Was St Paul a Misogynist?
A
misogynist
is
someone
who
dislikes
or
is
prejudiced
against
women.
It
is
a
common
misconception
that
St
Paul
was
just
such
a
misogynist.
The
problem
is
that
particular
sentences
from
things
he
wrote
are
so
often
taken
completely
out
of
context,
and
material
to
the
contrary
is
carefully
filtered
out.
The situation regards Paul needs to be accurately conveyed because we live in an age when the
mistreatment of women has become a vital issue for human society. Before we deal with St Paul, we
need to deal with Jesus, since Paul was nothing but a follower of Jesus.
Jesus and Women
First
century
Mediterranean
and
Middle
Eastern
society
was
sexist
in
the
extreme.
I
will
not
quote
some
of
the
thinking
about
women
from
that
time
and
place
because
it
is
extremely
offensive.
However,
it
is
against
that
background
that
we
must
appreciate
the
strong
line
Jesus
took
in
favour
of women.
It
is
clear
from
all
the
Gospels
that
Jesus
had
women
disciples.
This
in
itself
is
a
very
significant
thing.
The
first
three
Gospels
are
known
by
scholars
as
the
Synoptic
Gospels
(meaning
“with
one
eye”)
because
they
approach
the
story
of
Jesus
from
the
same
perspective,
using
the
same
three-
act
structure
involving
Jesus’
ministry
in
Galilee,
his
journey
to
Jerusalem,
and
his
death
and
resurrection in Jerusalem.
In
Mark
15:40-41
we
learn
of
the
women
who
had
followed
Jesus
from
Galilee
down
to
Jerusalem
and
were
there
at
Jesus’
crucifixion
and
death
when
the
male
disciples
had
fled.
This
account
is
paralleled
in
Luke
23:49,55
and
Matthew
27:55-56.
In
fact,
earlier
in
Luke
8:1-3
we
discover
that
a
group
of
women
disciples
had
actually
bank-rolled
Jesus’
mission.
At
Luke
10:38-42
Jesus
defends
the
fact
that
he
is
teaching
a
woman
and
refuses
any
stereotyping
of
her
role
as
a
woman
which
would
take her away from this.
John’s
Gospel,
which
shows
a
different
structure
to
the
Synoptics,
also
demonstrates
Jesus’
open
attitude
toward,
and
valuing
of,
women.
In
John
4:5-29
Jesus
enters
into
a
conversation
with
a
Samaritan
woman
at
a
well.
Normally
at
that
time,
Jews
and
Samaritans
did
not
talk
with
each
other;
but
when
Jesus’
disciples
catch
up
with
him
we
read
that
they
were
surprised,
not
because
Jesus
was
talking
with
a
Samaritan,
but
because
Jesus
was
talking
to
a
woman.
Obviously
Jesus
cut right through their misogyny.
Finally,
and
most
significantly
in
John’s
Gospel,
the
first
person
the
resurrected
Jesus
appears
to
is
a
woman,
and
she
is
given
the
honour
of taking the message of the resurrection to the men.
St Paul’s Approach to Women
Given
Jesus’
attitude
to
women,
it
would
be
somewhat
disharmonious
if
St
Paul
did
not
have
the
same
approach.
Yet
perhaps
the
most
commonly
quoted
comment
of
St
Paul
is
that,
“as
in
all
the
churches,
the
women
should
keep
silent”,
or
“the
man
is
the
head
of
the
woman”
(alternatively,
“the
husband is the head of the wife”). So did St Paul lose the plot, or have we been led astray?
The
books
of
the
Christian
New
Testament
contain
all
the
letters
of
St
Paul
that
we
have,
but
these
books
can
be
pretty
much
unknown
to
many
people.
What
is
not
generally
known
is
that
most
Biblical
scholars
regard
certain
of
those
letters
in
the
New
Testament
as
having
been
written
in
Paul’s
name,
but
not
by
Paul.
This
conclusion
came
long
before
any
dispute
about
Paul’s
attitude
to
women
and
is
based
on
the
fact
that
the
letters
reflect
developments
in
church
life
that
are
too
late
to
have
happened
during
the
lifetime
of
Paul.
Such
secondary
authoring
was
quite
common
in
the
ancient
world.
While
today
we
would
regard
that
as
fraudulent,
in
the
ancient
world
many
would
have
seen
it
as
a
way
to
extend
the
scope
of
Paul’s
guidance
beyond
his
lifetime.
The
problem
is
that
when
such
authoring
is
undertaken
by
those
wedded
to
their
own
culture,
it
threatens
to
drag
Paul’s
teaching
back
to
the
culture
which
Paul
challenged.
The
letters
or
“books”
concerned
are
those
frequently
referred
to
as
the
“Pastoral
Epistles”
and
include
1
and
2
Timothy
and
Titus.
Many
scholars
also
include
2
Peter
in
this
group
as
not
actually
written
by
Peter.
Some
even
suggest
that
Colossians
and
Ephesians
belong
amongst
the
letters
not
written
by
Paul,
but
the
tide
seems
to
have
swung in favour of their authenticity.
Paul’s Baptismal Formula
One
of
the
most
recurring
expressions
in
Paul’s
writings
appears
to
be
the
“baptismal
formula”.
An
example
of
this
is
found
in
St
Paul’s
letter
to
the
Galatians:
“As
many
of
you
as
were
baptized
into
Christ
have
clothed
yourselves
with
Christ.
There
is
no
longer
Jew
or
Greek,
there
is
no
longer
slave
or
free,
there
is
no
longer
male
and
female;
for
all
of
you
are
one
in
Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:27-28 NRS).
For
Paul,
all
these
divisions
had
been
abolished
for
Christians
because
they
had
become
“new
creations
in
Christ”.
The
old
had
passed
away
and
the
new
had
come.
That
Paul
was
serious
about
the
abolition
of
these
divisions
is
fairly
obvious
from
the
content
of
this
letter.
Paul
was
furious
when
St
Peter
buckled
under
pressure
from
some
Jewish
Christians
and
started
to
eat
separately
from
those
Christians
who
were
not
Jewish.
As
far
as
Paul
was
concerned,
there
was
no
separate
form
of
Christianity
for
Jews
compared
to
non-Jews.
Paul
confronted
Peter
“to
his
face”,
leaving
no
doubt what he meant by the abolition of this division in the Church.
Paul
also
left
people
in
no
doubt
what
he
thought
about
the
division
into
slave
and
free.
When
Paul
found
himself
in
the
company
of
a
runaway
slave
(Onesimus)
who
had
become
a
Christian,
he
wrote
to
the
slave
owner
(Philemon)
who
was
also
a
Christian,
telling
him
he
must
receive
Onesimus
back
“no
longer
as
a
slave,
but
as
a
brother
in
Christ”.
Given
the
rules
of
polite
conversation
at
this
time,
Paul was extraordinarily direct. (See Paul’s
Letter to Philemon
in the New Testament.)
It
would
therefore
be
somewhat
strange
if
Paul
did
not
carry
the
same
level
of
determination
to
see
the abolition of the division into “male and female” in the church.
The “Head” Talk
However,
one
of
the
things
that
seems
to
stand
in
the
way
of
this
conclusion
is
Paul’s
reference
to
a
man
as
the
“head”
of
a
woman.
This
expression
can
also
be
taken
to
mean
a
husband
as
the
“head”
of
the
wife.
What
are
we
to
make
of
this
statement
in
the
light
of
Paul’s
baptismal
formula
in
which
there is no longer male and female in Christ?
In
English
the
word
“head”
means
literally
that
part
of
the
body
atop
the
neck
which
usually
contains
eyes,
nose,
mouth,
ears,
hair
and
brain.
Obviously
the
word
“head”
is
not
being
used
in
that
sense
in
these
statements.
Rather
it
is
a
metaphorical
meaning
of
“head”
which
is
being
used
here.
In
English,
one
of
the
most
common
metaphorical
meanings
of
“head”
is
“the
person
in
charge”,
such
as
in
the
terms
“headmaster”
or
“headwaiter”.
However,
Paul
was
not
writing
in
English,
he
was
writing
in
Greek;
and
it
was
not
modern
Greek,
but
an
ancient
form
of
Greek
used
as
a
common
language
in
the
Roman
Empire
of
this
time.
So
what
were
the
possible
metaphorical
meanings
of
the
Greek
equivalent?
In
Greek,
the
word
for
“head”
is
“kephale”
(
κεφαλὴ
).
It
has
the
same
literal
meaning
as
the
word
“head”
in
English.
However,
in
the
1st
Century
Roman
Empire,
the
first
metaphorical
meaning
of
the
word
“kephale”
was
not
“ruler”,
but
“source”.
We
have
this
meaning
occasionally
in
English
when
we
speak
of
the
“fountain
head”,
meaning
the
source
of
a
stream.
While
the
Greek
word
“kephale”
in
ancient
times
could
occasionally
mean
“ruler”,
those
in
ancient
times
who
translated
a
word
meaning
“ruler”
into
Greek
usually
avoided
using
the
Greek
word
“kephale”.
For
example,
when
in
ancient
times
the
Jewish
Scriptures
were
translated
into
Greek
for
the
benefit
of
those
Jews
who
no
longer
spoke
Hebrew,
the
translators
mostly
avoided
translating
the
Hebrew
word
“rosh”,
which
could
mean “ruler”, into the Greek word “kephale”.
So,
armed
with
this
knowledge,
let’s
dive
headlong
into
the
first
letter
of
Paul
to
the
church
at
Corinth,
which
contains
those
words
about
women
keeping
silent
in
church.
However,
instead
of
going
straight
to
that
chapter
(ch.14),
we
will
look
at
what
Paul
says
earlier
in
that
letter,
specifically
chapter
11.
Through
much
of
this
letter
from
Paul
to
the
church
at
Corinth
(1
Corinthians),
Paul
is
talking about their worship, and this chapter (11) is no exception.
The
Roman
Empire
in
the
first
century
was
very
much
a
multicultural
affair.
It
brought
together
cultures
from
all
over
the
Empire,
not
only
as
the
Romans
moved
people
about
for
their
convenience,
but
also
because
the
Empire
provided
a
reign
of
peace
in
which
trade
across
the
Empire flourished.
Christianity
in
the
first
century
was
also
very
much
a
multicultural
affair.
The
various
baptismal
formulas
St
Paul
used
to
describe
life
“in
Christ”
cover
a
range
of
cultures
with
the
insistence
that
they
are
all
“one
in
Christ”.
However,
the
Christian
Faith
also
brought
together
people
of
different
socio-economic
status,
from
slaves
like
Onesimus,
to
wealthy
women
who
owned
the
large
houses
capable
of
accommodating
a
congregation
for
worship.
This
latter
fact
gave
rise
to
tensions,
and
in
the
second
half
of
chapter
11,
Paul
had
to
deal
with
a
situation
surrounding
the
celebration
of
the
Lord’s
Supper
where
the
wealthy
brought
in
food
for
themselves,
and
the
poor
went
without.
As
Paul
explained, this is
not
the way the Lord’s Supper is supposed to be celebrated.
However,
in
the
first
half
of
the
chapter,
Paul
dealt
with
another
issue
in
worship,
women
wearing
veils.
Such
veils
did
not
cover
the
face.
They
were
like
shawls
worn
over
the
head
in
order
to
cover
the
hair.
For
many
years,
Westerners
have
struggled
to
understand
what
Paul
had
on
his
mind
in
this
regard,
but
increased
migration
into
Western
countries
of
people
from
the
Middle
East
has
revealed
that
a
woman’s
wearing
of
such
a
veil
is
considered
a
matter
of
modesty.
Was
this
the
issue
in
the
first
century
world
that
Paul
was
addressing?
Yes,
it
was;
at
least
for
a
significant
proportion
of
the population.
Even
before
he
has
announced
the
issue
he
is
addressing,
Paul
launches
into
a
manner
of
argument
that
seems
bizarre
to
us,
but
was
common
in
the
ancient
world.
Paul
argues
that
a
man
is
the
head
or
source
of
woman
because
in
the
Creation
story
woman
came
out
of
man
(Adam’s
rib).
However,
he
notes
that
“in
the
Lord”;
that
is,
in
the
Christian
life;
man
is
not
set
apart
in
this
function
of
being
the
source
or
head.
He
backs
up
this
claim
with
an
argument
from
Nature,
for
in
Nature,
through
childbirth,
woman
becomes
the
head
or
source
of
man.
These
arguments
seem
bizarre
to
us,
by
they
were
typical
of
debate
in
those
days.
The
problem
for
us
is
that
we
get
so
caught
up
trying
to
understand
Paul’s
bizarre
line
of
reasoning
that
we
“cannot
see
the
forest
for
the
trees”;
we
cannot
see
the
conclusion
that
Paul
is
hoping
to
achieve.
That
conclusion
is
that
any
woman
leading
the
congregation in prayer and prophecy should wear a veil covering her hair.
We
Westerners
do
not
usually
come
to
terms
with
the
issue
because
a
woman
wearing
a
veil
is
alien
to us. However, consider a parallel:
In
the
years
when
I
was
first
studying
divinity
at
university,
a
social
revolution
was
taking
place.
These
were
the
70s
and
“flower
power”
was
the
name
of
the
game.
It
was
also
a
time
when
women
were
throwing
off
what
they
saw
as
the
restrictions
imposed
upon
their
sex
by
men.
One
of
my
fellow
female
students
decided
to
throw
away
her
bra,
a
common
slogan
in
those
years.
During
the
summer
months
this
was
quite
noticeable.
One
day
we
had
a
visiting
female
professor
of
theology
who
invited
the
female
students
to
afternoon
tea
following
her
lecture.
During
that
time,
she
spoke
to
my
friend
about
her
manner
of
dress
and
suggested
that
dressing
that
way
would
result
in
her
being
seen
as
a
sexual
object,
and
not
being
taken
seriously as an academic. My friend restored the bra and went on to great academic success.
I
think
that
Paul
was
saying
the
same
kind
of
thing
to
the
women
at
Corinth.
The
women
should
not
do
anything
to
sabotage
their
credibility
in
their
newfound
freedom
in
Christ.
Amongst
some
of
the
congregation,
a
married
woman’s
uncovered
hair
was
seen
to
be
immodest,
or
even
sexually
provocative.
Biblical
scholar,
Craig
Keener,
quotes
a
Spartan
source
on
the
subject,
which,
while
earlier, still reflected attitudes in those days:
“When
someone
enquired
why
they
took
their
girls
into
public
places
unveiled,
but
their
married
women
veiled,
he
said,
‘Because
the
girls
have
to
find
husbands,
and
the
married
women
have
to
keep
those who have them!’”
It
is
hard
for
us
Westerners
to
understand
that
a
woman’s
uncovered
hair
might
be
considered
sexually
provocative.
About
the
only
people
in
the
West
who
think
that
a
woman’s
hair
is
sexually
provocative
are
the
makers
of
hair
products,
and
we’ve
learned
not
to
be
carried
away
with
their
hype.
However,
to
understand
the
world
of
the
New
Testament,
we
have
to
imagine
ourselves
into
a
world where it was.
I
have
suggested
above
that
getting
caught
up
in
the
‘logic’
by
which
Paul
arrived
at
this
position
resulted
in
us
‘not
seeing
the
forest
for
the
trees’.
I
am
hoping
that
now
‘the
penny
should
drop’.
Paul
gave
a
dress
code
for
women
leading
the
congregation
in
prayer
and
prophecy.
He
thus
endorsed
their voice in worship.
The Famous Misogynist? Saying
What
then,
when
we
come
to
the
infamous
passage
in
chapter
14,
about
the
women
remaining
silent
in
worship?
Clearly
it
can’t
have
been
intended
to
cancel
what
Paul
has
made
clear
in
chapter
11
(treated
above).
The
answer
is
that
we
must
take
a
text
in
its
context
for,
as
the
saying
goes,
‘A
text out of context is a pretext!’
Chapter
14
of
St
Paul’s
letter
(1
Corinthians)
continues
with
the
theme
of
behaviour
in
worship
and
involves
the
advice
that
three
groups
of
people
should
remain
silent.
“The
women”
or
“those
women” are only the third group for whom Paul gives this advice. Let’s take a look at chapter 14:
Speaking in Tongues
27
If
anyone
speaks
in
a
tongue,
let
there
be
only
two
or
at
most
three,
and
each
in
turn;
and
let
one
interpret.
28
But
if
there
is
no
one
to
interpret,
let
them
be
silent
in
church
and
speak
to
themselves and to God. (1Corinthians 14:27-28 NRS)
Prophesying
29
Let
two
or
three
prophets
speak,
and
let
the
others
weigh
what
is
said.
30
If
a
revelation
is
made
to
someone
else
sitting
nearby,
let
the
first
person
be
silent.
31
For
you
can
all
prophesy
one
by
one,
so
that
all
may
learn
and
all
be
encouraged.
32
And
the
spirits
of
prophets
are
subject
to
the
prophets
,
33
for God is a God not of disorder but of peace. (1Corinthians 14:29-33 NRS)
Women asking questions
As
in
all
the
churches
of
the
saints,
34
those
women
should
be
silent
in
the
churches
.
For
they
are
not
permitted
to
speak,
but
should
be
subject
,
as
the
law
also
says.
35
If
there
is
anything
they
desire
to
know,
let
them
ask
their
husbands
at
home.
For
it
is
shameful
for
a
woman
to
speak
in
church. (1Corinthians 14:33-35)
Treating the saying as a fraudulent Insertion
What
are
we
to
make
of
this
advice
concerning
women
in
the
third
example
above?
It
is
problematic,
not
just
because
it
grates
with
modern
ideas
of
the
role
of
women,
but
because
it
appears
to
be
in
conflict
with
what
Paul
said
in
chapter
11
about
a
dress
code
for
women
when
they
are
leading
the
congregation
in
prayer
and
prophecy.
Furthermore,
it
seems
to
interrupt
Paul’s
discussion
about
prophecy
in
this
passage
which
suddenly
stops
in
verse
33
and
continues
in
verse
36.
If
we
remove
these two verses the text flows much more smoothly as follows:
29
Let
two
or
three
prophets
speak,
and
let
the
others
weigh
what
is
said.
30
If
a
revelation
is
made
to
someone
else
sitting
nearby,
let
the
first
person
be
silent.
31
For
you
can
all
prophesy
one
by
one,
so
that
all
may
learn
and
all
be
encouraged.
32
And
the
spirits
of
prophets
are
subject
to
the
prophets,
33
for
God
is
a
God
not
of
disorder
but
of
peace.
…
36
Or
did
the
word
of
God
originate
with
you?
Or
are
you
the
only
ones
it
has
reached?
37
Anyone
who
claims
to
be
a
prophet,
or
to
have
spiritual
powers,
must
acknowledge
that
what
I
am
writing
to
you
is
a
command
of
the
Lord.
38
Anyone
who
does
not
recognize
this
is
not
to
be
recognized.
39
So,
my
friends,
be
eager
to
prophesy,
and
do
not
forbid
speaking
in
tongues;
40
but
all
things
should
be
done
decently
and
in
order. (1Corinthians 14:29-40)
In
this
edited
passage
we
can
see
that
the
discussion
about
prophecy
both
before
and
after
the
sentences
about
women,
flows
very
freely
all
the
way,
and
is
not
interrupted.
This
line
of
argument
is
based
on
context,
rather
than
text.
There
are
some
manuscripts
in
which
the
sentences
about
women
(14:33-35)
do
not
occur,
but
they
are
late
manuscripts
and
the
editing
involved
was
probably
based on a contextual, rather than a textual basis.
Treating the saying as authentic
If
the
sentences
are
authentic,
we
are
faced
with
a
problem
if
taken
at
face
value.
On
their
own,
the
sentences
about
the
women
prohibit
women
from
speaking
at
all
in
a
worship
service.
Even
Fundamentalists
don’t
take
the
sentences
that
literally!
Some
suggest
the
prohibition
is
on
women
teaching men, but there is no reference to teaching at all in these sentences.
If
the
sentences
are
authentic,
then
the
only
possible
solution
is
to
appreciate
the
particular
nature
of
the
letter.
It
is
a
common
principle
in
Biblical
interpretation
that
one
cannot
understand
what
a
letter
might
mean
for
us
until
we
recognise
it
was
not
written
to
us.
So
our
reading
of
this
letter
is
a
bit
like
listening
in
to
one
side
of
a
two-way
telephone
conversation.
The
first
thing
that
jumps
out
at
one,
in
reading
through
the
three
groups
of
people
who
are
asked
to
be
silent,
is
that
the
theme
throughout
is
one
about
doing
things
in
an
orderly
fashion.
In
my
translation
of
the
passage
above,
I
have
translated
the
definite
article
before
the
word
for
women
as
“those”
women
–
something
I
believe
is
valid
grammatically.
The
sentences
about
the
women
would
then
be
about
particular
women
at
Corinth.
Since
the
advice
given
to
them
was
that
they
should
ask
questions
of
their
husbands
at
home
if
they
wished
to
learn,
it
would
appear
that
the
good
order
of
worship
was
under
threat from particular women in the congregation asking questions out aloud at the worship service.
These
particular
women
are
not
the
only
ones
who
are
told
they
should
be
silent.
This
advice
is
given
first
of
all
to
those
who
speak
in
tongues
without
interpretation,
then
to
prophets
when
another
prophet
receives
inspiration,
then
finally
to
those
women
who
seemed
to
be
interrupting
with
questions.
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
both
the
prophets
and
“those
women”
are
advised
to
“be
subject”
in
some
manner
using
the
same
Greek
verb
each
time,
but
some
translators
have
chosen
to
render
the
second
“be
subject”
concerning
the
women
as
being
“subordinate”;
a
variation
that
seems
indefensible.
The
typical
assumption
is
that
this
refers
to
the
women
being
subject
to
men,
but
no
such
statement
is
made.
The
context
shows
that
for
all
three
parties
concerned,
it
is
about
being
“subject”
to
orderly
conduct
in
worship.
It
is
this
orderly
conduct
which
Paul
advises
is
the
practice in all the churches.
New
Testament
scholar,
Craig
Keener,
gives
us
some
insight
into
social
norms
regarding
decorum
at
this time:
“This
principle
is
particularly
applicable
to
uneducated
questioners
who
waste
everyone’s
time
with their questions they have not bothered to first research for themselves.”
He
then
quotes
from
Plutarch,
a
Greek
historian
who
became
a
Roman
citizen,
and
was
roughly
contemporary with Paul:
“For
when
they
are
by
themselves
they
are
not
willing
to
give
themselves
any
trouble,
but
they
give
trouble
to
the
speaker
by
repeatedly
asking
questions
about
the
same
things,
like
unfledged
nestlings
always
agape
toward
the
mouth
of
another,
and
desirous
of
receiving
everything ready prepared and predigested.”
It
would
appear
that
Paul
and
Plutarch
held
pretty
much
the
same
view
about
decorum
in
such
assemblies,
and
that
it
was
lack
of
decorum
exercised
by
some
women
at
Corinth,
rather
than
women
per se, which had earned his rebuke.
So
was
Paul
a
misogynist?
No!
Any
man
who
gave
women
a
dress
code
to
protect
them
from
criticism
when
they
led
a
congregation
in
prayer
and
prophecy,
thus
endorsing
woman’s
voice
in
worship,
would
have
been
well
and
truly
revolutionary
in
his
time.
Fundamentalists
resist
this
understanding,
sometimes
suggesting
that
the
occasions
where
women
led
the
congregation
in
prophecy
occurred
only
in
assemblies
of
women.
There
is
no
evidence
of
this
in
this
letter,
nor
would
it
have
made
sense
of
the
need
to
be
sexually
modest.
Lest
there
be
any
doubt
that
Paul
aimed
for
equality
of
the
sexes,
one
need
only
move
even
earlier
in
his
letter
to
chapter
7,
verses
3-4.
There
Paul
discusses
the
sexual
relationship
between
husband
and
wife.
He
points
out
that
the
wife
does
not
have
authority
over
her
own
body,
the
man
does.
But
before
we
can
accuse
him
of
sexism,
he
points
out
that
the
husband
does
not
have
authority
over
his
own
body,
the
wife
does!
Here
at
the
very
heart
of
their
sexuality,
at
the
very
essence
of
what
makes
them
male
and
female,
Paul
describes
a
mutual
subjection
of
each
one
to
the
other.
It
would
be
very
strange
if
Paul
taught
about
equality
at
the
heart
of
the
difference
between
“male
and
female”,
and
yet
called
for
some
kind
of
sexism
in
things
only
vaguely
related
to
a
person’s sex.