Was Paul a Misogynist?

Question

Please, someone explain to me how the following verses are NOT misogyny:

Romans 1:27

1 Corinthians 7:27, 11:3, 11:5-6; 14:34-35

Ephesians 5:22-24

Colossians 3:18

1 Timothy 2:9, 2:11-12, 14-15 5:5-6, 9-15

2 Timothy 3: 6-7

Titus 2:4-5 (even though most scholars believe this was not written by Paul, but by someone else after his death)

These verses have been given over the course of millenia as the BIGGEST reason why women have been denied equal rights. Why else would someone write them, if not with the intent of keeping women "silent" and "subservient"?

A few clarifications of translation in regards to Phebe the “Deacon”, Priscilla and there being no male or female in Christ:

1) The term “deacon” in ancient Greek was used as a generic term referring to “servant”. The scope of Phebe’s “ecclesiastical” authority (if any, which given the context of the term “diakonos” and the use of the term “prostatis”, which means “benefactor”, might be none at all).
2) Priscilla and her husband, Aquila, were never referenced as apostles. They were tentmakers who took Paul in for a time and founded a church in their home, although no mention is ever made of who the leaders of that church were. You’re probably thinking of
3) Junia, or Junius, as it’s often mistranslated. And speaking of mistranslations, “They are outstanding among the Apostles” was not translated properly from the Greek. The translation more accurately reads “well known to the Apostles”.

(continued)
It is clear from her context in the letter that she is not an Apostle- wouldn’t Paul have put an APOSTLE at the very start of his list of salutations, and not right in the middle, where she appears?
4) Galatians 3:28 is not about equality. It’s about unity. Right after, Paul goes on to separate men and women yet again.
5) Romans 1:27 makes the “natural use of the woman” to be as a sexual object for men.


My point is, Paul’s esteem of women is vague, at best. If he likes women as much as the Christians make him out to, why not make them outright equal to men in regards to the church and in the face of God, if he was so “progressive”? His desire to separate men from women with women as the inferior of the two is clear, in context.

My question remains.

Answer 1

Paul was the walrus

Answer 2

No. Where do you get elder from? John is calling himself the Elder. Using this verse to defend that point will lead you into an argument that cannot be proven from that verse. Use the whole of scripture... If the entirety be taken, we see that God has ordained and established definite roles for each gender. If the argument is concerning Paul, the same applies, and it necessarily involves the doctrine of the inspiration of the scriptures...if we say that a man (Paul) was able to place his own opinions regarding women into the scriptures, this is the same as saying the scriptures are not fully inspired...either they are, or they are not...if not, then which parts are inspired? You see the difficulty? The fact is, ALL scriptures contained in the Bible verily are the inspired words of God, and are not mere opinion of men. Ad for the identity of the "elect lady," some believe this can even be a particular church, but I do think it may well have been an individual.

Answer 3

Hum, Romans 1:27 forbids sex between two women. I am not sure why you think that this is related to equal rights for women (unless you are equating gay rights with woman's rights).

As for the rest, consider this: If you assume that Paul was a prophet who spoke for God, then it seems that you are actually accusing God of being a misogynist since God told Paul what to say (consider some of the things that Moses said before you laugh at Paul).

If you do not think that Paul was a prophet, then you must consider Christianity to be fake since almost all of the New Testament goes out the window. If you are not a Christian, then I suppose that it shouldn't really matter to you what Paul said, or what we Christians think that he meant by it. You are not going to come to church anyway.

Answer 4

Study the treatment of women in early Christian society compared to the treatment of women in ancient Greco-Roman society.

Let's see. In Jewish synagogues, the women had to sit outside the main sactuary behind a wall. In ancient Greece, a married woman was not allowed to leave the house unless accompanied by a male relative, and she had to withdraw to her private quarters whenever a guest visited the home. In the early Church, women were allowed to enter the sanctuary with men, were allowed to hold the office of deacon and Apostle, were allowed to read the Scriptures in the public service, and were granted equal standing in the general congregation.

Sure, the early Church was repressive. Why on earth would anyone want to compare first century Christian values with modern values, instead of looking at them in light of the surrounding culture? Early Christianity was by far the most tolerant and liberating religious system to grace the face of the earth. Too bad people don't study ancient culture in school anymore.

And no, Paul was not a misogynist. All of your passages are completely stripped of their social context. Paul clearly explains his view of women in the early Church. Consider the emphasis Paul places on the office of Aposlte and how hard he works to justify himself as an Apostle. If he were a misogynist, why would he bestow the most lofty positition in the Church on a woman (Priscilla)? Considering the value of the deaconate as a clerical office, why would the mysogynist Paul confer that dignity on a woman (Phoebe)? Why would Paul insist that there is no male or female in Christ? Even the 'enlightened' Gnostics insisted that women could not be saved unless they became male.

Answer 5

It is a hard message to hear, but the bible is clear that God created man first, then woman. There are a couple of interpretations of the rationale for these writings.

First:
It was a woman who was beguiled by the serpent, that is, the woman is seen as being more susceptible to evil spiritual attack. That is why the serpent chose Eve for its temptation, as the argument the serpent used would not have worked on Adam. Having women in positions of authority in the church would therefore put them in jeopardy from malevolent forces.

Second:
There is another theology that holds the issues here are related to a divine judgment on women for Eve's sin in Eden. Nevertheless, if you read more you will see than man did not escape judgment, so this is not a one-sided issue.

Recall that Christ, as Mediator, has consented to assume a subordinate rank, and to recognize God the Father as superior in office. Hence, he was obedient in all things as a Son; he submitted to the arrangement required in redemption; he always recognized his subordinate rank as Mediator, and always regarded God as the supreme Ruler, even in the matter of redemption. The sense is, that Christ, throughout his entire work, regarded himself as occupying a subordinate station to the Father; and that it was proper from his example to recognize the propriety of rank and station everywhere, including between men and women.

As for keeping silent in the churches, no rule in the New Testament is more positive than this; and however plausible may be the reasons which may be urged for disregarding it, and for suffering women to take part in conducting public worship, yet the authority of the apostle Paul is positive, and his meaning cannot be mistaken.

In a modern world these things may appear to be antiquated. But we are not at liberty to cherry pick the bible for the scriptures that do not seem to match the politically correct flavors every decade and discard them.

Answer 6

Well, I must say that the WORD is not feminist and women are subservient to men. I have not read right now your verses..... but G-d created MAN and then he created Woman and Yes she is to obey and be in a way subservient to her man. Then again, a MAN is to love, honor, give, listen, and do whatever she needs. But a Woman is in the WORD meant to be a NON equal. I am a Messianic Jew. like a Jew for Jesus.... and it surprised me that this is so....but it makes sense given we have different roles in life. In Judaism, the woman is not required to do the same prayers and cannot refuse her husband sexually. In Christianity, she is simply subservient and has to place as such. In a Jewish Wedding, a real one, the man basically buys the woman and she has no part.... I know this for I was married in Israel. That is the way G-d meant it to be. G-d the world is not a women's libber right winged place. It is not pro choice, it not pro adultery, and it is for the woman to be subservient. I had problems with this also when found Yeshua, Jesus.... but ....... that is the WORD, G-d's word. it is exactly how it is written.

Answer 7

First of all you need to understand the culture at the time. The women were yelling across the synagogue to their husbands and Paul told them to have their questions at home not being disruptive of the service....Lydia had a church meeting in her home and there were other Ladies mentioned in Paul's letters that speak of women in Leadership roles.

Answer 8

I don't know what Rom.1:27 has to do with any rights.You are reading these with a prideful heart.God has ordained a structure in marriage and the church.Jesus should be the head in both,the man is to be under Jesus and the wife under her husband,as in order of submission.If the man is truly following Jesus,loving his wife,even dying for her if need be,There isn't a woman alive,I believe,that would have a problem submitting to a husband who follows the scriptures.We are also told to submit to one another.The man has been appointed to be the head of the household,and along with this, will be held accountable for his choices.If you have a problem with these scriptures,take it up with God.perhaps He will give you some discernment.

Answer 9

Paul never wrote anything that reflected a hatred or dislike for women, but merely reinforced the order of authority God Himself has established in the earth between men and women, even since the time of the Garden of Eden when God said to Eve, "Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you" - this is not to oppress women, but ultimately to liberate them. For consider that even our Savior submitted to authorities here on earth (Pontius Pilate for example). Yet there is none more exalted than He! I encourage you to trust in God and set your sights on heavenly things, not earthly things. For as it is written, "He whom the Son sets free, is free indeed!"

Answer 10

Of course he wasn't.You don't understand the basis of why it was written,the reasoning behind,the culture,anything.You just took a few verses you found objectionable (through 21st century women's lib lenses) and concluded that Paul was a woman-hater.

Answer 11

Definite misogynist.

The sad thing is that he was less of a misogynist than the later church. As earlier manuscripts of Paul's letters have been discovered, it turns out that some of the feminine names in his greetings to the churches got changed to masculine names. None the other way around. It was probably just an innocent slip of the pen.

He also appears to have a fear of sexual activity in general and homosexual activity in particular. One can only speculate what in his back ground led to this.