Women in the New Testament and how they should shape Christians theology on gender

Introduction

Stories have power. In Paula Gooder’s book Phoebe: A Story, she wrote a literary story about what happened after Phoebe[1] took Paul’s letter to the churches in Rome. In chapter 3, the congregation sat down in Prisca[2] and Aquila’s house to ask Phoebe their questions regarding the content of the Pauline epistle. However, before they started the discussion and complaints, they remembered and went through the story of when Jesus fed the five thousand. Gooder wrote, “The more she [Phoebe] listened, the more Phoebe realized that in Corinth, they just didn’t tell tales about Jesus like this.”[3] Gooder described that even though Christians in Corinth knew these stories, they were much more focused on ideas than stories.[4] When wondering about the differences between the churches meeting in both cities, Phoebe thought of how Paul “was far more interested in how Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection would give every aspect of their own lives new meaning.”[5] Moreover, she asked herself, “Maybe his love of ideas led him to be shy of stories?”[6] Even though Christians today cannot be sure of how the events in Rome happened, such a scenario critiques how many Christians today make theology.

The importance of stories and what they can do are underrated in many Christian circles today. The considerable appreciation for a type of theology[7] that can answer every situation of contemporary society without giving space for contradictions seems to make some texts much more attractive than narrative.[8] Peter Enns argued that the Bible is not a rule book but a book that brings its reader to God’s wisdom.[9] Therefore, an attempt to interpret each text of the Bible separately to make everything fit in a box by not allowing the ambiguity of Scripture to exist takes out the richness of the biblical text. Gilbert Meilaender stated, “The very nature of human existence — conceived in Christian terms — is best understood within narrative.”[10] The fact that the Bible is mainly formed by poetry[11] and narrative is constantly taken for granted.

Understanding what the existence of written texts connotates is crucial for a fair use of Scripture. Stephen Crites advocated how different forms of cultural expression are inherent to what it means to be a human: “being capable of having history.”[12] He argued that “they [cultural expressions] are the condition of historical existence; their expressions are molded in the historical process itself into definite products of particular cultures.”[13] Regarding “myths[14] or legends we can read in ancient books,” Crites states that “such stories, and the symbolic worlds they project, are not monuments that men behold, but like dwelling-places. People live in them.”[15] All these reflections on stories’ power should illuminate what Scripture is. An important reason for the hermeneutical problems in Christian and academic circles is not knowing what the Bible is and represents. All the books in the Old and New Testament are the theological exercise of the people of God before and after the coming of Christ. If the Bible were merely a rule book, having at least seventeen books[16] that consist mainly of storytelling would not be productive, considering how interpreting such types of texts is even more subjective than other biblical genres.

However, since the Bible’s purpose is to teach God’s wisdom,[17] narrative texts are critical for demonstrating life reality that brings uncertainty and gray (instead of black and white) circumstances. Enns quoted his professor by claiming that “for Jews, the Bible is a problem to be solved. For Christians, it is a message to be proclaimed.”[18] Therefore, to fall into the Bible’s storytelling means the reader allowing herself or himself to enter a theological world[19] full of God’s truths. When the theological discussion comes to women in ministry, instead of solely debating over Paul’s texts and what he meant or not, the conversation lacks pondering over how the four Gospels portrayed Jesus’ relationship with women and what such a relationship teaches about God’s relationship with them. On that account, the stories in the Gospels advocate for full equality in essence and function when it comes to ministry roles for both women and men.

Biblical Narrative versus Instructive Texts

When the conversation surrounds the New Testament and women in ministry, Pauline’s letters tend to gain considerable attention. Considering that Paul wrote thirteen letters that are part of the Second Testament today, four different texts focus on discussing women being part of leadership inside a church. Most of the time, the main text tends to be 1 Tim 2:11–15, but texts such as 1 Corinthians 11 and 14 and Ephesians 5 are also the center of attention. Considering the costume to treat the Bible as a rulebook, many Christians claim that there is no space for discussion regarding whether women are allowed or not to be pastors. However, even if the only texts that deal with gender topics in the Bible were those in the Pauline corpus letters, the way to read, understand, and apply those texts is not as simple as some people wish. Cynthia Long Westfall explained, “Paul’s theology, teaching, and practice concerning gender are currently central issues in biblical studies and areas that concern biblical studies.”[20] Philip B. Payne stated, “Seeped as he [Paul] was in the Hebrew Scripture, many of his principles are drawn directly from the OT and firmly imply the equal standing of men and women.”[21] Therefore, even if the answer regarding whether women can be church leaders could be only found in Paul, to affirm that he does not allow women to preach is not the final interpretation.

To read the passages from Ephesians, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy as not prohibiting women from occupying some church offices is not the total contribution that Pauline texts can give to defend the equality between women and men under God. Complementarians[22] tend to forget how the text of Romans 16 demonstrates Paul’s view on women in ministry when he recognizes the ministry of many different women, just like Phoebe, Prisca, and Junia, for example. However, when considering the household texts or the ones that seem to prohibit women from doing some functions in the church, Bible readers need to understand how to build the bridge of application from the reality that was the background of the biblical text and Christians’ realities today. Joel B. Green argued that “our task is not simply (and sometimes not at all) to read the content of the message of (say 1 Peter) into our world, as though we were (merely) to adopt its attitudes toward the state or its counsel regarding relations among husbands and wives.”[23] Like Enns, Green explained that the Bible teaches its readers how to think morally according to God’s principle: “We are interested rather (and sometimes only) in inquiring into how 1 Peter itself engages in the task of theology and ethics.”[24] Therefore, stories might be the Bible’s most excellent tool when it comes to absorbing wisdom from Scripture. J. A. Loubser stated, “It is through stories that humanity since the beginning gave meaning to the world.”[25] Even with the understanding that descriptive does not mean prescriptive, the Scripture writers of the narrative texts did a considerable job by putting a specific tone to demonstrate the message of the different plots presented in those books.

Women in the Gospels

Even though the four gospels work differently and are a different genre than the literary texts in the Old Testament, how the four authors structured their books also brings different reflections regarding the events they chose to tell. Furthermore, “each of the four gospels… paints a unique portrait of Jesus Christ.”[26] Accordingly, “Matthew presents Jesus as the Jewish Messiah,” “Mark portrays him as the suffering Son of God,” “Luke’s Jesus is the Savior for all people,” and John introduces Jesus as “the eternal Son of God.”[27] Therefore, when coming across the same event in Jesus’ life present in two or more of the gospels, the author’s intention[28] and the point he was trying to make differed from each other. Strauss pointed out that even though the gospels are “historical literature,” “they are also narratives with features typical of stories, including plot, characters, and setting.”[29] The way each author structures the order of the events corresponds to the points they are trying to make with their work. In addition to the historical and narrative aspects, the gospels are “theological documents written to instruct and encourage believers.”[30] For these reasons, the messages portrayed in the biblical narrative should also form a theology regarding women in ministry or at home.

Considering the limited space, only a few women are the focus of this article. The goal is to demonstrate with some examples how the Bible’s stories regarding women and their relationship with Jesus should give Christians today an egalitarian starting point when it comes to the topic of women in ministry. The texts and women in this paper are Jesus’ genealogy of Matthew, Mary, the mother of God, the woman who anointed Jesus, and Mary the Magdalene as the first witness of Jesus’ resurrection.

Genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew

The understanding that modern society has typically towards genealogy is not necessarily the same regarding the purpose of genealogy texts in the Bible. Loubser stated that “genealogies function as myths of origin.”[31] Just as the goal of the creation story in Genesis is not to give a scientific account of how God created the universe but to pass a theological message about who God is, Jesus’ genealogies serve as theological teaching tools to collaborate for both gospels. Loubser stated that genealogies “supply the framework within which the subsequent narratives operate.”[32]Regarding the genealogy present in the Gospel of Matthew, besides Mary, the texts mentioned four women.

Considering that for every man that Matthew mentioned, there also was a woman who gave birth to the child that followed the man’s name, the question of why Matthew chose to name those four women is crucial. For example, why did Matthew not mention Rebeca (instead of Isaac), considering her prominent role in the plot of Genesis and the fact that God spoke to her about what would happen with her twin sons?

When many Christians think about the four women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy, they point to the sins in their lives and how that demonstrates God’s grace. Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black wrote, “Tamar, and adulteress; Rahab, a harlot; Ruth, the Moabitess, whose late-night approach to Boaz could be questioned (Ruth 3:1–14); and the wife of Uriah, Bathsheba, seduced by David. Their inclusion suggests a theme of grace operating even in the genealogy of Jesus.”[33] The issues with such a logic are straightforward to point out. First, why do those women’s (supposed) sins make their presence in Jesus’ genealogy a demonstration of grace, but not the sins of David and Abraham make their presence in the genealogy a matter of grace? Second, some of the sins that Lea and Black pointed out are questionable. They even stated that Ruth’s approach to Boaz might be a reason to affirm a problematic behavior on her part, but at the same time, other people could claim that she did not do anything wrong since the text is not clear regarding the meaning of the Hebrew word translated as feet. However, even the accusation towards Bathsheba demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the tone of the text and how many narrative elements guide the reader to see David and Bathsheba’s event as rape.

The presence of those women in the genealogy is, without a doubt, much more than a demonstration of God’s grace. Loubser pointed out how genealogies “always express the social awareness of a given group in a given context.”[34] Samuel B. Hakh argued that Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba are all from a Gentile background, and, therefore, Matthew wrote their names there because he “wished to remind his community that Gentiles have been included in the salvation history of God in the past, and also Matthew would like to critique and reject Jews’ undue pride in their bloodline as the children of Abraham.”[35] Matthew uses women to make one of the most crucial theological points that the Old Testament authors started to draw and that the New Testament authors finished developing, demonstrating that women are active agents in God’s salvation plan.

Mary, the mother of God

A woman was the most important human being in history (besides Jesus, as God incarnate). As Amy Peeler affirmed, “Conversely, one cannot proclaim even the most basic Christian confession — Jesus is Lord — without assuming her.”[36] Unfortunately, because of a rejection of any liturgy or expression that resembles Catholicism, Protestants tend not to give Mary the attention that her life deserves. The theological richness in the information the New Testament authors provided on Mary is exceptional. A considerable place to begin analyzing Luke’s report on Mary is by understanding one significant characteristic of one narrative structure in the four gospels. David E. Malick stated, “One such pattern places two narratives in proximity to one another so that the reader will compare and contrast the accounts and arrive at conclusions beyond those contained in either particular narrative.”[37] Considering that the narrative about Gabriel announcing to Mary that she would get pregnant parallels the announcement of Elizabeth’s pregnancy to Zacharias, the first reflections regarding some of the theological implications about Mary come from comparing the reactions of both of them.

Luke presented Zacharias and Mary in a good light by showing they were righteous. However, some differences between both reports should make the reader notice the contrast in the text. As Malick wrote regarding the different types of places that Zacharias and Mary were when the angel made each one of the announcements, “One might expect an angel to appear to a priest in the temple, but not to a woman at home in Nazareth of Galilee.”[38] Considering that Zacharias was a priest, the reader would expect a level of spiritual maturity and faith to deal with the angel’s message. However, Mary, even being a regular young woman, was the one who had the best reaction concerning the message that Gabriel proclaimed. In other words, “even though Zacharias had all of the appearance of being the servant of the Lord as he ministered as an elder priest in the temple… Mary is the one who is the servant of the Lord [Luke 1:38].”[39] Zacharias’ reaction demonstrated unbelief, while Mary wondered how the message Gabriel gave to her would happen since she was a virgin. The fascinating part about the reaction each one of them had is that Zachariah would not have anything to lose by Elizabeth getting pregnant, and considering the numerous examples of barren women giving birth in the Old Testament, he had no reason to doubt. On the other hand, Mary had many different risks by showing up pregnant while she was not married to Joseph yet, and she had no story in Scripture to rely on when comparing her experience.

However, the most fascinating aspect of Mary’s story is what her calling connotates. According to John 3:16, God loved the world and gave his only begotten Son. The Salvation plan did not only involve Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, dying and resurrecting on the third day.[40] God was born. The incarnation precedes the crucifixion because the Son of God came for more than giving himself to die. Furthermore, God was born from a woman. To affirm such a claim seems redundant, but the reason to restate such a fact resides in the theological connotation that it carries since “if the Son of God has flesh, and Christianity had banked its entire system on the affirmation that he does, that flesh is drawn from her.”[41] Peeler stated, “Matthew breaks the rhythm of his genealogy when he asserts not that Joseph begot Jesus, as have all the other fathers in the extensive list — forty-one of them! — but that Jesus the Messiah was begotten from Mary (Matt 1:16).”[42] Mary mothered God.

Accordingly, the incarnated God lived inside of a woman. Considering the Law from the Old Testament background, the theological implications of such a fact are noteworthy. Because of the purity laws, to claim that God inhabited a woman’s body is to say that God saw a woman’s womb as pure as the Holy of Holies that was present in the Tabernacle. Therefore, “the incarnation does indeed make a radical affirmation concerning the female body’s proximity to holiness but not by destroying Judaism or its purity laws. God’s embrace of the flesh makes this affirmation by arriving within the structures of Judaism.”[43] As Peeler explained, “The birth narratives simply yet powerfully affirm her [Mary] role in bearing and caring for Jesus the Son of God and in so doing do make a radical statement about divine holiness encountering women’s bodies.”[44] If God saw a woman as worthy of such a calling, what type of calling could be more significant that women would not have the right to fulfill?

The Woman Who Anointed Jesus

Stories that happen in all four gospels are not too many. The stories that tend to be present in all four accounts are related to the main events in the life of Jesus, such as his death and resurrection. The gospel of Mark, for example, does not even contain its report of Jesus’ birth. However, all four gospels contain a version of a story of a woman anointing Jesus for his burial while different men think and speak against her behavior. The issue that arises relies on the fact that some considerable differences exist when comparing the four accounts.

In Matthew’s account, Jesus was at Bethany, in Simon’s (the leper) house, and a woman anointed his head with ointment. The disciples got angry and questioned the waste of such an expensive product, asking if she could have sold it and given the money to the poor. Jesus spoke up and defended her. In Mark, the location and the woman’s actions were the same as in Matthew. However, Mark does not state who the men who got angry because of what she did; he stated that these men “scolded her,” which made Jesus say, “leave her alone.”[45] Matthew and Mark stated that Jesus said, “Wherever this good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.”[46]In Luke, the story has some significant differences. Luke wrote that Jesus went to the house of a Pharisee named Simon and that the woman who anointed Jesus was a sinner. The Pharisee was the one who demonstrated revolt feelings regarding the woman’s action, but the reason was not that the ointment could be sold so she could give money to the poor. Instead, he thought that if Jesus were a prophet, he would know that that woman touching him was a sinner. In response, Jesus told a parable, and Simon understood it. Jesus exalted the woman’s action in comparison to the lack of servitude from the Pharisee. Jesus told the woman that her sins were forgiven. Also, instead of pouring the ointment onto Jesus’ head, she poured it onto his feet.

On the other hand, in John, the evangelist stated that Jesus went to Lazarus’ house, the man Jesus had resurrected from the dead, and Mary got perfume and anointed Jesus’ feet. Judas disapproved of her behavior, saying that the cost of that perfume could help the poor. Jesus said to leave her alone and that she did it for his burial.

Because of considerable differences between the four reports, some scholars have questioned whether the four evangelists were referring to the same event and woman. However, Christian tradition and some recent scholars defended the fact that the four passages refer to the same person.[47] In all four gospels, such a story presents substantial theological reflections regarding Jesus’ relationship to women. First, the pattern of one man (Judas and the Pharisee) or a group of men (the disciples) rebuking her behavior and Jesus standing up to defend what she was doing should be thought as a parallel to the reality in non-egalitarian churches of women being deprived of serving God in one way or another. The story of the woman in John 4 also makes the disciples wonder why Jesus was relating himself to a woman in a specific and direct way, even though the reasons were different. Also, in the event in Mary and Martha’s house, Jesus said that Mary chose the best part: sitting by his feet and listening to what he was teaching.

Second, the anointing of Jesus demonstrates that Mary practiced authoritative spiritual functions that both men and women did in the Old Testament. The first aspect to consider is the prophetic nature of her anointing Jesus’s head and feet. Charles Homer Giblin stated, “To take Mary’s action as a prophetic announcement of Jesus’ burial followed by his rising incorrupt makes good sense in the context of the narrative structure of John’s Gospel.”[48] The second aspect is a probable echo of Old Testament stories regarding the anointing of kings and high priests. Considering the book of 1 Samuel, Scripture presented Samuel anointing Saul and David as God’s chosen king for Israel. Santiago Guijarro and Ana Rodríguez explained that “the passages… which describe the ritual of anointing speak of a sacred act which takes place at the enthronement of the king… we can define the rite as one of status transformation by which the anointed would acquire publicly a new social role.”[49] Regarding the story report in the four gospels, “the celebrant of the rite is not a prophet but a woman, enacting a function which, for a woman, would have been all but unthinkable in first-centuries Judaism.”[50] Recognizing typology throughout Scripture makes the richness of the biblical text much more evident. Considering such Jewish figures in the Old Testament, the New Testament presents Jesus as the Church’s High Priest and King of kings. Therefore, in the gospel accounts, a woman was the one who anointed the incarnated God for his burial and resurrection.

Mary Magdalene

In 1 Corinthians 15:17, the apostle Paul stated that the Christian faith would be futile if Christ’s resurrection did not happen. In the four gospels, if the extended ending of Mark is considered, the evangelists wrote about women being the first ones to witness the resurrected Christ, with a special mention of Mary Magdalene. Gerald O’ Collins and Daniel Kendall explained that Mary Magdalene “was great enough for Pope Leo the Great… to call her a “figure of the Church”… and, a century later, for Pope Gregory the Great to refer to her as another Eve who announces not death but life.”[51] Also, “Hippolytus of Rome referred to the women at the tomb of Jesus as “apostles,” which developed into Mary Magdalene often being called the apostola apostolorum.”[52] Considering that women were not credible witnesses,[53] Jesus choosing the women, in particular Mary Magdalene, to be “the primary messengers who were commanded to announce the resurrection”[54] should produce theology in favor of women exercising authority within the Church. Collins and Kendall pointed out how the rest of the New Testament does not mention women as the first witness when mentioning people witnessing Christ resurrected.[55] Therefore, the importance of developing theology from the narrative inside of Scripture is demonstrated.

Another example that illustrates how crucial going to the narrative text is how Hebrews 11 does not mention Deborah; instead, the author mentions Barak. Deborah is, without a doubt, the main character (alongside Jael) of Judges 4 and 5. Also, someone does not use 1 Timothy 2:11–15 to interpret Genesis 2 and 3. Instead, Bible readers should use Genesis to understand the passage in 1 Timothy. When it comes to inner-biblical interpretation, the prior texts need to be the starting point and not the interpretation or application of a later author in doing a passage.

Conclusion

Considering the passage of 1 Timothy 2 (or any other one from Paul), people against the equal standing of women and men in ministry will claim that women cannot preach, teach, lead, or be pastors. The first issue with such conclusions comes from the lack of knowledge or recognition that the early church was not structured as Western churches are today. Paul’s letters do not lay out church offices and their functions. A deep study of the Greek and cultural background could make the reader realize that all these passages from Paul do not prohibit women from being pastors. However, another significant problem with the argument regarding whether women are allowed or not to exercise authority also comes from egalitarian arguments.

Many will try to make a comparison, saying that prophecy is a type of authority that might be even higher than theological teaching. By arguing with such a reason, egalitarians are surrendering to the opposing view option with the starting point that some offices are more valuable and accept a power dynamic when it comes to church structure. In addition to how the conversation tends to happen, people (regardless of the side) come from the presupposition that women cannot do a specific type of ministry. However, instead of trying to analyze and prove that women can, Bible readers who profess the introductory theological anthropology of women from Genesis should consider the equal standing of women and men. The idea of any type of inequality should be recognized as a denial of basic theological principles regarding the creation of human beings as equally created in God’s image.

In other words, the reason for such an affirmation comes from the understanding that God did not give unreasonable and arbitrary commands to humanity. Consequently, a reason exists if women cannot be pastors (or exercise any other type of authority within the church). What would be the reason? Did God create women incapable or inferior to men in any type of way? If he did not, why would he not allow it? The answer of equal in essence and distinctive in roles is empty for not giving an actual explanation. Therefore, if God did not make women inferior in any way, he would not for no reason prohibit them from serving him.

Therefore, the stories of these three women in the four gospels bring the theological idea that a God who decided to incarnate through a womb’s womb could not reject a type of ministry from women. Jesus got his flesh from Mary, so how could He reject anything a woman wants to give to him? A common complementary argument is that Adam was created first. If the act of coming first brings a connotation of any type of privilege, women being the first ones to witness the resurrection will bring a theological principle of a type of superiority for women within the church, and it does not. Accordingly, Mary, the mother of God, Mary of Bethany, and Mary Magdalene demonstrated that women were part of the most important events of Jesus’s earthly ministry: his incarnation, birth, anointment, death, and resurrection. Therefore, no type of church office could be of a higher level to claim that women cannot exercise certain types of office within the church.

[1] Paul mentioned Phoebe in Romans 16:1. She would have brought the Romans’s letters to the churches in Rome, and possibly she also was the one who read the letter to the congregation, considering Paul could have explained to her what he meant so Phoebe could clarify any questions from Christians in Rome. Some discussions also exist regarding what would be the best translation for the Greek word διάκονον that can be translated in different ways. For more information on the theological subjects of gender and her ministry, read Nijay Gupta, Tell Her Story: How Woman Led, Taught, and Ministered in the Early Church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2023), 113–127.

[2] Prisca (or Priscilla) is another woman that Paul (and Luke) mentioned regarding prominent figures in the early church. She is also a considerable part of the argument regarding women in ministry. See Gupta, 128–140.

[3] Paula Gooder, Phoebe: A Story (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2018), 18.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] The difference between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology is crucial for a better understanding of the argument being developed in this article. According to Geerhardus Vos, “Biblical Theology applies no other method of grouping and arranging these contents than is given in the divine economy of revelation itself,” while “in systematic theology, these same contents of revelation appear, but not under the aspect of the stages of a divine work; rather as the material for a human work of classifying and systematizing according to logical principles.” Geehardus Vos, “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writing of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2001), 7. Therefore, “biblical theology deals with the content of scripture in its own form, whereas systematic theology takes that content and organzies it in some extraneous form.” Michael Allen, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology — Part One,” Journal of Reformed Theology 14 (2020): 55–56, http://search.ebsco.host.com/.

[8] Some concepts are part of the whole initial proposition of this article. The hermeneutical method that the Bible reader decides to read matters since it demonstrates what the person believes about how Scripture works. A standard methodology in modern Western Christians is the Historical Grammatical Method, which consists of “recover[ing] the author’s meaning and intention by carefully establishing the context — the meaning of his words, the grammar of his language and the historical and cultural circumstances, etc. — in which he wrote.” Bruce K. Waltke, “Historical Grammatical Problems,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1984), 73. The problems that Waltke pointed out regarding the Historical-Grammatical Method are based on “(1) prejudgment; (2) biblical criticism; and (3) context.” Waltke, 73.

[9] Peter Enns, How the Bible Actually Works: In Which I Explain How na Ancient, Ambiguous, and Diverse Book Leads Us to Wisdom Rather Than Answers — and Why That’s Great News (New York: HarperCollins Publisher, 2019), 11.

[10] Gilbert Meilaender, “Theology in Stories: C. S. Lewis and the Narrative Quality of Experience.” Word & World 1 (January 1981): 223, http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[11] “Roughly, one-third of the Old Testament is poetic in form.” Jeffrey G. Audirsch, “Interpreting Hebrew Poetry,” Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry 13, no. 2 (Fall 2016): 32, http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[12] Stephen Crites, “The Narrative Quality of Experience,” American Academy of Religion 39 (September 1971): 291, http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Regarding the term myth, John Badertscher stated, “The term “myth,” used in the sense of a narrative told to inculcate a sense of the meaning and purpose of life, stands in contrast to the more common use, in which it means an assertation made to deceive, or one accepted uncritically. Within any religion, the myths that are told are in some important sense true.” John Badertscher, “On Creation Myths.” Implicit Religion 13 (July 2010): 195, http://search.ebscohost.com/. By using the term myth in the context of this paper, the connotation is the first one mentioned by Badertscher. Some scholars, for example, argue that the creation accounts in Genesis are myths by the way they are written, but not in the sense that these stories are not true, in some sense or another.

[15] Crites, 295.

[16] The seventeen books consist of Genesis, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Esther, Job, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts. Other books, especially in the Old Testament, are also formed with narrative and storytelling and are poetic. However, these seventeen books are solely narrative and also formed with poetic texts.

[17] How the Bible Actually Works, chapter 1.

[18] Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 61.

[19] C. S. Lewis called it Narnia.

[20] Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 1.

[21] Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 69.

[22] Considering the traditional american view that does not believe in the ordination of women in evangelical circles.

[23] Joel B. Green, “Scripture and Theology: Uniting the Two So Long Divided,” in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology, ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 41.

[24] Ibid.

[25] J. A. (Bobby) Loubser, “Invoking the Ancestors: Some Social-Rhetorical Aspects of the Genealogies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke,” Neotestamentica 39 (2005): 129, http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[26] Mark L. Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 30.

[27] Ibid.

[28] The topic of authorial intent is complicated for many different reasons. It is impossible to be sure of the intentions, in the same way, that Bible readers today do not know how much knowledge the biblical authors had regarding the inspiration they received. Stephen E. Fowl, “The Role of Authorial Intention in the Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” in Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology, ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Cambridge, 2000), 71.

[29] Strauss, 33–34.

[30] Ibid, 35–36.

[31] Loubser, 129.

[32] Ibid., 131.

[33] Thomas D. Lea and David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background and Message (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2003), 172–173.

[34] Loubser, 131.

[35] Samuel B. Hakh, “Women in the Genealogy of Matthew,” Exchange 43 (2014): 117, http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[36] Amy Peeler, Women and the Gender of God (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2022), 5.

[37] David E. Malick, “The significance of Three Narrative Parallels of Men and Women in Luke 1, John 3–4, and Acts 9,” Prscilla Papers 28 (Summer 2014): 15, http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[38] Ibid., 16.

[39] Ibid., 17.

[40] Almost as such a claim is not fierce enough.

[41] Peeler, 149.

[42] Ibid., 42.

[43] Ibid., 33–34

[44] Ibid., 42.

[45] New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition.

[46] NRSVUE.

[47] More on: Grenville Kent, “Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany and the sinful woman of Luke 7: the Same Person?” Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary 13 (2010): 13–28, http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[48] Charles Homer Giblin, “Mary’s Anointing for Jesus’ Burial-Resurrection (John12:1–8),” Biblica 73 (1992): 563, http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[49] Santiago Guijarro and Ana Rodríguez, “The Messianic’ Anoiting of Jesus: Mark 14:3–9,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 41 (2011): 137, http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[50] Ibid., 138–139.

[51] Gerald O’ Collins and Daniel Kendall, “Mary Magdalene as Major Witness to Jesus’ Resurrection,” Theological Studies 48 (1987): 632, http://search.ebscohost.com/.

[52] Ibid.

[53] Ibid., 631.

[54] Ibid., 646.

[55] Ibid., 635.