I’ve often heard explanations along these lines: In Paul’s day, there were “different expectations about how women participated in society, including in church meetings.” It doesn’t mean that “women cannot speak and lead in the Church today.” Many people see Paul as simply a product of an oppressive culture. Instead, I’d suggest that Paul was progressive on gender issues. Let me explain.

If we interpret Paul’s perspective as being stuck in a bygone era and dismiss it as such, his writings may seem contradictory. They certainly did for me. Why would he tell women to not speak in church and submit to their husbands on one hand and mention women in high leadership positions who are speaking in church on another? (1 Corinthians 34-35; Romans 16:1–3, 7; Acts 18:24–26; 1 Corinthians 1:11; Acts 21:9). Many faith traditions have used Paul’s writings to justify harmful practices of gender hierarchy (Marsden, 2018; Du Mez, 2020; Stankorb, 2023). Yet this is precisely the paradox: the very passages that have been used to reinforce cultural and relational imbalances may actually have been Paul’s way of cautioning against them. Which is why we can’t afford to rely only on a literal hermeneutic to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ. We need fresh eyes and multiple approaches if we want to discern and understand scripture. For Paul’s letters, beyond reading them literally, some question whether he even wrote all the passages attributed to him (Ehrman, 2013; Collins, 2006). Others look at interpretation and translation issues (Payne, 2009; Keener, 1992). 

For me, the most compelling arguments on controversial passages attributed to Paul come from thinkers, theologians, and scholars who analyze his rhetoric, style, and strategy (Forbes, 2016; Blankenhorn, et al., 2004; Westfall, 2006/2016; Barr, 2019). Beth Allison Barr’s public-facing book, “The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth,” has drawn wide attention. Though her focus is mainly on the construction of biblical womanhood, her reflections on Paul are engaging, and accessible. Over time, I have absorbed and developed ideas from a range of scholars whose influence I can no longer precisely trace or cite. As such, I have made an effort to cite probable sources. I apologize for any shortcomings in this regard. I have included a few references for scholarly works in rhetorical analysis that I did not cite in the text. These are experts whose knowledge far surpasses my own.

Let’s zoom in for a moment to set the stage for where I’m going. First, Paul was highly educated. He had a masterful command of language and culture (Walton, 2018). From my perspective, when Paul taught, he often made efforts to build on common ground. For example, when Paul arrived in Athens, he could have taken the opportunity to rebuke them for their pagan practices; instead he said, “I can see that in every way you are very spiritual” (Acts 17:22-23). He mentions the altar the people had erected to “an Unknown God” to illustrate that he was simply reintroducing them to a God they were already familiar with (Ellis, 2023). He used familiar language and even quoted their poets (Ellis, 2023). 

Given Paul’s education and skill with language, it is reasonable to assume that he drew upon common Greco-Roman rhetorical devices. One such device was synkrisis (comparison), in which people, practices, or ways of life were set side by side in a text, or discussion, so that the superiority of one would become clear. Another was refutatio (refutation), where a familiar or opposing view was first stated and then countered with a stronger alternative (Forbes, 2016; Adlešič, n.d.) 

When we read Paul through this lens, we can start to tease out a different meaning. Watch for the moments when he begins with a cultural code, practice, or belief his audience would recognize, and then subtly redirects it toward a Christ-centered ethic (Mouton, 2014; Westfall, 2006/2016). Keep in mind that chapters and verses were added much later and can interrupt the natural flow of thought. What is distinctive in Paul’s usage is not the rhetorical forms themselves, but the way he employs them to unveil a higher path grounded in the Gospel — inviting both his original audience and us into a holier way of being (Forbes, 2016).

Paul was well versed in Roman codes of conduct and law. These traditions prescribed rigid roles for men, women, and slaves: the pater familias, or male head of household, held absolute authority over his wife, children, and slaves. Wives, in particular, were expected to be submissive and obedient. Against this backdrop, Paul uses the familiar Haustafeln (household codes) in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5–6 to build on (Mouton, 2014; Dudrey, 1999; Barr, 2021). He addresses wives, children, and slaves directly, treating them as moral agents which was unusual for the time. Most radically, Paul juxtaposes the cultural expectation of wives’ submission with a call for mutual submission (Eph. 5:21) and commands husbands to “love your wives as Christ loved the church” (Eph. 5:25). The code remains recognizable in form, but its hierarchical claims are hollowed out: husbands are reminded that they, too, are under authority, accountable to their own Master in heaven (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1).

Romans 7 provides another example. In verse 1-3, Paul seems to employ this rhetorical device, outlining current practices and laws regarding marriage. Many faith traditions have instituted belief systems and practices based on verses 1-3. I suggest that Paul’s purpose is not espousing the marriage practices outlined in these three verses. I posit that the chapter is ultimately not about marriage at all. Instead, Paul uses it as an analogy to illustrate that when we die, man made laws have no power over us. By extension, Paul explains that through Christ, believers undergo a profound transition. In Romans 6, he teaches that when we die to sin, we are made alive in Christ (6:11). He then carries this imagery into Romans 7, showing that we have also “died to the law through the body of Christ” so that we may belong to him and bear fruit for God (7:4). Throughout these verses, Paul underscores that human laws and practices can never ultimately save; only God’s law, fulfilled in Jesus. Taken together, these passages invite us into a more fruitful path as disciples of Jesus Christ.

One day, as I sat with Paul’s passages, my thoughts turned to Aristotle. In the ancient world, ideas about gender and household order were deeply entrenched (Dudrey, 1999; Gill, 2012). Though Aristotle lived centuries before Paul, his ideas lingered in the cultural air of the Greco-Roman world. In “Politics,” Aristotle prescribed household hierarchies: husband over wife, father over child, master over slave, practices that endured in the Roman household codes of Paul’s day (Lord, 2022). 

I might as well confess: I carry a serious grudge against Aristotle for some of the things he said about women. In “Generation of Animals,” he described “The female is, as it were, a mutilated male” and “lacking the vital heat to bring reproduction to perfection” (Aristotle, 2020). Aristotle went so far as to claim that sperm carried the “soul,” while menstrual blood was nothing more than impure semen (2020). You know, the defective product of deficient males. Makes perfect sense, right? 

Even the artwork of Paul’s day reflected the idea that the male body was normative and superior, while the female was deficient and incomplete. Having a background in Humanities and art history, the male-centric art of Paul’s day came to mind. Emperors, gods, generals, and civic leaders were depicted on coins, frescoes, sculptures, and reliefs with idealized male bodies (Zanker, 1988; Barrow, 2018). In essence, men were visually reinforced as the standard of power, strength, virtue, and authority.

Against such a background, these words leapt off the page for me: “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies” (Ephesians 5:28). I like to imagine that these words would have struck Paul’s audience as absurd, maybe even laughable, and I can’t help thinking they might land the same way with some of today’s gym bros. Far from echoing the patriarchal norms of his culture, it is possible that Paul’s words pointed to a radically counter-cultural vision of marriage—one rooted in mutuality and love rather than hierarchy and domination.

By the medieval period, Thomas Aquinas reconciled Aristotle’s biology with Christian theology, arguing that while woman was created purposefully by God, she remained a “misbegotten male” (Aquinas, n.d.; Edwards, 2019; Emery & Levering, 2015; Clack, 2016). In this way, Aristotelian theories reasserted themselves, shaping centuries of Christian teaching on gender (Clack, 2016). If one adopts the lens I’ve described, it could be said that later Christian interpreters did not always preserve this approach. This has had a lasting impact on Christian practice and beliefs about order, authority, and the place of women within Christian communities and the family.

In conclusion, in my view, Paul’s writings challenged the cultural practices of his day and offered a new vision of gendered relations. Some may see this as a generous reading, and that is fair. As for myself, I value any approach that opens up fresh ways of interpreting and applying scripture. My intent is not to settle the debate, but to suggest another way of understanding Paul that highlights the countercultural possibilities in his words.

Resources

Adlešič, G. (n.d.). A Brief Introduction to Classical Rhetorical Invention for Beginners. [PDF].

Aristotle. (2020). Generation of animals, & History of Animals I, Parts of animals I (C. D. C. Reeve, Trans.). Hackett Publishing Company, Inc..(Book IV, 2, 766a–b). 

Aquinas, “The Production of the Woman,” ST, I, 92, ob. 1, http://summa-theologiae.org/question/09201.htm.

Barrow, R. (2018). Gender, identity and the body in Greek and Roman Sculpture. Cambridge University Press.

Barr, B. A., & et Historia, F. (2019). Paul, Medieval Women, and Fify. Fides et Historia, 51(1), 1-17.

Barr, B. A. (2021). The making of biblical womanhood: How the subjugation of women became gospel truth. Baker Books. https://www.amazon.com/Making-Biblical-Womanhood-Subjugation-Became/dp/1587434709

Blankenhorn, D., Browning, D. S., & Van Leeuwen, M. S. (Eds.). (2004). Does Christianity teach male headship?: The equal-regard marriage and its critics. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Clack, B. (2016). Thomas Aquinas. In Misogyny in the Western Philosophical Tradition (pp. 82-90). Routledge.

Collins, R. F. (2006). Letters that Paul did not write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Dudrey, R. (1999). ” Submit Yourselves to One Another”: A Socio-historical Look at the Household Code of Ephesians 5: 15-6: 9. Restoration Quarterly, 41, 27-44.

Du Mez, K. K. (2020). Jesus and John Wayne: How white evangelicals corrupted a faith and fractured a nation. Liveright Publishing. https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-John-Wayne-Evangelicals-Corrupted/dp/1631495739

Edwards, M. (2019). Aristotle and early Christian thought. Routledge.

Ellis, J. (2023). The Apostle Paul in Athens: ‘An Unknown God,’ Pagan Poetry, and Christian Contextualization. Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, Volume 11 ~ Issue 6 (2023) pp: 20-33. Open access at Quest Journals. https://www.questjournals.org/jrhss/papers/vol11-issue6/11062033.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Ehrman, B. D. (2012). Forgery and counterforgery: the use of literary deceit in early Christian polemics. Oxford University Press.

Forbes, C. (2016). Paul and rhetorical comparison. Paul in the Greco-Roman world: A handbook, 196-299.

Gill, C. (2012). The transformation of Aristotle’s ethics in Roman philosophy. The Reception of Aristotle’s Ethics, 31-52.

Keener, C. S. (1992). Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul. Baker Books.

Keener, C. S. (2005). 1-2 Corinthians. Cambridge University Press.

Keener, C. S. (2008). Some Rhetorical Techniques in Acts 24: 2–21. In Paul’s World (pp. 221-251). Brill.

Keener, C. S. (2016). The mind of the Spirit: Paul’s approach to transformed thinking. Baker Academic.

Lord, C. (Ed.). (2022). Aristotle’s politics. University of Chicago Press. Book I, 1253b–1259a.

Marsden, D. (2018). The Church’s contribution to domestic violence: Submission, headship, and patriarchy. In Rape culture, gender violence, and religion: Christian perspectives (pp. 73-95). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Mouton, E. (2014). Reimagining ancient household ethos? On the implied rhetorical effect of Ephesians 5: 21-33. Neotestamentica, 48(1), 163-185.

Payne, P. B. (2009). Man and woman, one in Christ: An exegetical and theological study of Paul’s letters. Zondervan.

Stankorb, S. (2023). Disobedient Women: How a Small Group of Faithful Women Exposed Abuse, Brought Down Powerful Pastors, and Ignited an Evangelical Reckoning. Worthy Books. https://www.amazon.com/Disobedient-Women-Faithful-Evangelical-Reckoning-ebook/dp/B0BP2MTYYF#detailBullets_feature_div

Walton, S. (2018). Book Review: Tom Wright, Paul: A Biography.

Westfall, C. L. (2006). A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews.

Westfall, C. L. (2016). Paul and gender: reclaiming the apostle’s vision for men and women in Christ. Baker Academic. https://inchristus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ExcerptWestfallPaulGndr.pdf

Westfall, C. L. (2019). Mapping the Text How Discourse Analysis Helps Reveal. The Epistle of James: Linguistic Exegesis of an Early Christian Letter, 11.

Witherington, B. (2004). Paul’s letter to the Romans: A socio-rhetorical commentary. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Witherington, B., & Myers, J. A. (2022). New Testament rhetoric: An introductory guide to the art of persuasion in and of the New Testament. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Zanker, P. (1988). The power of images in the age of Augustus. University of Michigan Press.