Lecture 4: Issues in Theological Anthropology

Introduction
The Enlightenment has levelled up humanity to the centre stage. Humanity and human
reason had become the governing principles of reality. Although that move was an
attempt to overthrow cosmology that was characteristically Christian, Christian
theology from very early has been understood as a human enterprise of getting
deeper into the Christian faith. It is all about primarily understanding about God
and secondarily about oneself. This in turn gives way to the prominence of the
doctrine of humanity in the whole enterprise of theology. In this lecture, we will
deal two prominent issues in theological anthropology – the constitutional nature of
human beings and the issue of the equality of women with men.

I. The Constitutional Nature of Human Beings

A. Monistic View
Most naturalists would argue that human beings are monistic, that is, that they are purely
physical and that they have no soul or immaterial substance to their being. There are
many conservative theologians who would also argue along similar lines, though they
nonetheless regard humankind as a special creation of God with a special destiny (at least
for the saved). But, there are several good, scriptural reasons for rejecting the monist
account of human constitution. First, since God is a person and he does not have a body,
but is spirit, we can safely argue that possessing a body is not the sine qua non of being a
person. That is, ‘personhood’ can exist apart from embodiment. Further, God could be
considered a paradigm case of personhood and if this is so, then only those beings that
bear a similarity (i.e., possess the attributes, not just functions) to the paradigm case can
be considered as persons. Second, the OT term nephesh, while it can refer to a body or
parts of a body, nonetheless often identifies a person after death. It therefore refers to the
soul/person which has departed a body, is still conscious, and as the immaterial aspect of
a person may return to the body if God so wills (Gen 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21-22). Third, the
OT portrays man as created of both material and immaterial substances (Gen 2:7; Ezek
37:6, 8-10, 14). Fourth, Jesus continued to exist after his death and before his resurrection
which seems to imply that there was some immaterial aspect to his (human) being. Fifth,
human beings are regarded as living spirits in the disembodied state (Heb 12:23; Rev 6:9-
11 [souls]). Sixth, the future resurrection of all people indicates that there is an
intermediate state as departed souls await this resurrection. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are
still alive (Matt 22:37). Moses and Elijah are alive as well (Matt 17:1-13). The story of
Lazarus and the rich man seems to imply conscious life after physical death (Luke 16:19-
31). Finally, Jesus made a clear distinction between the soul and body in Matthew 10:28:
‘Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of
the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell’. All these observations are most
easily understood on the basis of a substances dualism in humankind (i.e., he is both

1
material and immaterial).1 We, therefore move on to talk about the two primary
understandings of the immaterial aspect of humankind.
B. Trichotomistic View
Many Christian theologians have argued for a trichotomous view of human beings, that a
person is body, soul, and spirit, where each term refers to separate substances. This view
has often been advanced on the basis of passages such as 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Hebrews
4:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:14. The major problem with this view, and the reason it is not
well received any longer, is the almost universal recognition that the Bible uses ‘soul’ and
‘spirit’ interchangeably (Luke 1:46-47; John 12:27; 13:21). Further, Mark 12:30 appears
to list about four aspects of humankind: heart, soul, mind, strength. Are we to regard each
of these as constituting a different substance? That is not Jesus’ point, nor is it Paul’s in 1
Thessalonians 5:23. The point in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12 is not to inform
Christians as to the precise substances which make up their immaterial nature, but rather
that sanctification is to encompass the whole person. Thus it is tenuous at best to infer
from these two texts specific details about our immaterial nature.

C. Dichotomistic View
Taking all the biblical evidence into consideration, it appears that the best view is some
form of dichotomy. In any view of humanity, however, two things need to be held in
tension: (1) that human beings are composite beings with both complex material as well
as complex immaterial aspects; (2) that they are portrayed in Scripture as unified beings,
so that what they do with their bodies involves their spirits and the motions their spirits
engage in involve their bodies. In fact, both appear to be involved in everything we do.
This view of human nature relates human beings well to their Creator in heaven and their
commission here on earth. It also reads the biblical data in a manner a little more
consistent with the use of terms in Scripture (where two or more terms can refer to the
same immaterial substance). Both body and soul are created by God and are distinct
aspects of our personal makeup. The biblical view of human beings differs sharply from
early Greek views. Our body and soul make up a duality, not a dualism. In Greek
dualistic theories the body and soul are seen as incompatible substances that coexist in
constant tension. They are fundamentally incompatible. Usually dualism asserts that there
is something inherently evil or imperfect about anything physical and therefore sees the
body as an evil container for the pure soul. For the Greek, salvation ultimately meant
redemption from the body when the soul is finally released from the prison house of the
flesh.

The biblical view of the body is that it is created good and has no inherent evil in its
physical substance. Yet it suffers from moral corruption just like the soul. Human beings
are sinful in both body and soul. Christianity, far from teaching redemption from the
body, teaches redemption of the body.Finally, given our current culture, it is necessary to
point out that when we argue for an immaterial aspect to humans’ nature, using terms like

1
For further discussion on this issue, consult Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical
Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 472, 474, 483; J. P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae, Body and Soul: Human
Nature & The Crisis in Ethics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 17-47. For a defence of the monist position,
see J. A. T. Robinson, The Body (London: SPCK, 1952), and the relevant articles in Warren S. Brown, Nancy Murphy
and H. Newton Maloney, eds. Whatever Happened to the Soul: Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998).

2
soul and spirit, we are not saying as many in the New Age movement(s) have claimed,
that we all possess ‘god’ in us. What we are saying is that there is more to us than just
matter; we are also spiritually oriented beings, created in God’s image (but not that we
are ‘gods’ in any sense).

II. The Fall of Humankind and the Image of God

Genesis 3 describes for us one of the most diabolical and saddest points in our very early
history. Adam had been commanded by God not eat from the fruit of the tree which was
in the middle of the garden. The command was concise, yet clear, and the consequence of
disobedience was lucidly and emphatically delineated: ‘you shall most certainly die’ (Gen
2:16-17). But with the entrance of the serpent, who we now realize was Satan himself (2
Cor 11:3), came the entrance of deceit and trickery. ‘The serpent was craftier than all the
wild animals the Lord God had made, and he said to the woman…’ (Gen 3:1). Well, you
know the rest of the story: We ate the forbidden fruit, died spiritually (something the
Devil forgot [neglected?] to mention) and were judged by God immediately (Gen 3:6-
19); death through murder came almost instantaneously (Gen 4), and eventually we died
physically (cf. ‘and then he died’, Gen 5). From our first parents we receive both the guilt
of sin as well as a corrupt nature (Rom 5:12-21).

The image of God, as a result of the fall, is effaced but not erased. The Noahic covenant,
instituting a measure of authority among human beings for dealing with murder (Gen 9:6-
7), the command to procreate, and prohibitions against such things as favouritism (James
3:9), are all based on the existence of the ‘image of God’ in humankind, even after the
fall; all these commands are related to the image of God in a post-Fall context.
The image of God, while severely distorted in the fall, is nonetheless being renewed
progressively for those who are ‘in Christ’ (in terms of ‘knowledge’ in Col. 3:10).
Finally, when the saints reside in heaven, the image of God will be completely restored in
them. In short, God has chosen us to be holy in his sight and to be conformed totally to
the image of his Son (Eph 1:3-4; Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49), who is said to be “the image of
God” (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15).

III. The Role of Women in the Church

A. Preliminary Remarks
In the period which is often referred to as post-WW II the issue human rights has got a
stronghold in the Western society and thought. The fact that the Holocaust proved that
human dignity could be wordlessly violated prompted sociologists, anthropologists and
even theologians that issue of human rights has to come to the fore in any discourse
centring on human beings. It was against this backdrop the issue of gender equality and
subsequent controversies over it arose. Particularly, the rise of feminism marked the
eventual controversies over gender issues in the Western society.

B. Feminist Theology at a Glance

One of the modern theologies is feminist theology. The rise of this theological segment
within the circle of theology can be attributed to the influence of the Enlightenment,
which arose during the 17th century. In the wake of the Enlightenment (the ‘Age of
Reason’), there appeared quite drastic paradigm shift that elevated man into the centre

3
stage. Bosch rightly points out this particular characteristic: ‘Humanity derived its
existence and validity from “below” and no longer from “above.”’2 In other words, God
was relegated or even excluded from the scene and human now began to exercise
autonomy over their existence. Obviously, Enlightenment and its tenets influenced the
theological thinking of Protestant churches to a considerable degree. And it is this
influence which has been very much responsible for the rise of different lines of
theological thought at times. Feminist theology is one of such theological lines of thought
which elevated and acclaimed women’s experience, an experience that arose out of their
despised gender status within societies, to the extent of becoming authority in doing
theology and hermeneutics. Granz and Olson lucidly summarise what Pamela Dickey
Young identified as the main themes of feminist theology:
Traditional Christian theology is patriarchal (done by men and for men);
traditional theology has ignored or caricatured women and women’s experience;
the patriarchal nature of theology has had deleterious consequences for women;
and therefore women must begin to be theologians and equal shapers of the
theological enterprise.3

Besides that of Young’s, Grenz and Olson add a fifth and common theme that ‘women’s
experience, as defined by feminists, must be the source and form for any serious
contemporary Christian theology.’4 This provides a clue that it is the experience of
women – oppression, social relegation, domestic violence – that serves as the mainstay of
Christian theology, feminist theologians commonly contend. Upholding human
experience (in this case, of women) has its own trace in the rather revolutionary theology
of Friedrich D. E. Schleiermacher, who, more than anybody else, acclaimed human
experience as a shaper of Christian theology.5 Not only this but also the proponents of
this theological wing have so far sought to reconstruct the biblical accounts as well as
Christian origins contained therein. They revolted against the classical/ traditional
Christian theology.6 Furthermore, feminist theology has something to share with
liberation theologies by elevating human experience (especially of oppression) to be a
measuring scale of any serious theological enterprise. In other words, theology arises not
from ‘above’ (as Neo-Orthodoxy rigorously affirms), but from ‘below’, out of a grave
oppressive situation as experienced by human beings; and in this case, women. In so
doing, feminist theology could be identified as a granddaughter of the 17th century
Enlightenment thought, which uplifted human beings to the kernel.

However, the teaching of feminist theology has never been without criticisms. For
example, Elizabeth Achtemeier expresses her fear in this way: ‘If we make our own
experience the measure of the Word of God, it is very easy to ignore or discard anything

2
David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, American Society of Missiology
Series, No. 16 (Maryknoll, NY.: Orbis, 1991) 263.
3
Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, 20th – Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age (Downers
Grove, IL.: IVP, 1992) 226.
4
Ibid. My emphasis.
5
For an extended discussion on Schleiermacher’s theological method, see Grenz and Olson, 20th – Century, 43-46.
6
Many hard-liners of this wing have written so many books; among them the most prominent ones are: Elisabeth
Schüussler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins, 2nd ed. (London,
UK.: SCM, 1994); Rosmery Radford Ruether, Women and Redemption: A Theological History (London, UK.: SCM,
1994).

4
in the biblical Word that is unpleasant or that calls us and our lifestyles into question.’7
There are a number of theologians (both women and men) who have tried to tackle the
very radical attitude of feminist theology, a mention of whose names may not be
important for this lecture. Nevertheless, feminist theology has achieved, more than
anything, awareness of gender related issues in the church. Many churches in modern
societies have tried to respond to the basic points of the theology, rather practically.

C. Gender Issues in Ethiopian Evangelical Churches

Ethiopia is, obviously, one of the African countries in which traditional society prevails.
This entails the fact that it is traditional cultural values which dominate in the society, if
not at all. And it is quite needless to say that the evangelical Christians in Ethiopia are but
from this society. Therefore, one can easily observe a number of traces of those cultural
values in the churches. The society is in general androcentric or patriarchal, it is
undeniable. That is, women are mostly regarded as secondary in status or inferior to
men.8 Women are objects of social segregation, sexual harassment and abuse, domestic
violence and un-education.9 Moreover, occupationally, women are limited to house
motherhood, spending much of their time in kitchen preparing food for the family. The
worst of this cultural practice is the fact that when a baby girl is born many people
(sometimes including the husband) regard it as unfortunate. It seems that women are by
nature inferior to men. In the church, though the condition is not as such worst, women
are not privileged into certain ministerial engagements. In many congregations as well as
local churches women are not given leadership role, for example, except being assigned
on some other roles such as choir, prayer groups, cleaning and so on. Although remained
unheard, some courageous women have tried to raise the issue. And those who are for
androcentrism have maliciously used some texts like Gen 1:27; 2: 18, 21-22; 1 Cor 11:1-
16, 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2:9-25, to exalt men’s superiority in the church and its ministries.

D. The Attitudes towards Women in the Antiquity

Plato: a bad man’s fate would be reincarnation as a woman.
Aristotle: a female is a kind of mutilated male; she is an imperfect male, ‘accidentally
produced by the father’s inadequacy or by the malign influence of a moist south wind’.
OT: ba’al is a patriarchal term (husband in English), meaning ‘lord’, or ‘ruler’.
Ben Sira: a woman’s wickedness and anger are terrible (25:13-15); we all die because of
a woman; encourages a man to separate from his wife if she is disobedient (25:16-26).
Daughters are presented as a grave concern to man (26:10-12; 43:9-14). Man’s
wickedness is presented as better than woman’s goodness (42:14).
Other Jewish writings:
Josephus: the woman is inferior to the man in every way.

7
Elizabeth Achtemeier, ‘The Impossible Possibility: Evaluating the Feminist Approach to Bible and Theology’,
Interpretation 42 (1988) 51. Elaine Storkey also makes a fairly constructed and profoundly biblical Christian feminism.
Elaine Storkey, What’s Right with Feminism (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1985) 131-179. Grenz and Olson still
conclude their assessment of feminist theology by calling it for upholding the transcendence of God. Grenz and Olson,
20th – Century, 236.
8
Almaz Eshete, ‘Perspectives on Gender and Development’, in Tsehai Berhane-Selassie (ed.), Gender Issues in
Ethiopia (Addis Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian Studies, AAU, 1991) 2-3.
9
Judy El-Bushra and Eugenia Piza Lopez, ‘Gender-Related Violence’, in Helen O’Connell (ed.), Women and Conflict,
Oxfam Focus on Gender (Oxford, UK.: Oxfam, 1993) 1-9.

5
 Talmud: God is thanked every morning by a Jewish male for not making him a
Gentile, a slave or a woman.
Jewish law: a woman is treated as a thing, her husband’s possession.

Some early Church Fathers: it is only the male that fully possesses the image of God.
Tertullian: ‘You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree; you
are the first deserter of the divine law; you are she who persuaded him whom the devil
was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account
of your desert – that is, death – even the Son of God had to die’.

Traditional Christianity: overwhelmingly patriarchal, based on male rule with women

having a clearly subordinate role.

E. Biblical Perspective on Womanhood and Manhood

As was noted above, one can easily observe the very fact women are most of the time
considered as inferior in their status (both ontologically as well as socially) to that of their
male counterparts.10 What is it to be human according to the Bible? What are the basic
biblical tenets of manhood and womanhood? Does the Bible presuppose equality between
both sexes? Such questions squarely are dealt with in this section.

1. Old Testament
Genesis 1:27 says: ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he
created them; male and female he created them.’ This significant text ostensibly indicates
the very fact that men and women are equally created in the image of God, in his
likeness. In the clause, ‘So God created man’, on can see the term ‘man’ (’ādām) is
employed to refer to humanity. At this point, it is worth-quoting what Hoekema attests:
The Hebrew word ’ādām…may also mean man in the generic sense: man as a
human being. In this sense, the word has the same meaning as the German
Mensch: not man in distinction from woman, but man in distinction from non-
human creatures, that is, mans a either male or female, or man as both male and
female.11

Not only this consideration in se the final one, but also the fact that the word ’ādām
sounds like the Hebrew for ground ’ādāmâ is something deserving a due observation, and
this could be considered as an equalising factor in the relationship between men and
women.12 Nevertheless, one may still ask what this idea really implies. It may be noticed
10
Erickson underlines this fact in his discussion of the universality of humanity. Millard J. Erickson, Christian
Theology (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker, 1989) 545: ‘Women have at times been regarded as, at best, second-class
members of the human race.’
11
Anthony A. Hoekema, Creation in God’s Image (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1986) 12. His emphasis. Further,
from etymological point of view, the term ’ādām has a broader meaning that embraces the entire humanity. See this
aspect in Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament
(Oxford, UK.: Clarendon, 1907) 9.; Gary Alan Long, ‘ ’, in Willem A. VanGemeren (gen. Ed.), New
International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, vol. I (Carlisle, UK.: Paternoster, 1996) 262-266.
According to the finding of Long, the word ’ādām occurs in the Old Testament some 555 times in a manner exclusive
of the personal name ‘Adam’. Long, ‘’, 263. From a grammatical angle, Sherlock observes: ‘The word ’ēt
’ādām (v. 27), including the accusative particle ’ēt, is a collective noun meaning ‘humankind’, ‘humanity’, the race as
a whole, rather than the proper name ’ādām, ‘Adam’, which first occurs at Genesis 3:17.’ Charles Sherlock, The
Doctrine of Humanity, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL.: IVP, 1996) 34-35.
12
Brown, Driver and Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, 9-10.

6
one can also use this text (or clause) to exacerbate the superiority-inferiority tides
between both sexes. However, there are a number of scholars who oppose this
hermeneutical syndrome. Karl Barth, for example, regards the differentiation (that is,
male-female) as duality in unity or fellowship: ‘Man is no more solitary than God. But as
God is One, and He alone is God, so man is one and alone, and two only in the duality of
his kind, i.e., in the duality of man and woman.’13 Paul K. Jewett is one same voice in the
perspective of systematic theology. He firmly maintains that ‘the form of our humanity as
male and female points to the true purpose of life as community with God and
neighbours.’14

Genesis 2:18, 21-22: ‘The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will
make a helper suitable for him…. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep
sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place
with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man,
and he brought her to the man.”’ What does this portion of the second account of creation
in Genesis entail?

Many People misleadingly conceive that these verses lucidly imply a kind of superiority-
inferiority structure within humanity, due to its information that the woman is taken (by
God) from man. Erickson notices that the word ‘helper’ as describing the woman may be
counted as implying a sort of inferiority or subordination of the woman to the man.15 But
a closer etymological consideration outfits this conception. Westermann thinks of the text
as depiction of Yahweh’s reflection pointing out a deficiency, looking to a ‘form of
human existence where the man is living in a state in which he has no proper
counterpart.’16 This may raise certain questions but what Westermann is trying to affirm
is human community contains at its crux the community formed of man and woman.17
The Hebrew word kendegdô (suitable, NIV) is placed next to ‘ezer (helper) as modifier of
the latter. In its prepositional appearance, the former is rendered as corresponding or
equal.18 And this asserts the equal status of the woman to the man. The other possible
answer comes from the reason why man needed a helper. The answer could be laid on the
task of the man as outlined in Gen 1:28 – to multiply, subdue and rule over the earth. And
since man, in his single state, cannot fulfil this task, he needed a companion or helper
suitable to and co-equal with him.19

13
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/1, § 41 (Edinburgh, UK.: T & T Clark, 1958) 186; idem. Church Dogmatics, III/4,
§ 54 (Edinburgh, UK.: T & T Clark, 1961) 156-158, 173-175.
14
Paul K. Jewett, Who We Are: Our Dignity as Human, A Neo-Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans,
1996) 133. For a possible question, whether man or woman alone constitutes humanity, Westermann answers: ‘A lone
human being remains a complete human being in his lonesomeness. What is being said here is that a human being must
be seen as one whose destiny it is to live in community; people have been created to live with each other.’ Claus
Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary, E.T. by John J. Scullion S. J. (Minneapolis, MN.: Augsburg, 1984) 160.
15
Erickson, Christian Theology, 546.
16
Westermann, Genesis, 227.
17
Ibid.; See also Herman Gunkel, Genesis, E.T. by Mark E. Biddle, Mercer Library of Biblical Studies (Macon, GA.:
Mercer University Press, 1997) 11.
18
Brown Driver and Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, 617.
19
This idea is also shared by Laurence A. Turner, Genesis, Readings: A New Biblical Commentary (Sheffield, UK.:
Sheffield Academic, 2000) 28-29. For that matter, it is from the man’s side (equality) that God took a rib, not from his
head (superiority) and not from his leg (inferiority), metaphorically speaking.

7
Genesis 3:18: ‘Your desire will be for you husband, and he will rule over you.’ It is
obvious that this judgmental verdict is an outcome of a serious mistake committed by
Adam and Eve upon the deception of the devil having appeared in the form of a serpent.
It is at this particular point within the history of humankind that God’s perfectly good
intention for humankind started to get distorted and blurred. Put rightly, the original
intention of God’s creation of humankind in a way equality between the two sexes has
become disrupted, not because of God’s pronouncement of judgment on humankind, but
humankind’s failure to safeguard the perfect relationship with God. Hence, one could
verifiably argue that ever since this particular point of history, the male-female equality,
which had once constituted humanity in its fullness, became dissolved yielding inequality
that has resulted in the looking down of women (by men) as secondary and inferior. What
is argued here is that the matter of equality between man and woman belongs to the
original intention of God’s creative act, albeit it was (and has been) distorted ever since
the Fall.

2. New Testament
Martin Luther recurrently asserts that at the heart of the Scripture is found Jesus Christ.20
Especially, the New Testament, whose explicit account is that of Jesus Christ, speaks of
matters related to Christian life in the light of the realm of salvation inaugurated through
the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. What does the teaching of the New Testament
reveal as regards man and woman (this time, not ontologically but soteriologically) in
their constituency of the new humanity in Christ? Since the gospels and Pauline epistles
make up more than half of the New Testament, these writings will next be focused on.

a. The Gospels – Jesus

Jesus is the key figure in the Gospels. And he never appears, as far as the gospel accounts
are concerned, to treat women based on their gender category (just as it had typically
been the characteristic of his environment), but based on their personhood. In other
words, Jesus does not treat women as ‘women’ but as persons. The overall driving force
of Jesus’ attitude towards women is that he is the deliverer especially of the humble and
oppressed, and to call all without distinction (race, colour, gender, and so on) to the
liberty in God’s kingdom. Jesus is characterised in such a manner in the gospels, some of
which are listed as follows:
- Jesus speaks to the woman at the well (John 4:27)
- He calls a woman the daughter of Abraham (Luke 13:16)
- He speaks for women (Mark 12:40)
- He does not hesitate to contact ‘unclean’ women (Mark 1:31)
- Jesus was companied by a band of women who persevered not only until his death, but
also until his glorification (Mark 15:40-41; 16:1-8).21
In general, the gospels (especially Luke) portray Jesus as identifying himself in solidarity
with the poor and despised.

2. Pauline Epistles – Paul

20
Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, E.T. by Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia, PA.: Fortress, 1966) 74-81.
21
The writer of this paper owes Albrecht Oepke for the list. Albrecht Oepke, ‘
’, in Gerhard Kittel (ed.),
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, E.T. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. I (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans,
1964) 784-785.

8
In 2 Corinthians 5:17, Paul says: ‘Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation;
the old has gone, the new has come.’ It is this affirmation that serves the theological
perspective of Paul as a vehicle. In other words, Paul’s perspective on the humanity being
transformed (in Christ) into a new humanity could provide a rather sound hermeneutical
principle through which one can potently wrestle with the difficult passages found in
some of his epistles.

In 1 Cor 11:7, Paul says: ‘A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and
glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.’ This verse is one of the difficult
readings in Paul. Often time, this verse is looked upon to denote exclusion of women
from the ‘image’, Sherlock rightly observes affirming that this misreads Paul.22 This is
not what Paul is trying to reach at. Rather, he is very much concerned with the
maintaining of the horizontal distinction of the two sexes of humanity. In the words of
Sherlock:
‘The issue under discussion in this passage is the Corinthians’ apparent disregard
for any distinction between the genders. Not only could this attitude lead to
licence and immortality (lifestyles typical of ancient Corinth), so bringing
disgrace on the church; it also contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis that
women and men are different….’23

Nevertheless, Paul, later in v. 11, appears to point his addressees towards the unifying
vehicle of his theological-anthropological perspective of the new humanity in Christ. This
is also reinforced in what Paul attests in Gal 3:26-28: ‘You are all sons of God through
faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptised into Christ. There is neither Jew
nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.’

F. Prospect on Women in Ministry – A Concluding Synthesis

So far, it has been gone through the biblical perspective of womanhood and manhood.
And concerning the full participation of women in the church’s ministry, people employ
so many argumentative cases as well as biblical texts. The tendency is that they argue
from two points of view – from the nature of women and from the nature of the
ministerial offices within the church.24

However, what could possibly make a good ground for the positive argument of women’s
full participation in the church’s ministry is the idea of community. For Luther, the
church is communion sanctorum (community of saints).25 It is a community of persons
(both women and men) who are justified by faith (alone) through God’s grace. It is a
community in which there is ‘neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female…,
[but] one in Christ Jesus’ (Gal 3:28). This latter idea needs to be upheld as the main
bulwark of the idea of the church as community. It is a fellowship or community in which
22
Sherlock, Humanity, 51.
23
Ibid. This idea is also shared by Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans/Carlisle, UK.: Paternoster, 1995) 232-240. See
also Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New
International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans/Carlisle, UK.: Paternoster, 2000) 833-837.
24
In his refutation of such arguments, see how Paul Jewett presents the arguments themselves. Paul K. Jewett, The
Ordination of Women (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1980) 4-25.
25
Paul Althaus, Theology, 294.

9
everybody fully and indiscriminately enjoys participation ‘in the Spirit, in someone’s
faith, in Christ and his sufferings, in the work of the gospel….’26 This is a clear indication
that women and mean are equally called to equally participate in the ministry of the
church. Of course, ‘not everyone is called to all ministries of the church; not everyone is
endowed with the gifts and charismata needed for the different services required within
the body of Christ.’27 Nonetheless, women and men are equally privileged to participate
in the furtherance of God’s kingdom. The men in the churches should realise and
unswervingly acknowledge this very fact. If the attitude is demonstrated (by men) quite
the contrary, Craig Keener rightly admonishes:
But those who turn some people back from their call – whether some pastors who
have crushed the spirits of young ministers, church leaders who have broken the
will of their pastors, or officials or teachers who discourage women from
ministry – will also be held responsible by God for the lives that went
untouched….28

The leaders of the evangelical churches in Ethiopia must continually be confronted with
this grand fact. Especially, men should be courageous enough to teach that women and
men are equally called for ministry in the church rather indiscriminately. This is for the
practical reason that if only women raise their voices for equality in the church’s
ministry, it would automatically be regarded as a violence for liberation sort of thing. So
far so good, the ministry of women in a manner that does not segregate (between women
and men) must thoroughly be worked on if the church is to fulfil its call, profoundly.

26
Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson, 1994) 57.
27
S. Wesley Ariarajah, Did I Betray the Gospel? The Letter of Paul and the Place of Women (Geneva, Switzerland:
World Council of Churches, 1996) 28.
28
Craig S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA.:
Hendrickson, 1992) 249. My emphasis.

10