46 FEMINIST VIEWS THAT UNDERMINE SCRIPTURE
current in his day in order to effectively undergird his instructions to the
Ephesian church.” But since we now know that that is not a correct way
to interpret Genesis, “It does not follow, however, that Paul’s use of the
Genesis data thereby endorses the quoted interpretation of the Genesis
texts as divinely inspired truth to be universally applied in all circum-
stances and under all conditions.”^10
So both Boomsma and Jewett say that Paul was adopting incorrect
Jewish understandings of Genesis 2–3 that were current in his day.
This position allows the church today to disobey the reasoning of
1 Timothy 2:11-15, saying it was a mistake. But Christians who take the
entire Bible as the Word of God, and as authoritative for us today, do
not have that option. The apostle Paul’s interpretation of Genesis 2 as
found in 1 Timothy 2 is part of the Word of God. Therefore it is
“breathed out by God” and cannot contain erroneous interpretations of
Genesis. To say that Paul made a mistake in writing 1 Timothy 2 is
another step on the path toward liberalism.
A related claim that the apostle Paul was wrong is found in the argu-
ment of David Thompson. Thompson argues that Paul misinterprets
Genesis 2, and that we can come to a better understanding of Genesis 2
than Paul did. According to Thompson, there may be unusual times
when we can carefully and cautiously differ with a New Testament
author’s interpretation of an Old Testament text. And one of those times
is when we read Paul’s interpretation of Genesis 2 in 1 Timothy 2.^11
Thompson says that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is hard to interpret. It poses
“particularly complex problems hermeneutically,” and, anyway, we
might be able to reexamine Genesis 2 and disagree with Paul’s interpre-
tation of it: “We should take caution in immediately assuming that
Paul’s reading of Genesis 2 must, without further inquiry, be ours.”^12
Then he says that we should read the Genesis 2 account ourselves and
understand it “on its own terms,” and that our understanding of it can
then be the “arbiter” of Paul’s understanding: “It is entirely possible that
at this point the creation account, understood on its own terms, must
be the arbiter of the more specifically confined reading given by Paul.”^13
(^10) Ibid.
(^11) David L. Thompson, “Women, Men, Slaves, and the Bible: Hermeneutical Inquiries,”
Christian Scholar’s Review 25/3 (March 1996): 326-349.
(^12) Ibid., 346, 347.