What Paul Really Said About Women

by John Temple Bristow

A challenge to the traditional understanding of St. Paul's epistles and sexism in today's church.

Genres: Christian, Religion, Nonfiction, Christianity, Theology, Feminism, Womens

129 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 1988

Reviews

[Daniel Roueche · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm a little torn on this book, even though my rating might suggest otherwise, but ultimately it was a very enlightening read.

On the one hand, the points the author make are excellent and very convincing to me. The ties to the traditional church interpretation of these contested passages, the influence of pagan philosophy and culture on the early church, and the consequent influence on Biblical translators were especially eye-opening and should raise a red flag to anyone seeking the truth on this issue. Putting a shiny Christian veneer on abjectly pagan philosophy is a bad road to go down. He painted a very convincing picture of the twisting of Paul's words over the centuries to reflect the culture and philosophy present at the time. It's almost scary how easy it is for us to read our own pre-conceived biases into Scripture, and it makes perfect sense that it could have happened in Paul's day and later.
I'm not a Greek or Hebrew scholar and can't comment in depth on his study of the words Paul chose to use, but assuming he's not just making stuff up, those sections were also very convincing. Many of the passages made much more sense under his attempts at interpretation, and the few that were more ambiguous are hard to understand from either viewpoint (like the head-covering passage in Corinthians).
There's a reason this subject is hotly debated, and it's not only because of the deep importance of the subject matter - our source material is hardly black and white in our own English language. I'm not going to pretend this book shuts the whole argument down in favor of egalitarian views, but certainly to my mind it brings a highly viable contrary view to the traditional interpretation of Biblical marriage and women and as such is worth reading.

My main criticism is more in relation to style and tone than content. I came into this reading partly on the fence on the issue, but more sympathetic to the egalitarian viewpoint, to be honest. A little more restraint might have served his purposes better in my opinion - a little clearer "let's just dive in and find what we find" attitude. Maybe I'm off base here, but often it felt like the conclusion was foregone in his tone, and that's the sort of thing that tends to antagonize a reader unnecessarily. Sure, in part it's on the reader to honestly assess the facts as given and not let the author get in the way of his point, but to truly make a difference and attempt to present the case to those with opposing views, perhaps a little more cautious assertion of the points would have better served the purpose. Just a "constructive criticism". As it is, there's plenty of content here to get one questioning if they're honest.

One other point. This issue clearly illustrates to me the importance of going back to the original intent of the author when interpreting Scripture. Paul's gospel was not directly written to us 21st Century Americans, and if we're going to be fair and honest with the Holy Spirit we would do well to pay attention to what Paul was actually trying to say to his audience. Taking the word of God at face value sounds like a good thing, but without attention given to the author's intention, we open ourselves up to accepting some dangerous teaching, and even worse so when under the guise of Biblical faithfulness. There can be no true Biblical faithfulness without an understanding of the intention of the author, otherwise our reading is at the mercy of our cultural understanding.

In conclusion, I would recommend this book to anyone struggling with this issue. The points the author bring into light are impossible to ignore, even if I think his purpose would have been better served with a more cautious tone.

[Adam Bradley · Rating 2 out of 5]

While I do not hold that the New Testament scriptures are always clear, neither do I believe them to be so completely opaque that what Paul "Really Said" requires extensive external knowledge (both exegetical and cultural) which leads one to understand a text to mean something quite opposite from that which it appears upon a first careful reading to say. If you thesis is that what Paul "really said" is at odds with the consensus of all major English translations, the standard of proof a reasonable reader should demand should be relatively high. As passionately as this book wishes to, it does not reach that bar.

Bristow seems to assume from the beginning that Galatians 3:28 was some sort of proto-feminist egalitarian manifesto for Paul, and that any verse which contradicts that particular view must necessarily be a poor translation requiring careful couching in extensive cultural analysis and long exegetical leaps. This assumption is never called out, never argued for, never defended, and never weighed seriously against any serious non-straw-man; it is simply presumed. But what if the problem is that Bristow has read too much into this "controlling" verse? Let he who is without eisegesis cast the first stone.

Most of the more interesting (and important) arguments are simply stated without reference to any lexicons, journal articles, reference books, textbooks, historic documents, or any other primary or even secondary sources. For example, the description of the supposed historic situation in Ephesus being addressed by Paul in 1 Timothy is basically that offered a few years later by the Kroegers in I Suffer Not a Woman, but the position has virtually no published support (that I have been able to find) apart from that single widely-criticized work.

It is also claimed that the Greek words hupotassomai and agapao ("submit" and "love") have identical meanings. While the words are certainly connected textually, I have been unable to find any corroboration evidence anywhere for the claim that they are synonymous, only countless citations of Bristow's claim of it. What's more, Bristow's explanation for Paul's use of apparent similes lacks teeth, particularly given the uniform pattern of wives being told to "hupotasso" their husbands and husbands being told to "agapao" their wives (and the pattern not being limited to Paul!), a truly glaring omission from Bristow's analysis.

Bristow does not seem at all concerned with addressing a responsible, theologically reflective complementarianism. Instead, he is so disgusted by the apparent misogyny and male chauvinism he witnessed in his own upbringing that he has fallen into a false dichotomy, believing the only alternative is full-on egalitarianism, and he speaks of those who would disagree with him with the dismissive vocabulary of chauvinism, misogyny, and sin, making an unspoken assumption that there can be no such thing as a thoughtful, loving, and Godly view of gender roles different from his own. The text suffers accordingly, since knocking over a strawman is not just uninteresting, but deeply disrespectful to those who hold legitimate disagreements with you.

At a more nit-picky level, Bristow writes repeatedly of the "deprecation of women". He certainly does not mean the word in the engineering sense with which I am the most familiar (a thing discontinued and to be avoided), or even in the more common English senses (to seek to avert, to pray against, to disapprove of). I like to hope he had a meaning closer to "depreciate" or "devalue" in mind, but a good editor should have caught this.

In short: if you're an egalitarian and want to be told what you want to hear, go ahead and read the book. If you're interested in reading some curious speculation about first-century Greco-Roman culture and philosophy, it's a relatively short and easy read. If you're looking for thorough discussion of the exegetical and hermeneutic complexities surrounding Paul's teachings on men and women with a plausible egalitarian solution and citation of references, look elsewhere.

[Terri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Have you been taught to hate Paul because he was a misogynist pig? You need to give him another chance- starting in his own language, Greek.

The Bible's translation into English has left Paul sorely abused. He did not hate women; in fact the polar opposite is true. In a time when all the philosophers, scholars and societies were trying to suppress women and make them subservient to men; Paul came along and did NOT say, "wives obey/submit to your husband." When you take a look at the Greek and understand the Bible in its original language you will finally see that Paul was requiring that women get placed side-by-side with their husbands- equals.

This is a great place to start studying the real meaning of all those passages where Paul has been maligned in the English Bible version.

[Jacob Akens · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book to be enlightening from a historical perspective and in regards to better understanding the meaning of the words Paul used in his original language regarding women and wives.

I liked that the book was concise and to-the-point within each chapter.

The segment that stood out the most to me was found on Pages 36-42, in which the author touched on the true meanings of Paul’s words in the book of Ephesians: “head; be subject to; and love”. I plan to refer back to these pages numerous times over the course of my life.

For my own future notes:

Page 4 - “But it was Socrates (c. 470-399 B. c.) who immortalized the Athenian disdain toward women. Often referring to women as "the weaker sex," he argued that being born a woman is a divine punishment, since a woman is halfway between a man and an animal.”

Page 9 - “Not all ancient societies shared this Athenian deprecation of the female sex, not even within the Greek-speaking world. The women in Sparta, in contrast to what has been called the "monogamous harem" of women in Athens, enjoyed considerable freedom and political responsibilities. The economic role of women in Sparta is reflected in the fact that at one time in that nation's history women owned two-thirds of the land.”

Page 14 - “This management is not to be like that of a master over his slave, Plutarch insisted, but like that of the soul over the body, so that the authority of a man over his wife will be softened ‘with complaisance and kind requital of her loving submission.'
The husband is responsible for his wife's education, Plutarch taught, to the point that she will say of him, "And you, my beloved husband, are my guide and tutor in philosophy beside, from whose instructions I at once improve the fruits of knowledge and the sweets of love." But is such education given to enable the wife to pursue new goals or some greater vocation?
No, for according to Plutarch, a woman's "two great duties" are ‘to keep at home and be silent.’”

Page 16 - “Questions about women arose within the teachings of the rabbis that related to the story of Adam and Eve, to the laws of the Old Testament regarding husbands and wives, and to the more immediate concern of whether or not females should be educated.
First, let us consider the story of Adam and Eve. In the beginning Adam is portrayed as incomplete without Eve, needing a "help meet" or "helper." The Hebrew word here is ezer. Some biblical scholars translate this as "partner" rather than "helper” because the latter implies a subordinate role. The word ezer in itself does not connote an inferior status. In fact, when it is not referring to Eve, it appears seventeen times in the Old Testament, and each time it refers to God.”

Page 18 - “The third interpretation is the least speculative of the three. It focuses upon the result of sin for the couple, in which she desires him and he rules over her. If this kind of marital relationship, far from being divinely ordered, is the product of sin and God's curse, then it is to be avoided rather than commended. It is characteristic of marriage outside of God's grace. To prescribe that kind of relationship is to advocate living under the penalty of sin imposed upon Adam and Eve, as if Christ brought nothing new to marriage relationships.”

Page 20 - “This code of customs and prohibitions was not simply a curious means of demonstrating respect and honor to women. Behind it is the attitude within the prayer that every Jewish male was enjoined to recite each morning, thanking God that
"He did not make me a Gentile, . .. a woman, . .. a boor."
Finally, let us consider the question of educating women. This issue was never wholly settled within ancient Judaism. "It would be better to see the Torah [the laws of God in scripture] burnt than to hear its words upon the lips of women," insisted one rabbi. Another averred that "teaching a girl is the same as starting her on the road to depravity." Still another taught, "If any man gives his daughter a knowledge of the Law it is as though he taught her lechery." However, a more moderate voice insisted that "every man is required to teach his daughter the Torah." If a girl were to receive an education, then, the duty fell upon her father rather than upon her mother or the synagogue school that is, if her father were alive, if her father himself were educated, and if he agreed with the minority voice that affirmed the value of education for girls.”

Page 23 - “How, then, can a man covet his neighbor's wife if she is not a possession? He can do so only if he begins with the erroneous assumption that women are to be owned and used for man's own pleasure. Coveting a neighbor's house is a wrong attitude about another's possession. Coveting his wife is a wrong attitude about his wife, based on another wrong attitude about women in general.
Therefore, the tenth commandment does not imply that wives are to be regarded as possessions along with slaves and oxen and asses and houses. Instead, it condemns the desire based on the attitude that regards wives as possessions along with slaves and oxen and asses and houses! By taking this commandment out of context, the interpreters forced it to defend the very attitude about women that it in fact forbids!”

Page 53 - “Now, among conservative Jews in the time of Paul, even social contacts between men and women were restricted. According to the Mishnah, a man might divorce his wife and not have to return her dowry if she were guilty of speaking to another mans; and even the act of speaking to a man in the street might be used as evidence of a bride's unfaithfulness to her intended.
Because the Jews were well aware of the obscene orgiastic worship among their pagan neighbors and because the Jews were so concerned with potential contact between males and females, it is a wonder that women were allowed to be present with men during public worship at all. In practice, a compromise had been reached: women might be present during worship, but only if they were silent and out of sight (in a balcony or behind a curtain); women did not count in determining if a congregation were present for worship, for a minimum number consisted of a minyan, ten men; and although a woman might be qualified to participate in public worship by reading from Scripture, she was not allowed to out of respect for the congregation."
Paul's practice of having women and men together in worship and his approval of women as well as men leading in worship (which we shall examine more fully later on) must have shocked his Jewish and pagan contemporaries!”

Page 60 - “Then, in 1 Cor. 11:12, Paul made a further statement abour the creation of Adam and Eve that topples the traditional interpretation. "For as the woman out of the man," his words read literally, "so also the man out of woman; but all things out of God." The old notion about women stated that they are inferior to men because Eve was created out of Adam. Paul observed that every man alive came out of woman (that is, was born of woman). The implication is that if Eve were inferior to Adam by virtue of being made out of his body, then every man is inferior to his mother for the same reason. In the last phrase, Paul added the reminder that all things are products of God's creation, alluding to the fact that just as God designed man, so God also designed woman.”

Page 72 - “Teachers, at first, had to be men, for only men were educated in the faith. And Jewish custom strictly forbade women from conversing with men other than their husbands. Moreover, the Jewish sages declared that any man who spends too much time talking with women "will inherit Gehenna" (hell). Any man who taught Jewish women in the Church might be accused by their husbands of trying to break up marriages, or might be told that he was going to hell for his efforts.
Greeks, when associating women with religion, would think of the temple of Diana in Ephesus, which had hundreds of prostitutes, called Melissai (bees). Any man who taught Greek women in the Church might be accused of catering to sacred prostitutes, or of seeking to entice women to enter into this position within this new Eastern religion.
Because of the potential scandals that might arise, unfairly, in an attempt to educate women in the Church, Paul urged Christian women to dress modestly and adorn themselves with good deeds (1 Tim. 2:9-10; see chapter 5, this volume). He also prohibited women from teaching men (a role that would have infuriated men in that society) and from exercising authority over men. This latter phrase is one translation of a strange word, authenteo (au-then-TEH-o). It appears nowhere else in the New Testament. At one time this word described one who kills with his own hands (himself or another). Later, it was used to indicate how one may act on his or her own authority, and dominate others in an autocratic manner. "Domineer" may be a good translation of authenteo.
It is the opposite of the kind of spirit Paul commended to all Christians, of love and respect. It is quite possible that Paul had in mind a certain woman or group of women in Ephesus when he wrote this passage. If so, Paul was not willing to lessen his insistence that women are to learn, in spite of the high-handed attitude of one or some. Instead, he wrote that they are to learn in quietness, without being rude or domineering.”

Chapter 5 brought light to the cultural issues of hairstyles and head coverings - fascinating!

Page 79 - “Jewish women were required to wear their hair bound up whenever they left their homes. Unbound, flowing hair was regarded as sensual and almost a form of nudity. If a woman let her hair down in public she was seen as tempting men to sin. Therefore, the Mishnah declared that a husband might divorce his wife and not have to return her dowry in the event that she "goes out with her hair unbound . .. or speaks to any man." Men might let their hair grow long, but they were under no such compulsion to tie up their locks.”

Page 89 - “Paul asked that the clothing women choose be modest (the Revised Standard Version reads
"seemly"). Once Jesus described a man who drove out demons from his house. Later the demons returned and found the house empty, swept clean, and put in order (Matt. 12:44; Luke 11:25). The word for "put in order" is kosmeo (kos-ME-o). When Paul asked women to choose modest clothing, he used a form of this word. It means "put in order," "adorn," "make beautiful or attractive." In other words, Paul admonished Christian women to choose clothing that is orderly and attractive, but to do so with a sense of good judgment and moderation.
Paul then added a note about jewelry. Unfortunately, most translations overlook one word, and leave the impression that Paul was forbidding women from wearing any kind of jewelry or braiding their hair. The literal translation reads, "not with braiding and gold, or pearls or costly outer clothing."
Paul mentioned pearls because they were the most expensive gems of the ancient world (compare Jesus' parable of the pearl of great price, so costly that a man had to sell all he owned in order to buy it [Matt. 13:45-46]). Modern cultured pearls have brought this item of beauty to within modest prices. But even before mentioning costly pearls, Paul wrote of "braiding and
gold." Here he used the word kai (and), braiding and gold. Then he wrote "or" pearls, "or" costly outer clothing. Paul was not forbidding the wearing of gold nor the braiding of hair per se, but the practice of braiding gold items into one's hair.”

Pages 106-107 - “Paul would tell the Jewish rabbis who insisted that marriage is mandatory for all men that it is better to be single. But he would also tell those Stoics who spurned marriage as evil that it is good to be married. While Paul was careful to state that this was not a command of Christ for Christians to marry (verse
6), he also pointed out that a believer may lead an unbelieving marriage partner to salvation (verses 12-16). But Paul reminded his readers of how marriage brings responsibilities (verses 28b, 32-35) and distracts one from undivided service to the Lord.
Later on, however, Paul mentioned that all the other apostles besides himself were married (1 Cor. 9:5). In other writings, Paul denounced those who, like the Stoics, forbid marriage (1 Tim. 4:3) and those who marry simply out of lust (1 Thess. 4:4-5).”

[Corinne · Rating 4 out of 5]

The language hints that this book is dated (written by a Seattle pastor in the '80s), but this slim volume gives quick and easy explanations of implications in English that aren't there in Greek and vice versa, the context of the letter or culture of the day, and pokes holes in a lot of arguments that have been used to justify silencing or dismissing women for centuries.

[Kristina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, I found this book scholarly and helpful. There were a few instances where I felt as though the author was unclear, but mostly found it to reaffirm what I’ve known for years.
The modern American church needs to really understand what Paul actually said about women. As a woman in full-time ministry, I often get tired of constantly fighting for my “place at the table” when it comes to speaking and church leadership. If pastors and church leaders spent time to research the Greek language that Paul uses and to interpret Scripture in this light, then I believe a lot more women would be placed in pastoral and leadership roles.

[Johnnie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written, easy read, and factual. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. Every woman called by God should read. Actually every woman and man should read.

[Kaity · Rating 5 out of 5]

Life changing tbh

[Abigail Advincula · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice, short informative book. Not quite as groundbreaking as I thought it was going to be.

It was interesting how Greek and Jewish views really shaped early interpretations of Paul's writings.

If you struggle at all with Paul's supposedly misogynistic views towards women, this book can give some answers and lend some measure of comfort.

[Morgan McEntire · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this! It gave me a renewed respect for women and a newfound interest in translations. Very interesting to see the in-depth analysis that was needed to confront centuries old beliefs. Highly recommend!

[Curtis Hefner · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a relatively short book - 7 chapters, 119 pages plus endnotes & indexes. Its presentation of the subject matter (interpreting Paul's writings in context) falls comfortably between conversational and scholarly.

The background of traditional (maybe 'popular' is a better descriptor) Greek and Jewish views regarding female roles in the time of Paul's writings is explored before Paul's words are examined. Bristow cites enough evidence from Greek (Plato, Xenophon, Herodotus, Aristotle, Plutarch, etc.) and Jewish (Mishnah, Talmud, Josephus, etc.) sources to illuminate the views and philosophies to which Paul responded with his New Testament letters.

Keep in mind that the point of this background is not to prove that the ancient views, which today strike us as misogynistic, were universally held. The point is merely to prove that enough influential thinkers held similar views to merit a response from Paul. I believe that Bristow is successful in proving this. However, a reader who is looking for a thorough examination of 1st century views on gender roles will likely come away disappointed. This book is about "What Paul Really Said About Women" and not what everybody else said. Set your expectations accordingly.

In examining the context of Paul's letters, Bristow reveals a nuance and consistency that has been too often ignored. Paul demonstrated and preached sexual equality:
-Women are not inferior.
-They are not inherently weak or damaged.
-They are equally capable thinkers, equally deserving of education, equally suited for inclusion in the church.

Though much of Paul's direction has been misinterpreted, Bristow shows that Paul's intention in his writing was to 'build up' the church by encouraging equality.

[Kiki · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read this book three times now over a period of probably ten years, during which I have continued study of the Bible and early Christianity. In all that reading I've found this little volume to stand out as the most powerful and succinct for understanding Paul's actual words and the world in which he wrote them.

Partly that's because this work is so short. But ironically it's also because the book focuses so tightly. Its subject is the place of women in Christianity. But since women are people, and Christianity is a movement of people, Paul's attention to this topic necessarily touches on many aspects of life in Christ. And his ideas on this -- as one would expect from a man truly inspired by God -- are enlightened.

[Linnea Peckham Geno · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting linguistic analysis here that is helpful in explaining how English translations of Paul's letters are/may be misleading in potentially significant ways. However, the author's writing style is lacking (I was distracted by grammatical errors, passive voice, and overuse of exclamation points) and certain aspects of his arguments struck me as thin. He draws conclusions (often ones I agree on) without sufficient evidence. For those seeking a more thorough and high-quality argument for egalitarianism, I highly recommend Discovering Biblical Equality. It's well worth the read for egalitarians who want to understand the bases of their own position as well as traditionalists who presume egalitarianism is without scriptural basis.

[Dennis Gunnarson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book very worthwhile reading. I would warn readers that many of us are highly influenced by the American Fundamentalist presuppositions about scripture and so we expect a definitive position to be presented from scripture rather than the explanation that differing views are expressed in the sacred texts and teachings. The Jewish understanding on sacred text is that God uses the wisdom taught in scripture to inform readers in their current context how to live and interact with current issues. However we often think the stories are intended to teach a static culture that is not supposed to change, so the ways another culture interpreted wisdom, is the way we are supposed to interpret it.

The cultural issues involved in understanding this issue I knew before reading this book, however John Bristow does a great job of painting a picture of the influences that contributed to those cultural views. He helps you understand how Paul’s instructions were heavily colored by the context of the day. Paul was trying to bring the two diverse cultures of Judaism and gentle Greco-Roman culture together and provide them guidelines on his to do that in a way that didn’t brand them in either culture in a detrimental way.

John Bristow also does a brilliant job of evaluating the terms Paul chose to use along side other terms he didn’t use and what that tells us about what Paul intended to say. Once reading his explanation the problematic passages, are so much easier to understand.

I was thrilled to read this book. I had previously come to the same conclusion that sexist men colored translations to pump their views rather than offer clarity in what Paul was trying to say. This book did just that, provide clarity.

[Anne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read a copy of this book twenty some years ago and the information within was freeing--when I was a new Christian and was not yet of the understanding what freedom is in Christ, too. Basically the information is perhaps a bit outdated now,b/c we have accepted and adopted what this author shares with us regarding translations; but the author goes to some lengths to explain the translations and interpretations of some of Paul's key writings on women. Paul did not encourage the degradation or subjugation of women at all, and for that matter, neither did Jesus Christ, ever. These are translation and cultural errors. What you believe about subjugation of women in the Christian church says more about you than it does about anything else. IF you believe that women are inferior, then what does that say about you? Because the correct translation of Paul's works do not deem it so. Women are the equal of men, as told by Christ and the Apostle Paul. Again, if you are taught that women aren't welcome as leaders in church, or that women are inferior in anyway, this book and any newer versions, is for you. Paul encourages that women are to learn, lead, preach and teach in the church. This book and examples that come from it and modern translations of the Greek bible show exactly what this author shared over twenty years ago. Preach on ladies in freedom.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

This wonderful little book I happened to find myself having a copy of seems to have addressed all my confusion surrounding Paul's words as we find them in the King James Version, and helped me correct my understanding of God's view about our gender roles. Written well before the current culture's problems over and obsession with gender expression, Pastor Bristow analyzed the original Greek roots for the biblical text, showing that the original usage of words like "love," "submit to" and "silence" are all voluntary actions, and that they were not intentioned toward excluding nor as denigration of the women of the church in Ephesus. Only, here's the kicker, when translators reworded the scripture into our English language, their latent biased beliefs came to bear.

He explores the evidence that Greek philosophy reveals a culture wide, deep-seated bias toward women, the kind that compares them to slaves or property, and which led the early Jews and, later on, traditional Christians into such unworthy opinions and practices that they can easily be seen as derogatory in the light of our present, and generally egalitarian, societies.

[Jody · Rating 4 out of 5]

To be honest, this was a rather uncomfortable read for me. Growing up ( and still being) very conservative, this book challenges my comfort level. Even though I originally thought that the author took too much time with pagan philosophers at the beginning, I think he did a great job setting the table. He does a great job pointing out the limitations of the art of translation (my phrase, not his). He does a very good job explaining the context of the Greek words and how our English translations often lack context. Being a stubborn New Englander, it will take a while for me to overcome my biases and really embrace what this well educated, Bible believing scholar has to say.

Many of the arguments that I have read against this book seem to come from a place of complacency, and an unwillingness to acknowledge, not an error in translation, but an error in our limited understanding of the complexity and beauty of Scripture.

[Janessa Nations · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve always felt that Paul was misunderstood (and this comes from a person who doesn't particularly like his writing) – both in language and in context. This was one of my favorite parts of this book – the author unpacked which Greek words were used and why. He broke down how translations can lose the original meaning because words/meanings don’t always translate well. English is a pretty restrictive language compared to Greek, so that leads to things being missed or left out. One of the best ways the author does this is for Ephesians 5:21-33. He breaks down key words that could/should be translated differently/better. At the end of that chapter, he even provides a new way to read that section.

The author does a great job of showing how secular thinking (especially philosophers) influenced the way Scripture was interpreted and thus, how it was applied to Christians. A must read.

[SarahO · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was very informative. Reading some of the ancient philosophies about men and women made sense of some of our current arguments about women in the church and home. The blending of Grecian philosophy with Christian teaching really corroded Paul's teachings about the equality of men and women in the church. It really hit home when I read a quote by Aristotle that sounded exactly like something I read from the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. We as a church really need to be careful that we're not corrupting the goodness of scripture with ancient patriarchal views of men and women.

My only problem with the book was age. Since this was written a lot more scholarship has come out about the early church and church history as a whole. Also, bible translations have also updated and changed. I would love to see another edition of this with more updated data.

[Mary Ellin · Rating 5 out of 5]

People of faith tend to have a love-hate relationship with St. Paul. The author of the definitive treatise on Christianity, the Book of Romans, is widely criticized and even despised for his seemingly male chauvinist views. But what if we’ve been wrong, and Paul has been misunderstood and even mistranslated, by ancient Greeks all the way up to modern-day male interpreters, bent on continuing centuries of discrimination against women?

This is the theme of John T. Bristow’s book, and he makes his points in compelling, readable fashion, backed up by scholarship and study. Highly recommended; it may change how you look at Paul & read his letters.

[Shannon Cavey · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you want to read a light, feel-good argument about women’s roles that can easily dismissed as “someone’s wishful interpretation,” don’t read this book. You won’t like it.
It’s a methodical, in-depth study of the exact language used in Paul’s teaching and the cultural influences that he was addressing. After reading this, it’s clear that Paul believed God established and intended equality between men and women in all regards. In fact, it’s near impossible to argue anything else - unless, of course, you are like the one congregant mentioned who argued, “but I have my feelings!”

[Tyler Carr · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this right after reading “Gender Roles and the People of God” by Alice Mathews. It is a perfect follow up to that book that allowed me to go deeper into both the history and biblical analysis of gender roles within the church. Bristow’s analysis is honest and provides a solid biblical basis for gender equality within the church, as well as convincing responses to common arguments and “proof passages” against females in leadership roles. This is the best work I have encountered on gender roles in the church, and I would recommend it to anyone wrestling with what they believe about it.

[Doug Dale · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a worthwhile read even if you don't end up agreeing with all of the author's conclusions. Even though I didn't end up on the same page in regard to some of the issues addressed, there were others where his perspective was very helpful. Most helpful, I think, were his insights into social norms and pressures of the time that help put Paul's writings in a better context.

[Chrissy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was torn between two and three stars, but settled on three because on the whole I have a positive impression of this book. Its strength is that it takes into consideration the culture and philosophy Paul was combating when he wrote his letters. However, it's rather lacking on the analysis side. There were vital details it lacked that made it confusing at times. Not a good extensive resource.

[Cheryl · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting. I really liked the background information of Greek life and culture that the early church was living in. It helped to put things into perspective.I wouldn’t use this book alone as your only source of information or for making biblical doctrinal decisions , completely based on this book, but it’s one that should be part of the study process.

[Lindee Goodall · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very enlightening. Paul was not the chauvinist that some theologians would have us believe. Understanding Greek, Roman, and Jewish customs of the time was very helpful. I was wondering what he would say about the part about women covering their heads "on account of the angels." The explanation Dr. Michael Heiser shared was pretty wild.

[H Phillips · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written technical defense of St. Paul's words on women as recorded in the epistles. Depends much on the subtle differences on the meanings of Greek words though historical situation and milieu
are also brought to bear.

[S.E. Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, short read that puts the Pauline passages that seem to subjugate women into their proper cultural, linguistic, and religious contexts so we can better understand what Paul meant and what his audience understood.

[Denise Reed · Rating 3 out of 5]

I skipped some parts and mainly read about women leading in the church. Some parts were unclear and I believe that you would need to do some additional research to get a better understanding of this book

[M. A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This fits the rest of the bible

I am happy to see a basis for this interpretation . The main one being that it fits the rest of the bible whereas it was in striking contradiction before.