Despite Schussler Fiorenza’s strong argument, the egalitarian message from Jesus doesn’t seem to fit the context.
This idea of equality among all people did not integrate with the early church and their political agendas. During those emerging years, the church was attempting to establish its place in a patriarchal society. For this reason, the idea that men and woman should have equal status and roles is just not compatible to the perspective of that time period. Other critics believe that Schussler Fiorenza’s is attempting to modernize Jesus. By applying contemporary thinking to the study of Jesus, this egalitarian notion seems to fit our political philosophies, not those of Jesus’
time.
Other scholars also share much of Schussler Fiorenza’s positions. For example, the portrait of Jesus by Ben Witherington also identifies Jesus as the incarnate of Wisdom. Furthermore, the work of John Dominic Crossan highlights the egalitarian message from Jesus. However, her critique has made the most profound impact on how modern scholars now study the life of Jesus. With insight into the social and political context of that time, these scholars are now aware of the influence that androcentric thought had on the Gospels. I credit this aspect to be the greatest significance of her work. Though I believe that Schussler Fiorenza’s critique failed to match the context of the dogmas during that time period, I argue that her perceptions have given rise to a more thorough critique of the Gospels.