Here are some misogynistic quotations from well-known church leaders and theologians that do not in any way reflect what the Bible says about women. I’ve provided links, where possible, to free online sources so that you can read their words in context.
On social media, as well as in some books and articles, there are several frequently-shared misogynistic statements (like the “temple over a sewer” remark) attributed to men such as Tertullian, Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nazianzus that I have not been able to find in their respective bodies of works. And I’ve looked hard! I only include quotations below that I have seen for myself in primary sources. I can verify that the following are genuine.
I have provided these quotations to show that faulty interpretations of scripture that unjustly discriminate against women have long been a feature of the church. Thankfully, many scholars are looking afresh at the scriptures without being influenced by past misogynistic interpretations.
Theologian and Greek Father, 2nd–3rd centuries
“Men should not sit and listen to a woman . . . even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since it came from the mouth of a woman.”
Fragments on 1 Corinthians
“What is seen with the eyes of the Creator is masculine, and not feminine, for God does not stoop to look upon what is feminine and of the flesh.”
Selecta in Exodum (Fragments on Exodus), Patrologia Graeca 12, Column 296–297 (Latin and Greek, my translation) See footnote  for context.
The Father of Latin Christianity, 155–245
”And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die. And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins?”
De Cultu Feminarium (On the Apparel of Women), Chapter 1 (Read it here.)
Archbishop of Constantinople and Doctor of the Church, 4th century
“The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he says, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively.”
Homily 9 on First Timothy (1 Timothy 2:11–15) (Read it here.)
“Man was first formed, and elsewhere he shows their superiority.”
Homily 9 on First Timothy (1 Timothy 2:11–15) (Read it here.)
“God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matter to the woman.”
The Kind of Women who ought to be taken as Wives (Read a longer quotation from this treatise here.)
“Hearken about the women of old; they were great characters, great women and admirable; such were Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Deborah, and Hannah; and such there were also in the days of Christ. Yet did they in no case outstrip the men, but occupied the second rank.”
Homily 13 on Ephesians (Ephesians 4:24) (Read it here.)
Bishop of Hippo, Doctor of the Church and Latin Father, 354–430
“I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?”
De Genesi ad literam (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) 9.5.9 (Read it here.)
“. . . woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by superior reason. Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?”
De Genesi ad literam Book 11.42 (Read it here.)
My article on the apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:7 is here.
“. . . the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.”
On the Trinity, 12.7.10 (Read it here.)
“Watch out that she does not twist and turn you for the worse. What difference does it make whether it is in a wife or in a mother, provided we nonetheless avoid Eve in any woman?
Letter to Laetus (Letter 243.10) (Read it here. A discussion on the letter is on page 164 here.)
A different translation of the second sentence is: “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman.”
Doctor of the church, 13th century
“But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man . . .”
Summa Theologica, Volume 1, Question 92, Article 1, Objection 2. (Read it here.)
Aquinas agrees with the philosopher Aristotle: “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. Such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes” (On the Generation of Animals 4.2). ”
However, Aquinas adds, “… as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature’s intention as directed to the work of generation.”
Summa Theologica, Vol. I, Q. 92, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 1. (Read it here.)
Aquinas speaks about two kinds of subjection for women: “One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates.”
Summa Theologica, Vol. I, Q. 92, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 2. (Read it here.)
More on Aquinas’ views on women, here.
German priest, theologian and Protestant Reformer, 16th century
“For woman seems to be a creature somewhat different from man, in that she has dissimilar members, a varied form and a mind weaker than man. Although Eve was a most excellent and beautiful creature, like unto Adam in reference to the image of God, that is with respect to righteousness, wisdom and salvation, yet she was a woman. For as the sun is more glorious than the moon, though the moon is a most glorious body, so woman, though she was a most beautiful work of God, yet she did not equal the glory of the male creature.”
Commentary on Genesis, Chapter 2, Part V, 27b. (Read it here.)
French theologian, pastor, and Protestant Reformer, 1509–1564
Regarding the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to women rather than to men:
“I consider this was done by way of reproach, because they [the men] had been so tardy and sluggish to believe. And indeed, they deserve not only to have women for their teachers, but even oxen and asses. . . . Yet it pleased the Lord, by means of those weak and contemptible vessels, to give display of his power.”
Commentary on the Gospel of John (John 20) (Read it here.)
“On this account, all women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior in consequence to the superiority of the male sex.”
Commentary on 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11) (Read it here.)
“. . . there is no absurdity in the same person commanding and likewise obeying when viewed in different relations. But this does not apply to the case of woman, who by nature (that is, by the ordinary law of God) is formed to obey; for γυναικοκρατία (the government of women) has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing; and, therefore, so to speak, it will be a mingling of heaven and earth, if women usurp the right to teach. Accordingly, he bids them be “quiet,” that is, keep within their own rank (Il commande donc qu’elles demeurent en silence; c’est a dire, qu’elles se contiennent dedans leurs limites, et la condition de leur sexe).”
A different translation of the last line is, “He therefore commands them to remain in silence; that is, to keep within their limits and the condition of their sex.”
Commentary on Timothy, Titus and Philemon (1 Timothy 2:12) (Read it here.)
My article 1 Timothy 2:12 in a Nutshell is here.
“Now Moses shews that the woman was created afterwards, in order that she might be a kind of appendage to the man; and that she was joined to the man on the express condition, that she should be at hand to render obedience to him. (Genesis 2:21) Since, therefore, God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man an inferior aid, the apostle [Paul] justly reminds us of that order of creation in which the eternal and inviolable appointment of God is strikingly displayed.”
Commentary on Timothy, Titus and Philemon (1 Timothy 2:13) (Read it here.)
My article The Significance of the Created Order, in a Nutshell, is here.
Scottish clergyman and Protestant Reformer, 16th century
“Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man . . .”
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. (Read it here.)
“Nature I say, paints [women] further to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish: and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment [or, leadership].”
The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. (Read it here.)
Not everything these men have said about women is derogatory. Some also said wonderful things and had close female friends and colleagues whom they loved and admired. For example, Jerome had Marcella and Paula, Chrysostom had Olympias, Luther had his wife Katherine. The Cappadocian Fathers seem to have always spoken respectfully of women.
Tertullian who ended up as a Montanist (a Christian group where women could be leaders and prophets), used strong words to make whatever point he wanted to make at the time. So, even though in one treatise he called women “the devil’s gateway,” in another he said that husbands and wives are equal.
These men quoted above did have some low views on women, but overall they held to ambivalent, contradictory views. In churches today we still see that too many Christians hold to ambivalent views about the nature, capabilities, and potential of women.
 Origen’s statement about “the eyes of the Creator” is at the end of a paragraph about Exodus 23:17, a verse which reads, “Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord GOD.” His statement comes from a surviving fragment of a lost sermon or commentary. Here’s the whole paragraph so we can get some sense of context.
“I will speak about this statement (Exod. 23:17). What we do is either feminine (lit: female) or masculine. If what we do is feminine, it is bodily or fleshly. For when we sow in the flesh, we produce the female fruit of the soul, not male fruit; rather, we produce feeble, tender, and underdeveloped fruit. If however, we look at eternal things and have our minds set towards better things, we will bear the fruits of the Spirit, and all our fruit/ produce is male. Accordingly, the things that are offered in the presence of God, and things that will be seen by the Creator’s countenance, are masculine, not female. For God does not deign to look upon feminine or fleshy things (Οὐ γὰρ τὰ θηλυκὰ, καὶ τὰ σωματικὰ ἀξιοῖ βλέπειν ὁ Θεός).”
(My translation. I could not find an English translation so had to do it myself.)
You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.
Become a Patron!
Augustine in his study by Italian painter Vittore Carpaccio (1502) (Wikimedia)
Chrysostom on 5 Women Church Leaders in the New Testament
Tertullian on Equality and Mutuality in Marriage
Various interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11:7 are quoted here.
Man and woman as the image and glory of God (1 Cor. 11:7)
The Portrayal of Women in the Bible and Biblical Inspiration
Is Complementarianism a Traditional Belief of the Church?
Three Scholars with Two Views of Eve’s Role as Helper
Women, Eve, and Deception
Woman seen as a ‘Problem’ and as ‘Solution’ in the Theological Anthropoloqy of the Early Fathers: Considering the Consequences, by Dr Marie-Henry Keane O.P., here.
18 thoughts on “Misogynistic Quotations from Church Fathers and Reformers”
Sounds like the ideas of Wayne Grudem et al – even though they cloak their misogyny in softer language.
“It seems that power is not in God. … the first agent–namely, God–is devoid of power.” — St. Thomas Aquinas
Quotations that include “…” make me nervous.
That’s fair enough, George. In most cases I’ve included online sources so that people can read the quotations for themselves, with the missing words and in context.
I’ve read many “quotations”, along the lines of the ones above, that are freely circulating on the net, but they have been taken out of context, or they weren’t written by a particular author as is claimed, or they are seemingly fabrications.
A degree of scepticism or “nervousness” is a good thing in this regard.
Thanks for the quick reply, Marg, and God bless you!
The Christian tradition, and the Church Fathers and Reformers, are wide and deep, as your impressive credentials have surely made you aware. I am grateful for you calling attention to the fact that even the greatest saints were people, much like you and I in more ways than we sometimes care to admit, who had prejudices and shortcomings. For me, your article is a testimony of hope. Christ’s love perfects, but it doesn’t require perfection from us, at least not at first.
It seems certain that in the future, people will quote us in a similar way as you have quoted the Church Fathers and Reformers. Perhaps, for example, modern ideas about inclusivity and the LGBTQ community will seem self-evidently wrong to them. Perhaps not. In any case, this is an important reminder to exercise humility in stating our opinions about how the world should be.
Thankfully, ecclesia semper reformanda est. Or at least it should be. Still, the church has been painfully slow to understand, appreciate and implement Jesus’ teaching and example. But I remain hopeful too.
Thanks for the reminder of how long it took God to help set these things straight and how much it cost. Also the links to each read it here are not working correctly. And by that I mean they go redirect to Google books but if you don’t have the book in your bookshelf it doesn’t show you that page
Hi Dana, I don’t have those books on my bookshelf. Perhaps the issue is that the two links go to the Australian Google Books and people outside of Australia see something different.
Marg, I love your work and do not have any issues or concerns in what ever i have read.
Whilst I have been a Christian many years, all my formal studies are technical or business related including MBA, Masters in Human Resource Management, etc.
However, At the moment i have been doing alot of research to complete a Phd – Thesis, that the possible heading is going to be Equality and Gender Inclusion in the Kingdom
I have spent a month or so in USA last year, researching some CoCs who have gone down the Progressive and / or egalatarian path, which was very good from my background.
Whilst i have possibly some 500 references and around 1000, 000 words in my Draft Thesis past and will need to distill and make more concise, i have availed to reference some of your work recorded on your web sites, do you have any issue with this.
Please let me know.
I have no problem at all with people referencing my work. In fact, it’s usually a lovely surprise when I come across my name in print in someone else’s essay or book (especially if it’s spelt correctly).
I am sorry to say this but in my reading of these sources I have found your most quotations taken out of the broader context in which they appear and are misrepresenting the views of the Church Fathers and the Reformers. For example, Calvin in the same section of his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11 points out that both genders bear the image of God and are equal in Christ (referring to Gal. 3:28) while also explaining why Paul only call the man as God’s image and glory in this passage.
And let’s face it, since the Church Fathers and the Reformers were all complimentarian in their understanding of genders, it will be reflected in their writing. But, in no way, they ever degrade women. I do accept that some of them are more influenced by the Greek philosophical ideas of gender and were wrong in how they viewed genders to some extent (e.g. Augustine,). But they also refer to the creation passages in Genesis 1-2 to base their conclusions. Aquinas is an exception and I would not count him as sound.
I’ve framed the article fairly, and my conclusion is that these men held to ambivalent and contradictory views on women. But I strongly doubt that any of them were complementarians. That is, I doubt most of these men, in their heart of hearts, truly believed that women (as a group, and not the exception) are completely equal with men (as a group) in intelligence, discernment, self-control, and in other virtues and capabilities that do not require physical strength.
These men, overall, believed that men are superior to women, and this is not what most complementarians teach. Complementarianism is a relatively new ideology. Interestingly, many classic theologians saw a profound equality between man and woman in Genesis 2 and they pinned their patriarchal views on Genesis 3:16. Again, this is not what most complementarians teach.
I have read all the quotations in their broader context and, in most cases, I provide links where readers can check the context for themselves. I have not misrepresented what these men have themselves stated. There are many more quotations from these Christian leaders, and others, which disparage women that I could add to this page. Many.
That’s not to say that some of these men did not also say some nice things about women. Your example of Calvin is a good one. But it doesn’t change that he went on record and said the things I’ve quoted.
I say nothing, one way or the other, about Calvin’s view of men and women being made in the image of God in this article. But I gladly acknowledge in this comment that he does state, “For both sexes were created in the image of God, and Paul exhorts women no less than men to be formed anew, according to that image.”
That’s great! But many of his other ideas about women are belittling. Here is another quotation from Calvin’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:
“There is no doubt that the woman is a distinguished ornament of the man; for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him, and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head. For what Solomon affirms as to a careful wife — that she is a crown to her husband (Proverbs 12:4), is true of the whole sex, if we look to the appointment of God, which Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose — that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man.”
Calvin is mistaken. Women are not the ornaments of men, distinguished or otherwise. We are the equal partners of our brothers. And it is no more an honour for a woman to be the partner of her husband than it is for a man to be the partner of his wife.
Thanks for your work here. As I see it, the church fathers had a consistent (though incorrect) view of women. Mutualists also have a consistent (and I think correct) view of women. But modern “complementarians” have an inconsistent view: women as equal in value and gifts alongside functional hierarchy.
(I put “complementarian” in quotes because I have never been successful in finding out from any who hold to this what exactly is complementary in their view of women. As I understand their view, women are forbidden from doing certain things, irrespective of gifting and desire, but I have never been able to find out what it is that men are forbidden from doing, irrespective of gifting and desire.)
One tiny typo: “Il commande done qu’elles demeurent en silence” should be “Il commande donc qu’elles demeurent en silence”.
Thanks for your thoughts, Jonathan. And thanks for picking up that typo.
It really doesn’t make sense to prohibit a woman from doing something she is perfectly capable of doing. And it doesn’t make sense to force a man to be a leader if he is ill-suited to it and then claim it his defining trait of masculinity.
I just want to thank you for your work. I discovered Project Junia today and I have been so buoyed by it.
I will say at least they didn’t mince words and were honest about their beliefs unlike the modern complementarian gaslighting
Wow! Some of these comments are so rude! I appreciate your disclaimer at the end. But wow, as a woman I’d hate to live back then
Many of these comments express ideas that were commonly held. 🙁
Here is the Greek text of Origen’s comments on Exodus 34:26 in Patrologia Graeca 12, Column 296–297.
«Τρεῖς καιροὺς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ὀφθήσεται πᾶν ἀρσενικόν σου ἐνώπιον Κυρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ σου.»
Τί ἐστι τὸ ῥητὸν εἴποιμι ἄν. Ὃ πράττομεν, ἢ θῆλύ ἐστιν, ἢ ἀρσενικόν. Εἰ μὲν οὖν θηλυκόν ἐστιν ὃ ποιοῦμεν, ἢ σωματικόν ἐστιν, ἢ σαρκικόν. Σπείροντες γὰρ εἰς τὴν σάρκα, ποιοῦμεν θῆλυ τὸ γέννημα τῆς ψυχῆς, οὐκ ἄῤῥεν· ἀλλʼ ἐκνενευρισμένον, ἁπαλόν τε καὶ ὑλικόν. Εἰ μέντοι βλέποντες τὰ αἰώνια, καὶ πρὸς τοῖς κρείττοσιν ἔχοντες τὴν διάνοιαν, καρποφοροῦμεν τοὺς καρποὺς τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ πάντα τὰ γεννήματα ἡμῶν ἄῤῥενά ἐστι. Τὰ τοίνυν φερόμενα ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὰ καὶ ὀφθησόμενα τῇ ὄψει τοῦ κτίσαντος, ἀρσενικά ἐστιν, οὐχὶ θήλεα. Οὐ γὰρ τὰ θηλυκὰ, καὶ τὰ σωματικὰ ἀξιοῖ βλέπειν ὁ Θεός.
A German translation.
“Was wir behandeln, ist entweder weiblich oder männlich. Wenn es weiblich ist, was wir behandeln, ist es entweder körperlich oder fleischlich. Die, die wir ins Fleisch säen, behaupten, dass die Fortpflanzung der Seele nicht männlich, sondern weiblich ist, freilich kraftlos, weich und von der Materie her fett. Wenn aber die ewigen Zuschauer einen wachsamen Geist auf das Bessere hin haben, sind die Früchte des Geistes, wie wir behaupten, sind alle unsere Fortpflanzungen männlichen Geschlechtes. Diese, die daher im Angesicht Gottes dargeboten werden, welche unter den Augen des Schöpfers erscheinen, die sind männlich, nicht weiblich. Und Gott hält es nicht für würdig, auf weibliches oder körperliches zu blicken.”
Peter Ketsch and Annette Kuhn, Frauen im Mittelalter: Frauenbild und Frauenrechte in Kirche und Gesellschaft: Quellen und Materialien (1983), 45.
A Latin translation.
«Tribus temporibus anni apparebit omne masculinum tuum coram Domino Deo tuo46.»
Dicam quid sibi locus iste velit. Quod agimus, aut femina, aut mas est. Si femineum est quod agimus, aut corporeum est aut carnale. Seminantes enim in carne, non marem sed feminam edimus animæ fetum, nempe enervem, mollemque ac materia crassum. Si vero æterna spectantes et ad meliora attentum habentes animum, fructus spiritus edimus, omnes fetus nostri mares sunt. Quæ igitur offeruntur in conspectu Dei, quæque Creatoris oculis apparent, hæc mascula, non feminea sunt. Neque enim feminea aut corporea dignatur Deus respicere.
J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca: Latin Text, vol. XII, Patrologiæ Cursus Completus (Paris: J. P. Migne, 1862), 295–298.