The Apostle Paul: Misogynist or Champion of Gender Equality?

Most of us readily see Jesus’ countercultural treatment of women and how He elevated women in His interactions with them and in His teachings. We recognize that He often confronted the social norms and beliefs concerning women so prevalent in His day.

And then comes Paul whose teachings have a far more misogynist feel. With Paul, it seems that once again women are inferior, subordinate,  weak-willed, and prone to deception. Though Paul is a champion of racial socio-economic equality, it seems gender equality is not something he champions. While he praises women for their work in one breath, he restricts them for those very activities in the next.

But when we intentionally put aside our presuppositions, our traditional certainty as to what we think he taught, and the inherent implications in the words used to translate his writings, we begin to see Paul in a different light. We begin to see that he was not a believer in the inferiority of women, nor did he advocate a secondary role for women in the church or teach some notion of a hierarchy with husbands ruling over their wives. 

“Paul consistency championed the principle of sexual equality within the Church and the home. He carefully avoided those words in Greek that would connote meanings that–ironically–our modern English translations imply! He carefully selected words in writing about women and marriage, challenging the social roles for women in his age, and the philosophy and theology that defined the roles. And yet his words have been interpreted so as to defend the very roles he challenged!”(1)

Like an artist who chooses the perfect color for each section of a painting, Paul was deliberate in his choice of words. As we look at several of these words, we realize that Paul was intentionally declaring a message of gender equality, and in a way that would not place undue obstacles to the acceptance of the gospel message.

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.”(1 Tim. 2:12, NASB)

This verse has been understood to mean that Paul is prohibiting women from having any authority over men. But, is that what Paul is saying?  In the Greek, there are several words that Paul could have chosen: exousia, kuros, and authenteo. “Exousia,” with 102 occurrences in the NT, is the most common Greek word for authority and is the most likely choice if Paul was referring to women having or exercising rightful authority. But Paul avoids this Greek word and chooses an extremely rare word for what he wants to communicate to women concerning teaching and authority…authentein. This is the only usage of the Greek word “authentein” in the entire Bible, with only 2 well-documented and uncontested occurrences in all Greek texts from Paul’s day.

One is from a papyrus, BGU 1208, and is closest to the time of Paul, establishing a clear context of the word and its meaning. It is a letter of apology written by a man named Tryphon to a slaveowner, Asklepiades, to apologize for taking authority over the man’s slave. The entire reason for writing was that he had exercised authentein when he did not have exousia over the slave. Interestingly, though the man who translated this letter continually insisted upon the meaning having negative connotation, taking authority rather than having authority, others continue to misquote his translation to give authentein a more positive spin.(2) The second usage is a fragment from the Rhetorica of Philodemus. In this usage, it means “murderer” or “those who murder.(3)

When we broaden the time frame to include a century or two before and after Paul, we find about a dozen usages of the word and all of them are strong, emotionally-laden words that have negative or dominating overtones such as, murderer, or perpetrator of a crime. It wasn’t until the 2nd century AD that authentein began to be understood as “to have or exercise authority,” but it still carried such strong negative connotations that it was considered a vulgar term to use. A late 2nd century grammarian writes that “the word should never be used for the despot as certain court speakers do, but for the one who kills with his own hand”.(4)

Paul specifically chose an extremely rare word that carried strong negative connotations meaning murder or the taking of unrightfully authority in his letter to Timothy and not one that would prohibit women from the rightful exercising of authority. Yet, he has been misunderstood to say that women cannot have authority over men, even authority that is rightfully given.

“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is head of the church…”(Eph. 5:22-23, NASB)

When Paul spoke of submission, he was again very specific in the term he chose and bypassed several words(hupakouo, peitharcheo) that would have been closer to the meaning we apply to the one he chose(hupotasso). Hupakouo means “to obey,” “be subject to.” Connoting dutiful obedience, hupakouo is the word Paul used in Ephesians 6 to refer to children obey their parents. Peitharcheo is built upon the Greek word arche(ruler) and is used to describe obedience to one who is in authority. This is the word Paul used when referring to obedience to governmental authorities(Tit. 3:1). Hupotasso, which means “to subject to,”  might be used of a conquering conquering the vanquished. But Paul never used hupotasso in its active form to describe any person. He doesn’t tell husbands to hupatosso their wives. He writes to the wives, using the middle voice which emphasizes the voluntary nature of ” be subject to.”

In English, we have 2 voices: active and passive. In the active voice, the subject of the sentence is responsible for the action. For example, “My husband loves me.” In the passive voice, the subject is being acted upon, as in “I am loved by my husband.” The Greek language has a third voice, the middle voice. In this voice, the subject of the verb is acting in a way that affects the subject. In a sense, the person is both subject and object of the verb. It expresses a voluntary action by the subject of the verb upon the subject of the verb. When used in the middle voice, in this voluntary sense, hupotasso means something like “give allegiance to,” “tend to the needs of,” “be supportive of,” “be responsive to.”(5)

Hupotasso can also be used as a military term, referring to a person taking a position in a phalanx of soldiers. There is no reference to rank or status, but the equal sharing of the task which the soldiers were ordered to do. If ordered to “hupotassomai,” it meant to return to the line, join your fellows, be supportive of them, fulfill your part of the assignment.  Similar to agapao, it involves giving up one’s self-interest to serve and care for the needs of another person. This is why Paul can tell all believers to “hupotassomai” one another. It doesn’t mean one is in authority and the other is subordinate, that one commands and the other obeys. It’s a voluntary coming into alignment with another, supporting each other, without self-interest.

Paul is not teaching obedience to an authority or a dutiful obedience, but a responsive supportive serving. He is not telling husbands to subject their wives, or place their wives in subjection. Nor is he telling wives to subject themselves to their husbands. He is encouraging wives to voluntarily put aside their own self-interest to serve and support their husbands, being responsive to their needs rather than concerned with their own.

The third word Paul was specific about choosing was “kephale,” translated as “head” in the above verse. Traditionally, we have understood this verse to mean that the husband rules over the wife; he has authority over her. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians of the church wrote, “The relation of a husband to his wife is, in a certain way, like that of a master to his servant, insofar as the latter ought to be governed by the commands of his master.”(6)

But, Paul used no words that mean or imply rule or authority. As discussed earlier, exousia is the most obvious and common Greek word for authority. Kurios is another excellent choice to denote one who rules over another person…one who is master, lord, or sir. Arche is yet another obvious choice when speaking of one who has authority over another person. But Paul chose none of these words…and used a word that doesn’t have anything to do with authority or rule…at least it didn’t in his day when he was writing to the Ephesians.

What does kephale mean? It means a literal head. To our thinking, the most obvious metaphor is one of commanding because the head is the command center of the body, directing all the functions of the body.  But, in Paul’s day, they didn’t have that knowledge of the brain. They had no comprehension of the relationship between head and body that we have today.

“We are perhaps too well aware of the fact that we think with our brains. To us it is accordingly the most natural thing in the world to understand “head” in terms of direction and sovereignty. In the physical body, it is the head that makes the decisions and gives the commands and when we use “head” metaphorically we quite naturally think of sovereignty. Our problem when we approach the New Testament is that the function fo the central nervous system was not known to the ancients; they were unaware of the fact that we think with our brains”(7)

Another metaphor is the head of a company, the CEO. He’s the one in charge, makes all the decisions, and delegates to those under him. But, kephale didn’t have this meaning or connotation in the 1st century. In secular usage, kephale was not employed for the head of a society.(8) Kephale didn’t refer to someone who was in charge of something. Arche or kurios are the best choices if one wanted to refer to someone in charge over others. Another indication that head did not mean leader is seen in the translation of the Septuagint. Of the 180 occurrences of the Hebrew word for head, rosh, only a small handful are translated as kephale.

Another alternative meaning of kephale is “headwaters, source of a river.” According to the Liddel, Scott, and Jones Greek-English Lexicon, one of the most exhaustive and well-respected lexicons of ancient Greek does not give authority or leader as a possible meaning, but does include the meaning of “source, origin, starting point.”(9) Marg Mowczko writes the LSJ’s full entry for kephale in her blog. The Hebrew word, rosh, also can mean the point of origin. The Jewish new year is Rosh Hoshanah, the head of the year. The first day of the year is not in authority over the other days, but is the starting point. The rest of the year “flows from” that first day.( 10)

Wayne Grudem, prominent theologian and author of Systematic Theology, disputes the claim that authority or leader is not a prominent definition of kephale in 1st century Greek. Citing over 2,000 references, he maintains that there is significant evidence such usage of kephale such usage, and little support for “source.”(11) However, after analyzing every passage Grudem cites, others have concluded there remains no “clear and unambiguous instances of kephale used as Grudem maintains.(12) In the appendix of his latest edition of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, co-authored with John Piper, Grudem asserts that “all major lexicons give this meaning(authority), whereas none give the meaning of ‘source.'”(13) But, a quick read of the entry in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament reveals this to be false. The TDNT contains no mention of authority or rule, and “source” is one of the listed definitions.(14)

Paul also chooses kephale in 1 Corinthians 11:

“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”(v.3, NIV)

If we would understand kephale to mean authority, this verse would seem to delineate a hierarchy except the order is mixed up. If authority is in Paul’s mind, it would make better sense to follow the line of authority from God to Christ to man to woman. But, he moves from Christ to man to woman to God. Understanding kephale to mean authority in this verse can affect our Christology. But, if we understand kephale to mean source or point of origin, it clears up any possible confusion.

The origin of man is Christ. Christ is the agent of God in creation. The Word was with God from the beginning(John 1:1) and by him and through him all things exist(1 Cor. 8:6)

The origin of woman is man. Woman, ishah, is taken out of man, ish.(Gen. 2:21-23)

The origin of Christ is God. The Son had come forth from the Father(Jn. 13:3).

Later, Paul reminds his readers that neither woman nor man is independent of the other for while woman came from man, man has come from women since then. Gender equality and mutuality is the implication. 

We cannot superimpose our understanding of head into Paul’s writings if those connotations did not exist in the time period he was writing. It would be akin to someone in the 21st century or beyond, reading a book from the late 19th century about a child who was gay, and insisting that this child was a homosexual. The term gay was first used of homosexuals in the mid-20th century and could not have been the author’s meaning a century prior to that. In the same way, kephale did not have any connotation of authority prior to the 2nd century AD so we cannot insist upon that meaning in Paul’s letters.

Paul was certainly familiar with all of these Greek words and specifically avoided some in favor of others, even obscure ones. The words he chose speak powerfully of equality and mutuality rather than rule and subordination. Unfortunately, church leaders who had been influenced by Greek philosophy and thought interpreted Paul’s words in a way that resulted in the church teaching views of women and their roles which Paul was actually challenging.

When we look at the entirety of Paul’s writings regarding women and marriage, we see a strong message of gender equality in a culture of blatant inequality.  Thanks to Paul…

…women are not deformed males as was believed but male and female are one in Christ(Gal. 5:23)
…women as well as men can lead in worship(1 Cor. 11:4) in a culture that only counted men in determining a quorum for worship…where men could go closer to the presence of God than women.
…women are to learn(1 Tim 2:11) though Greek and Hebrew culture believed teaching women was akin to teaching them obscenity and women were inferior in their ability to reason.
…marriage and intimacy are gifts from God(1 Cor. 11:12, Eph 5:31) not distractions from greater pursuits and to be avoided as commonly thought.
…sexual intimacy must be confined to marriage.(1 Cor. 6, 15-20, 7:1-2,36-38) This may be a no-brainer to us, but it was revolutionary in a culture in which men normally had wives to care for their homes and raise legitimate heirs, and other women to take care of their sexual desires.
…husbands and wives are to be responsive to the needs of each other(1 Cor. 7:3-5, Eph. 5:22-33) in a culture that believe one is to command and the other to obey.
…woman is the glory of man(1 Cor. 11) in a culture that believed women were morally weak and a source of temptation.
…wives have authority over their husbands body as well(1 Cor. 11) in a culture that permitted men to abstain against his wife’s wishes but could impose a fine if she refused him.
…a woman has authority on her own head(1 For 11) in a culture that taught the authority over a woman belonged to her father first then her husband when she married.
…marriage is permanent in a culture that allowed divorce if the husband didn’t like his wife, or she didn’t bear sons.

When we study Paul’s writings in their historical and cultural context, and seriously consider his choice of words and how they have been erroneously interpreted and taught, we realize that Paul is arguably the greatest defender of women’s rights and champion of gender equality the church has ever known!

Endnotes:
1. Bristow, John Temple. 1988. What Paul Really Said About Women. (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishing), p. 3. 
2. Payne, Philip. 2009. One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), pp. 365-367
3. Ibid. p. 370-373.
4. Kroeger, Richard and Catherine Clark. 1992. I Suffer Not a Woman. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books), p. 90.
5. Bristow, John Temple. 1988. What Paul Really Said About Women. (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishing), p. 39-40.
6. Ibid., p. 43. 
7. Leon Morris, as quoted from https://margmowczko.com/leon-morris-on-head-in-the-new-testament/
8. Kittel, G., Friedrich, G.(Ed). Translated by Geoffrey Bromily. 1972. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol III. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co.), p. 674.
9. https://margmowczko.com/lsj-definitions-of-kephale/
10. Bailey, Kenneth E. Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 302.
11. Piper, John and Grudem, Wayne. 1991, 2006. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (Wheaton, IL: Good News Publishers) Appendix 1: I:1:b, 2:c. Kindle ed. 
12. Payne, Philip. 2009. One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 120. Payne discusses several responses from both Grudem and Cervin concerning the ancient meaning of kephale. Grudem also cites with praise a letter from P.W.G. Glare that kephale is the word normally used to translate the Hebrew rosh, frequently denoting leader or chief, despite the fact that the LXX translators almost always chose not to use kephale when rosh signifies “leader.”
13. Piper, John and Grudem, Wayne. 1991, 2006. Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. (Wheaton, IL: Good News Publishers), Appendix 1: I:2:a. Kindle ed.
14. Kittel, G., Friedrich, G.(Ed). Translated by Geoffrey Bromily. 1972. Theological Dictionary fo the New Testament, Vol III. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co.), pp. 674-681.