Paul being called a Misogynist makes as much sense as Paul being called a White supremacist.

Temiloluwa Adeniyi-Ipadeola
2 min readOct 25, 2020

Lesson 3.6 is the most interesting lesson yet. The selected scripture from 1 Corinthians 11–14 seems to focus on what is commonly associated with conservative or the traditional view of men as well as women. Chapter 11 begins with head covering, paul talks about the church at Corinthians should hold to the traditions just he passes them to his audience. Head covering was not created by Paul, in fact, is customary for women to cover their heads in the Roman empire. To be a married woman in the Roman empire you were expected to wear a head covering while an unmarried was not supposed to wear a covering. This was so much a cultural tradition that Caesar August pronounced it a law. The only women who didn't cover their heads were virgin, unmarried and the prostitutes also called hetairai. Hetairai were call girls which was a legitimate occupation through the roman empire, especially in orgy temple worships. However, in the first century, wives across the Roman empire began showing their contempt for their unfaithful husbands by adopting the dress of hetairai. They wore purple, with gold accessories, and did anyway with head coverings. This became quite the controversy throughout the Roman Empire.

It is within such a context that Paul addresses the church in Corinth. An understanding of the social climate is necessary to support the text. This however does not cover Pauls's understanding of the Biblical and God-ordained roles in genders and responsibility. Paul is obviously a strong proponent of the adam and eve narrative in genesis where Man is the head or leader of his household and women being his helper. Candida Moss, from “Leering Angels and Sexy Hair” assumes where she says, “Having grounded his argument for male superiority in Genesis, Paul “For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” Candida makes the same assumption with regards to Paul's and the biblical understanding of the role of man and women. That is Men are intrinsically superior to women which seems to be a gross misunderstanding between both genders.

It could be understood like this, A CEO of a multimillion-dollar company is not intrinsically superior to the vice president of that company. both the president and the vice president are both equally valued as human individuals. however, the president is not only responsible for the productivity of the vice president but he is also responsible for the entire staff in his company that is his role within the company. when the company starts falling apart the President is the first person that is addressed. Just as God held Adam responsible for the sin of eve’s temptations so also are men are held accountable for their household. Paul doesn't mean women are less valuable in God’s sight being men’s helpers, just that men and women have different roles and responsibilities. It is also ridiculous to hyperextend out social modern reforms on history. that can only lead to subjectifying the sources to our narrow understanding of the world.