What do you think?
Man as Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View
Not without justification, Christian theologians (most of whom have been men) have been described as male chauvinists. But to the extent that such an accusation is fair, Paul Jewett would argue, these theologians are not living up to the genius of Christian theology. That is the burden of this provocative new book. / In Man as Male and Female Professor Jewett sets forth and elaborates a full-orbed theology of human sexuality. The key to it is imbedded in the Genesis account of creation. Not only are we told that Man is created in God's image, but also “male and female created he them.” The differentiation between the sexes, Jewett argues, captures something of the Trinitarian character of the Creator, particularly the dimension of fellowship. / What that means is that the relationship of man to woman is one of partnership, not hierarchy. Man and woman are properly related when they accept each other as equals whose differences complement each other in all areas of life. / Quite a different view took hold as the religion of the Old Testament developed. Man was seen as superior, women inferior; man made the rules, woman obeyed them. Jesus made no radical verbal challenge to that system. But his way of life and his treatment of women, Professor Jewett argues, bespoke a profound new theory, later given definite expression by the Apostle “In Christ there is…no male and female.” In response to those who would quote Paul to support the other side, Professor Jewett contends that Paul's practice simply did not always match his profound and revolutionary insight. / Interspersed among the steps of Professor Jewett's careful theological study are fascinating notes concerning questions like sex in the final eschaton, the martial status of Jesus, the hatred of women in Western thought, and the ordination of women.
204 pages, Paperback
First published April 19, 1975
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
April 27, 2012
When I read this more than three decades ago it provided grounding for a major shift in my theological thinking and a needed affirmation that to be created female was truly of equal value in God's eyes despite the verbal and nonverbal messages to the contrary in the church, society and family I had received.
January 17, 2023
A THEOLOGY PROFESSOR ARGUES AGAINST FEMALE SUBORDINATION
Paul King Jewett (1920–1991) was a Christian theologian, author and prominent advocate of the ordination of women. He taught systematic theology at Fuller Theological Seminary.
He wrote in the Abstract of this 1974 book, “I have sought to gather together in a single essay what has been said by the theologians about Man as male and female, both that which reflects the traditional view and that which seeks to go beyond it… I take the position that the ‘woman question’ … has its roots, theologically speaking, in the doctrine of the ‘imago Dei]… The major portion of the study is devoted to the question of a hierarchical view of the man/woman relationship. My own conclusion is that the case for hierarchy… requires one to argue not only for the priority but also the superiority of the male… The difference between the sexes does not entail a relationship of upper- and subordination. I therefore reject a hierarchical model of the man/woman relationship in favor of a model of partnership.” (Pg. 14)
He wrote in the Introduction, “Though Scripture plainly affirms: ‘… male and female created he them.’(Gen 1:27)… it is striking that the theologians should have bestowed so much indifference upon the affirmation that is immediately subjoined, which tells us that this uniquely endowed creature is male and female.” (Pg. 19)
He explains, “We turn … to a view … which may be called ‘novel’ as theological positions go… According to this view, Genesis 1:27b … is an exposition of Genesis 1:27a (‘in the image of God created he him’)…” (Pg. 33)
He suggests, “Furthermore, while the term ‘praying’ can describe a private act at home, ‘prophesying’ really cannot. This term refers to a public act in the assembly of the church… Hence it is certain that in 1 Cor 11 [Paul] is speaking of women who were leading the congregation in acts of worship with their heads unveiled. The removal of the veil was their offense.” (Pg. 53)
He states, “The woman is subordinate to the man in such a way that the man subordinates himself to the woman; her subordination … is not like any other instance of subordination. It is not like subordination … of the believer to Christ, for the man is not the savior of the woman any more than she is the savior of the man… The authority to which the woman submits is not that of the man, but of the ‘order’ under which they both are placed. This order… calls for a ‘reciprocal subordination’ I which each gives the other his proper due.” (Pg. 82-83)
He summarizes, “We have rejected the argument for female subordination as being incompatible with (a) the biblical narratives of Man’s creation, (b) the revelation which is given us in the life of Jesus, and (c) Paul’s fundamental statement of Christian liberty in the Epistle to the Galatians. To put matters theologically… the problem with the concept of female subordination is that it breaks the analogy of faith. the basic creation narratives imply the equality of male and female as a human fellowship reflecting the fellowship in the Godhead… Any view which subordinates the woman to the man is … incongruous with the fundamental teaching of both the Old and New Testaments.” (Pg. 134)
He argues, “we should look to the passages which point beyond these first-century attitudes toward women to the ideal of the new humanity in Christ… The example of slavery remains… the best we have to illustrate this principle. If we believe that the abolition of slavery is the necessary implication of the message of freedom in Christ, then we cannot regard the implementation of this ideal in the New Testament church as normative. Had the church… interpreted ‘neither slave nor free’ in Gal 3:28 in terms of the explicit implementation in the New Testament, the institution of slavery would never have been abolished. The same is true of women’s liberation. The church today should not strive to maintain the status quo of church life in the first century… Rather, the church should seek to implement fully the principle that in Christ women are truly free.” (Pg. 148)
He summarizes, “we conclude that women have full title to the order of Christian ministry as God shall call them. Let those who scruple only consider what it has cost the church not to use the talents of the woman… sharing the ministry with women does not mean requiring them to think, speak, and act like men. This would be to misunderstand the meaning of our sexual complementarity…” (Pg. 170)
This book will be of great interest for Christians studying issues relating to women.
Paul King Jewett (1920–1991) was a Christian theologian, author and prominent advocate of the ordination of women. He taught systematic theology at Fuller Theological Seminary.
He wrote in the Abstract of this 1974 book, “I have sought to gather together in a single essay what has been said by the theologians about Man as male and female, both that which reflects the traditional view and that which seeks to go beyond it… I take the position that the ‘woman question’ … has its roots, theologically speaking, in the doctrine of the ‘imago Dei]… The major portion of the study is devoted to the question of a hierarchical view of the man/woman relationship. My own conclusion is that the case for hierarchy… requires one to argue not only for the priority but also the superiority of the male… The difference between the sexes does not entail a relationship of upper- and subordination. I therefore reject a hierarchical model of the man/woman relationship in favor of a model of partnership.” (Pg. 14)
He wrote in the Introduction, “Though Scripture plainly affirms: ‘… male and female created he them.’(Gen 1:27)… it is striking that the theologians should have bestowed so much indifference upon the affirmation that is immediately subjoined, which tells us that this uniquely endowed creature is male and female.” (Pg. 19)
He explains, “We turn … to a view … which may be called ‘novel’ as theological positions go… According to this view, Genesis 1:27b … is an exposition of Genesis 1:27a (‘in the image of God created he him’)…” (Pg. 33)
He suggests, “Furthermore, while the term ‘praying’ can describe a private act at home, ‘prophesying’ really cannot. This term refers to a public act in the assembly of the church… Hence it is certain that in 1 Cor 11 [Paul] is speaking of women who were leading the congregation in acts of worship with their heads unveiled. The removal of the veil was their offense.” (Pg. 53)
He states, “The woman is subordinate to the man in such a way that the man subordinates himself to the woman; her subordination … is not like any other instance of subordination. It is not like subordination … of the believer to Christ, for the man is not the savior of the woman any more than she is the savior of the man… The authority to which the woman submits is not that of the man, but of the ‘order’ under which they both are placed. This order… calls for a ‘reciprocal subordination’ I which each gives the other his proper due.” (Pg. 82-83)
He summarizes, “We have rejected the argument for female subordination as being incompatible with (a) the biblical narratives of Man’s creation, (b) the revelation which is given us in the life of Jesus, and (c) Paul’s fundamental statement of Christian liberty in the Epistle to the Galatians. To put matters theologically… the problem with the concept of female subordination is that it breaks the analogy of faith. the basic creation narratives imply the equality of male and female as a human fellowship reflecting the fellowship in the Godhead… Any view which subordinates the woman to the man is … incongruous with the fundamental teaching of both the Old and New Testaments.” (Pg. 134)
He argues, “we should look to the passages which point beyond these first-century attitudes toward women to the ideal of the new humanity in Christ… The example of slavery remains… the best we have to illustrate this principle. If we believe that the abolition of slavery is the necessary implication of the message of freedom in Christ, then we cannot regard the implementation of this ideal in the New Testament church as normative. Had the church… interpreted ‘neither slave nor free’ in Gal 3:28 in terms of the explicit implementation in the New Testament, the institution of slavery would never have been abolished. The same is true of women’s liberation. The church today should not strive to maintain the status quo of church life in the first century… Rather, the church should seek to implement fully the principle that in Christ women are truly free.” (Pg. 148)
He summarizes, “we conclude that women have full title to the order of Christian ministry as God shall call them. Let those who scruple only consider what it has cost the church not to use the talents of the woman… sharing the ministry with women does not mean requiring them to think, speak, and act like men. This would be to misunderstand the meaning of our sexual complementarity…” (Pg. 170)
This book will be of great interest for Christians studying issues relating to women.
July 9, 2025
"Man as M&F" challenges the traditional evangelical position that there is a headership/submission dynamic between men and women. Jewett provides a clear, fair and comprehensive survey of evangelical anthropology and then proceeds to challenge it. Jewett's main gripe is that it is untenable for men and women to both share in the "imago dei" while also having some sort of headship/submission dynamic between the two of them. Instead, Jewett argues that God designed men and women to share in a partnership where both will submit and lead each other depending on the context.
"Man as M&F" was really helpful for me to get a better understanding "egalitarian" theology. My biggest qualms with Jewett's argument is his overstatement of a biblical anthropology in Genesis 2 and his undermining of the authority of Paul's teaching. Jewett didn't explore how motherhood impacts our understanding of womanhood which would have been an interesting angle.
"Man as M&F" was really helpful for me to get a better understanding "egalitarian" theology. My biggest qualms with Jewett's argument is his overstatement of a biblical anthropology in Genesis 2 and his undermining of the authority of Paul's teaching. Jewett didn't explore how motherhood impacts our understanding of womanhood which would have been an interesting angle.
December 31, 2022
Paul K. Jewett’s book, Man as Male and Female, is frequently referenced in the gender debate. As an early champions of egalitarianism, Jewett defends his position with what has now become common egalitarian approaches to Scripture and reasoning. His book receives 2 stars for being honest enough with the inspired text to admit that Paul was clearly teaching what today is called complementarianism. But Jewett simply declares that the Apostle Paul is wrong!
Jewett provides a classic example of the kind of compromise required to reject complementarianism in favor of egalitarianism.
Here is one example that reveals both a low view of Scripture and foolish reasoning (reductio ad absurdum).
Jewett accurately describes the Apostle Paul’s teaching of the Genesis narrative as a literal, temporal chronology (1Tim 2:13) but then rejects it as being too literal! He proceeds to reason that if the temporal priority of creating man before woman and woman out of man is so significant, then the dirt should rule over man because he was created “out of” the dirt! He further argues that the animal kingdom should rule over man because they were created “before” man. Such reasoning is so absurd and contrary to the text in context it’s nearly impossible to respond to it. His reasoning is reductio ad absurdum, (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”). The term reductio ad absurdum refers to anything pushed to absurd extremes.
Finally, like all egalitarians (and postmodern culture) he assumes that any form of hierarchy or subordination automatically includes superior/inferior worth or value. In her forward to Jewett’s book, feminist Virginia Mollenkott claims “to my knowledge, he is the first evangelical theologian to face squarely the fact that if woman must of necessity be subordinate, she must of necessity be inferior” (8).
Bottomline: Egalitarianism and complementarianism are not created equal. Learn to discern.
Jewett provides a classic example of the kind of compromise required to reject complementarianism in favor of egalitarianism.
Here is one example that reveals both a low view of Scripture and foolish reasoning (reductio ad absurdum).
Jewett accurately describes the Apostle Paul’s teaching of the Genesis narrative as a literal, temporal chronology (1Tim 2:13) but then rejects it as being too literal! He proceeds to reason that if the temporal priority of creating man before woman and woman out of man is so significant, then the dirt should rule over man because he was created “out of” the dirt! He further argues that the animal kingdom should rule over man because they were created “before” man. Such reasoning is so absurd and contrary to the text in context it’s nearly impossible to respond to it. His reasoning is reductio ad absurdum, (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”). The term reductio ad absurdum refers to anything pushed to absurd extremes.
Finally, like all egalitarians (and postmodern culture) he assumes that any form of hierarchy or subordination automatically includes superior/inferior worth or value. In her forward to Jewett’s book, feminist Virginia Mollenkott claims “to my knowledge, he is the first evangelical theologian to face squarely the fact that if woman must of necessity be subordinate, she must of necessity be inferior” (8).
Bottomline: Egalitarianism and complementarianism are not created equal. Learn to discern.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews