norms of society (14:33b–36). ^[14] These norms explain not only why the tradition depicts all 12 disciples chosen by Jesus to symbolise leadership of Israel’s 12 tribes in the kingdom as male (Mark 3:14–19; Matt 19:28; Luke 22:28–30), not, I think, because women’s names were suppressed, but also simply because it was so. ^[15]

The rationalisation for imposing such norms on women is more direct in Paul’s later admirer, who has him cite Eve’s sin in Genesis with its conclusion that men should rule women as further grounds for doing so (1 Tim 2:9–15; Gen 3:16). ^[16] Women should be happy with the security, which their need to be cared for through the processes of childbirth will bring them – that is their salvation, their security (σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας) (2:15). Other later writings reinforce the household norms which outlined the appropriate behaviour of men and wives, parents and children and slaves and masters (Col 3:18 – 4:1; Eph 5:21 – 6:9; Tit 2:2–5; 1 Peter 3:1–7).

Putting women in their normal place does not imply misogyny. On the contrary, they are also God’s creation. Famously, Paul declared in a context primarily dealing with the Gentile issue: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). ^[17] We would like it to be a declaration against slavery and discrimination, but as Paul shows in 1 Corinthians 7, it is not. Slaves, for instance, should not seek to be free (7:17–24), but all, despite their differences, which Paul does not deny, including different gender roles, are to be valued. The later household codes are, arguably, not inconsistent with Paul’s view. ^[18] Love is there, too, and those who argue for gender complementarity affirm the same. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, not, of course, to be applied in the other direction: wives should love their husbands as Christ loved the church. That would not fit the gender inequality presupposed. There is thus no social change in the sense of change of social structures, at the core of social justice.

Male fallacious reasoning about women’s inferiority informed the assumption that the normal place for women was not in public discourse and leadership. That flawed logic was the determinant for New Testament writers, their communities and wider society. The many exceptions in the beginning, around Jesus and the early decades are memories, like the women who followed Jesus to his death (Mark 15:40–41), the Samaritan with whom Jesus conversed in public (John 4:4–42, esp. 4:27), the “sinners” at tax collectors’ parties (Mark 2:15–16; Matt 11:19//Luke 7:34; Luke 15:1–2; 19:10) ^[19] and the women at the empty tomb (Matt 28:1–10; Luke 24:1–9; John 20:1–18). Luke’s ideal of women performing supporting roles (8:2–3; Acts 9:36) allows, indeed encourages, room for them like Mary also to sit and (perhaps only) listen (Luke 10:38–42). ^[20]

Is there any wriggle in this system? The trend was to close down the exceptions over time and restore respectable normality as men saw it. But as with comments about slaves as also those whom God loves and for whom Christ died and who, like children, now had a place in worship gatherings, so stories and traditions which affirmed women had the potential to break down the flawed male assumptions which confined women. Those who espouse an approach to scripture which acknowledges its incarnation in the fallibilities of male discourse will break free from such assumptions as did the early church on circumcision. Those who cannot, will do their best with sympathetic constructions of gender complementarity and keep women out of the male preserve. ^[21] Both approaches are better than pretending that no such social discrimination existed and that, if only we read scripture aright, we will see that all is well and coheres with the positions we hold dear.

Equally significant but noted here only in summary is the clash in Mark between Jesus and his disciples over his rejection of male gender stereotypes in three times declaring he came to serve and even to suffer (8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34, 45). Paul was offside with many Christ followers for the same reason (2 Cor 10:1, 10; 1:17). Peter’s Messiah is the triumphant male to be served (8:32), a view shared by his fellow disciples (9:34–37; 10:35–37). In Mark, Jesus’ throne is a cross, his crown, a crown of thorns. Resurrection does not mean Peter was right after all, as much tradition in practice implies, but that Jesus was right and set a pattern of maleness and personhood to be followed. “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many” (10:45) is so easily subverted to read: “For the Son of Man came not to serve but to be served and to give his life as an example to many”. This is something with enormous social justice implications, but over history Peter’s position has mostly held sway and not just in that church which claims direct succession. Most have also constructed God after the image of the male stereotype. Men also receive stern warnings about sexual exploitation (Matt 5:27–30; 18:6–9), as current now as then.

The drive to make scripture say what we want it to say comes to the fore in discussions about same-sex or same-gender relations. Convinced by the social evidence and often by personal experience of meeting gay people, and in some instances even finding them in one’s own family, some have been doing their best to make a case that in fact Paul had no problems with people being gay. His objection was not what he said it was. It was only against hetero men engaging in same-sex relations or harbouring such desire, not homo men. ^[22] Or it was only against pederasty, the exploitation of the young and of slaves, a phenomenon which was widespread. ^[23] Or it was only against such passions when they were excessive. ^[24] Or it was mainly targeting abuses in the imperial household ^[25] or by some Stoic teachers. ^[26] Or Paul was speaking only hypothetically in a rhetorical manoeuvre to enable him to change the focus onto other sins and in fact he had no problems with same-sex relations and passions at all. ^[27] Or Paul’s concern was such behaviour when it occurred in association with pagan cults ^[28] or was only the act or only the act and the desire to act, not the orientation itself. ^[29]

These all make sense in the light of the widespread acceptance that some people are genuinely gay and that we have done such people a serious injustice for placing them under a cloud of condemnation over the centuries. This is an issue of social justice, I certainly agree. I have not, however, found the explanations briefly outlined above as at all convincing. ^[30] As with gender issues in relation to women, it is better to acknowledge what is there in the New Testament and not in the name of love or social justice to fudge the issues.

Taking scripture seriously, taking anyone seriously, means hearing what they are saying in their language and context. In Paul’s Jewish context did people address the issue? Yes, they did. Our most extensive evidence is in Philo who condemns such relations outright, mostly focusing on pederasty, but also including adult consenting relations, male and female, ^[31] views shared also by Paul. ^[32] On what basis? The Leviticus prohibitions (18:20 and 20:13; cf. Philo Spec. 3.37–42). Whatever their original intent, possibly only to forbid men taking a wife’s role in someone else’s marriage bed, as Jan Joosten has recently suggested, ^[33] both Philo and others before him, such as Pseudo-Phocylides, took them as a basis for forbidding all same-sex relations, including those between women (Ps.-Phoc. 3, 190–192, 210–214). ^[34]

Foundational to Philo’s approach was also his reading of Gen 1:27, according to which God made them male and female, or as some have popularly glossed it, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Accordingly, all people are heterosexual. Philo, therefore, agrees with Plato, in rejecting the aetiological myth of sexual origins which Plato put on Aristophanes’ lips, namely, that the originally three kinds of human beings, male, female, and bisexual, were sliced in half by Zeus for their impudence and have ever since been seeking their other halves, accounting for gay and lesbian orientation and action (Philo Contempl. 50–63; cf. Plato Symp 189–193).

Paul reflects this standard depiction of same-sex relations as typifying the pagan world’s depravity in his opening argument to the Romans because he knows they will affirm it. He was not trying to be controversial, by stating a view they would not share, but by stating one which we know well from Philo and others. Otherwise his rhetoric would not have worked. For he does so, not in order not to retract it, but to set them up for his next move of turning the screws on them by pointing out when they as Jews sin they are no better, so that now both Gentiles and Jews need Jesus’ salvation (3:9, 23–26). In just a few verses (1:24–28) Paul follows the logic of Wisdom’s argument in depicting corrupt responses to God as generating corruption in the self (Wis 13:1 – 14:31; similarly T. Naph. 3:1 – 4:1): senseless darkened minds (ἀλλ᾿ ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία. φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν 1:21–22), having an “unfit mind” (ἀδόκιμον νοῦν), as he puts it (1:28). ^[35] It is a psychological argument at one level. A perverted response to God leads to perversion in the mind, which displays itself as misdirected passion and its consequences. The concern is, therefore, not just the act, and not even just the intent to follow desire, but the wrongly oriented mind.

His arguments are relatively simple. The messed up mind leads to misdirected feelings and actions which are contrary to nature (μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας) (1:26–27), that is, to how God made people – because all people are heterosexual. Paul speaks of burning passion (ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι 1:27), not because he is happy with misdirected passion on a low flame, but because he assumes that such messed up minds produce strong passion which lead to such depravity (Kαὶ καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα 1:28). He also uses the language of shame, because for him, given his gender assumptions, it is humiliating for a man to take a woman’s role, the inferior role, as passive partner in such relations (τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς· 1:24; πάθη ἀτιμίας, 1:26; τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην 1:27). ^[36] It is also shameful for both partners since they are acting contrary to how God created them. “For one another” (εἰς ἀλλήλους) in 1:27 shows that he includes mutual consenting relations in his condemnation.

Paul’s judgement in Romans 1, very probably reflected in his use of “male-bedders” (ἀρσενοκοῖται) and “softies” (μαλακοὶ) in the vice list of 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (cf. also ἀρσενοκοίταις ἀνδραποδισταῖς 1 Tim 1:10), ^[37] makes good sense, given his assumption that all people are hetero. Some will feel bound by their approach to scripture to agree. If you do not, then you must face the implications of how to respond to the genuinely gay. I do not believe gay people are helped when exegetes with loving fudgery explain Paul away. If our faith allows us, it is better to take scripture seriously, as we should on what it says about women and circumcision, and recognise that its truth also inspires us to deal with new situations and new knowledge in ways consistent with its core value of social justice. There will be howls of protest, as there were against setting circumcision aside, but we will, to my mind, stand in better continuity with Paul and ultimately Jesus on doing so.