An Ethical Examination of Paul’s Views on Gender

The New Testament is a foundational text for Christian ethics, yet tensions arise when comparing Jesus’ inclusive interactions with women to the seemingly restrictive views of Paul of Tarsus. This contrast becomes evident in passages such as Colossians 3:18, which instructs, “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” (New Revised Standard Version, 1989), and 2 Corinthians 11:3, where Paul warns that women might be “led astray” like Eve. These verses have prompted widespread critique for their perceived misogyny, especially when contrasted with Jesus’ radically egalitarian treatment of women. Scholars such as Bart Ehrman (2018) suggest that these attitudes may reflect not divine mandates but Paul’s own cultural conditioning and upbringing. My intension with this essay is to critically analyzes Paul’s views on gender through three ethical frameworks, deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics, while contrasting them with the more inclusive ethos of Jesus’ ministry.

From a deontological perspective, which evaluates morality based on adherence to duty and rules, Paul’s statements appear problematic and misogynic. Kantian ethics would consider the categorical imperative: whether the maxim behind an action could be universally applied. Paul's directive in Colossians 3:18 prescribes subordination of women, a principle that would be ethically indefensible if universally applied in a society striving for gender equality. As theologian Beverly Roberts Gaventa (2017) writes, “Paul’s household codes reflect more the Greco-Roman social order than the radical gospel of liberation preached by Jesus” (p. 142). Thus, while Paul may have perceived these directives as moral duties within his cultural, societal, and historical context, a deontological critique reveals a failure to establish universal principles of equal moral worth for both women and men.

Consequentialism, particularly in its utilitarian form, evaluates the morality of actions by their outcomes. Paul's teachings, when interpreted literally and enforced as doctrinal truths over centuries, have arguably contributed to the subjugation of women within Christian institutions and beyond. Elaine Pagels (1979) observes that “Paul’s letters, especially those perceived to relegate women to silence or submission, were used to justify patriarchal structures that marginalized half the Christian population” (p. 110). The consequences of such teachings, ranging from limiting women’s roles in churches to influencing legislation and cultural attitudes, highlight how theological ideas can have far-reaching social implications even now in 21^st century. If these outcomes perpetuated harm or inequality, consequentialism would judge the original teachings as ethically flawed, regardless of intent.

Through the lens of virtue ethics, which centers on moral character and the cultivation of virtues, Paul’s rhetoric on women can be critiqued for not fostering virtues such as justice, compassion, or humility when interpreted and applied rigidly. In contrast, Jesus’ actions frequently modeled these very virtues, especially when he welcomed women as followers (Luke 8:1–3), healed them (Mark 5:34), and even revealed his identity as the Messiah to a Samaritan woman (John 4:26). As N.T. Wright (2012) affirms, “Jesus consistently treated women as responsible moral agents, capable of learning, choosing, and leading” (p. 89). If Christian ethics aims to emulate the virtues embodied by Christ, Paul’s hierarchical prescriptions appear incongruent with this ethical ideal since it is evident in Paul’s epistles that women are “second class” or subordinate denizens.

The ethical tension becomes even more complex when considering whether Paul’s statements were meant to be eternal prescriptions or mere contextual advice. Some scholars argue that Paul’s letters were shaped by the socio-political pressures of his time. As Karen Armstrong (2009) states, “Paul was navigating a dangerous Roman world, and the household codes may have been strategic concessions to avoid persecution” (p. 72). This suggests that an absolutist reading of Paul risks missing the ethical nuance of situational leadership in early Christian communities. Understanding his writings as historically situated could shift the moral responsibility to modern interpreters, rather than Paul himself. In other words, it is the interpreters who are the representatives of misogyny and not Paul.

Nevertheless, Paul’s teachings have been reinterpreted and even challenged by progressive theologians who emphasize the egalitarian aspects of his writings. For instance, in Galatians 3:28, Paul writes, “There is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (NRSV, 1989). This verse is often cited as evidence that Paul’s ultimate vision was one of unity and equality. As James D. G. Dunn (2006) contends, “Galatians 3:28 functions as a hermeneutical key that relativizes other passages that appear to reinforce social hierarchies” (p. 213). Therefore, an ethical interpretation of Paul must balance both the restrictive and liberative strands in his epistles.

The example of Jesus serves as a critical ethical benchmark. Unlike Paul, Jesus never issued prescriptive statements subordinating women to men. His moral teachings focused on love, inclusion, and liberation from oppressive norms. Jesus’ conversation with Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42), in which Mary is praised for choosing to learn at his feet, traditionally a male disciple’s position, demonstrates his countercultural affirmation of women’s intellectual and spiritual agency. As Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (1983) argues, “Jesus' egalitarian practices must function as the normative criterion for Christian theology and ethics” (p. 274). From this standpoint, any ethic that perpetuates gender inequality contradicts the moral trajectory set by Jesus himself.

Ultimately, evaluating Paul’s teachings through ethical frameworks reveals the moral complexity of his writings. While deontology highlights the non-universality of gender subordination, consequentialism underscores the harm such teachings have caused, and virtue ethics reveals their inconsistency with Christlike character. The ethical path forward requires distinguishing between culturally situated advice and timeless moral principles. As moral agents, contemporary readers bear the responsibility to interpret scripture in ways that align with justice, compassion, and equality; virtues that were at the heart of Jesus’ ministry.

In my personal conclusion, while Paul’s letters have undeniably shaped the Christian doctrine many of us were raised with, their ethical validity must be continually assessed through reasoned moral analysis. Ethical scrutiny reveals both the limitations of Paul’s views on women and the enduring value of Jesus’ radical inclusivity. As we interpret scripture today, we are called not to replicate the cultural limitations of the past but to embody the moral vision of equity and dignity that Jesus modeled.

📚 References

Armstrong, K. (2009). The case for God. Knopf.

Dunn, J. D. G. (2006). The theology of Paul the apostle. Eerdmans.

Ehrman, B. D. (2018). The triumph of Christianity: How a forbidden religion swept the world. Simon & Schuster.

Gaventa, B. R. (2017). When in Romans: An invitation to linger with the gospel according to Paul. Baker Academic.

New Revised Standard Version Bible. (1989). Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.

Pagels, E. (1979). The Gnostic Gospels. Random House.

Schüssler Fiorenza, E. (1983). In memory of her: A feminist theological reconstruction of Christian origins. Crossroad.

Wright, N. T. (2012). How God became king: The forgotten story of the Gospels. HarperOne.

Comparative Ethical Chart

Comparative Ethical Framework Chart by Jonathan Acuña

Paul of Tarsus vs. Jesus (Ethical and Doctrinal Perspectives)

Paul of Tarsus vs. Jesus (Ethical and Doctrinal Perspectives) by Jonathan Acuña

An Ethical Examination of Paul’s Views on Gender by Jonathan Acuña