Many egalitarians praise Philip B. Payne’s 2009 book as the standard egalitarian work. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters attempts to make the case that the Bible permits women to be pastors and that marriage requires both husband and wife to submit to each other. Payne argues that the Bible itself is an egalitarian book, in contrast to other egalitarians (such as William Webb) who argue that the Bible teaches male hierarchy but this has been transcended by other biblical principles.

At 463 pages, interacting with everything in the book would make for a very long book review. Instead, I will attempt to offer some critical thoughts on each of the main parts of the book. While Payne has some interesting things to say, he errs significantly in his interpretation of almost every important passage on men and women.

Genesis 2–3
In the first chapter, Payne lists the arguments for Adam’s headship over Eve in Genesis 2–3 and then critiques them. I think his treatment here is weak, but most important to note is that he dismisses the argument that “man was created before woman” as the basis for Adam’s authority, with no reference to Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:13 based on this very fact (“for Adam was formed first, not Eve”). Instead, Payne concludes, “Current hierarchical understandings of roles in marriage clearly reflect pseudepigraphical writings in a way that has no clear analogy in the Genesis account of creation” (49). This raises the question—does Payne think Paul got his teaching of the creation account from pseudepigraphical (non-biblical) writings rather than the Genesis account?

Galatians 3:28
This is the favorite passage of egalitarians, so it is no surprise that Payne devotes an entire chapter to it (ch. 4). The Apostle Paul says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Payne claims the interpretation that this verse merely means that Greeks, slaves, and women are sons of God through faith in Christ is “redundant” because Paul made that claim two verses earlier in 3:26 (79). So Payne instead goes on to argue that this verse “explicitly affirms, without any qualification, that these divisions do not exist in the body of Christ” (80). Really? So were Christian slaves not to obey their masters? (Ephesians 6:5). Are Christian women not to submit to their husbands? (Ephesians 5:22).

Galatians 3:28 is a simple verse. The prior context of the Book of Galatians deals with the place of the Gentiles in the church, as Paul shows that justification is “through faith,” not by “works of the law” (2:16), and those who have “faith” in Christ are “sons of Abraham (3:7). Thus, Galatians 3:28 is within the context of Jew–Gentile relations, and Paul then in Galatians 3:28 makes the point that there is unity among Jews and Gentiles through faith in Christ. And yes, 3:28 expands on 3:26 by listing different groups. What Payne calls “redundant” is actually an explanation.

1 Corinthians 11
Payne spends a good portion of the book on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (pages 109–215). This is understandable because of the challenges of this passage, particularly the debate over the meaning of the woman’s head covering. Payne argues it refers to a woman’s long hair that is to be tied up in a bun (rather than a veil or shawl) in worship. He is probably correct that the head covering was a woman’s hair (though I think it could refer to long hair rather than hair done up). Yet somehow Payne flips this passage upside down by arguing that it teaches an egalitarian marriage relationship rather than male headship. Payne’s first maneuver is to argue that κεφαλὴ (kephale), literally “head,” means “source” rather than the traditional understanding of “authority.” This is a typical egalitarian argument, and we will come back to this below.

Somehow Payne completely ignores the significance of 1 Corinthians 11:9—“Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” He mentions the verse but does not give it much attention (180). In fact, Payne buries the following in a footnote:

To read subordination into ‘woman was made for man’ introduces something foreign to both the Genesis account and to the context of 1 Cor 11:4-16, does not fit the problem of effeminate hair, and conflicts with 11:11-12 (180, f. 21).

Thus, Payne does not want to read hierarchy here because of his interpretation of other passages. So what is Payne’s explanation of 1 Corinthians 11:9? He says that “woman was created ‘for the sake of man’ to fulfill man’s need for an intimate sexual partner” (181). But is that all this means? Why does Paul also say “neither was man created for woman”? Paul clearly states that Eve was made for Adam and that Adam was not made for Eve. Payne cannot account for this because he a priori refuses to read hierarchy into the passage even if it smacked him in the face.

The following verse literally says, “That is why a woman should have authority [ἐξουσίαν] on her head, because of the angels” (1 Corinthians 11:10). Many versions translate ἐξουσίαν as “symbol of authority,” which is probably correct, though both “authority” and “head” have the double meaning of the symbol (hair) and the man as her authority. Yet Payne takes this to refer to the woman’s own authority. He says, “All 103 occurrences of (“authority”) in the NT refer to authority held in someone’s own hand” (182), and he therefore concludes that a woman is to have authority on her head as a sign of her own authority. This is nonsense. The preceding context was all about how woman was made “from” and “for” man and explicitly rejects that man was made “from” or “for” woman (11:8-9), and this is followed with “That is why” or “For this reason” [διὰ τοῦτο]. Thus, the woman’s “authority” in 11:10 cannot be her own but refers to the man who has authority over her—the man for whom she was made. The woman is to have a sign of “authority” (hair) on her “head” because man is her “head” (11:3).

Thus, we see why the translation “source” makes no sense for “head.” The entire point of this passage is that a woman is under authority and is therefore to have the proper sign of authority on her head in certain settings. Paul does follow by saying that in Christ men and women are not “independent” or “separate” from one another, for as woman is from man so also man is born of woman (11:11-12). Yet Payne takes this so far as to mean that women can be ministers (198, 215). In limiting a woman’s authority to her own and rejecting man’s authority over her, Payne undermines the entire passage.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Unlike many of his complementarian adversaries (who limit Paul’s prohibition to women “weighing” prophecy), Payne understands the full force of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. He thinks it prohibits women from speaking publicly in church and thus contradicts 11:5 (though I think 11:5 refers to prayer and prophecy in only private and semi-private settings). Thus, Payne does away with 14:34-35 as an “interpolation,” meaning later scribes inserted these verses and they are not original to the Apostle Paul. Payne’s conclusion rests on two main arguments: (1) that two dots (“distigmai”) in Codex Vaticanus mark this as an interpolation, and (2) that verses 34-35 are also found after verse 40 in some manuscripts. Payne reasons from this that it must be an interpolation since there is no good explanation why a scribe would place the verses after verse 40.

Others have done a good job showing how weak his position is, including Jim Hamilton, who points out that no manuscript lacks verses 34-35 and that the meaning of the distigmai is tenuous. I will only add that Payne makes quite the logical leap in concluding that verses found in two different places in a passage is best explained by them being an interpolation. It is very possible that just one scribe made a simple mistake or that a scribe thought it would make better sense of prophecy by moving the verses. (Another speculative but interesting suggestion I have read elsewhere is that Paul wrote these verses in the margins and this led to later scribal confusion.) Either way, there is not enough information to jump to the conclusion that a very early scribe simply made up these verses that ended up in every manuscript on the passage. (Seeing that no manuscripts omit these verses, this would have had to have been a scribal addition from one of the earliest—or even the original—manuscripts.) Like all egalitarians, Payne has theological motivations for making this jump.

Ephesians 5:21-33 and Colossians 3:18-19
Payne misrepresents male headship as a husband “completely controlling” his wife (275), and then he goes on to assert that the dependence of Ephesians 5:22 on verse 21 for the word “submit” (the Greek is an ellipsis in 5:22) “shows that Paul expects husbands to submit to their wives, too” (277). If this is the case, then why did Paul not command husbands to submit to wives? Payne’s appeal to “mutual submission” in 5:21 from the word ἀλλήλων (allelon, “one another”) is the typical egalitarian argument. He label’s Wayne Grudem’s interpretation (“some be subject to others”) as “an extreme view of reciprocity” (280). But Grudem’s appeal to other uses of ἀλλήλων where its reciprocity is limited is strong (Matthew 24:10; Luke 2:15; 12:1; 24:32; 1 Corinthians 11:33; Galatians 6:2; Revelation 6:4). And most importantly, the context of Ephesians 5 demands this limited understanding of ἀλλήλων. It is ridiculous to conclude that Paul wanted husbands to submit to wives, masters to obey slaves, and parents to obey children. Rather, Paul said the Spirit should lead Christian to “submit” to those in authority over them (5:21)—wives to husbands (5:22), children to parents (6:1), and slaves to masters (6:5).

The appeal to “mutual submission” will certainly not work in Colossians 3:18-19 and 1 Peter 3:1 (“Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” and “wives, be subject to your own husbands”), neither of which say anything about “mutual submission.” Again, Paul clearly instructs wives to submit to husbands and not vice-versa. Payne again attempts to argue that κεφαλὴ means “source” in Ephesians 5:23, even though the context is all about a man’s authority and a wife’s submission. Wives are to “submit” to their husbands “as to the Lord” (5:22), because (“for”) the husband is “the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior” (5:23). Payne claims this comparison is all about Christ as the church’s “Savior,” as if there is no sense of authority involved. He parallels σωτὴρ (“savior”) in Ephesians 5:23 with ἀρχή in Colossians 1:18 and translates the latter as “source,” even though it is better translated “beginning.” This is certainly a forced interpretation of κεφαλὴ. Authority involves protection, and Christ saves the church as her authority, just as a husband’s covenantal authority over his wife requires giving himself up for her in love (Ephesians 5:25). Paul says the marriage relationship points to Christ and the church (5:32)—and that the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church (5:25) and the wife is to submit to her husband “in everything” as “the church submits to Christ (5:24). This really is not that complicated. Yet Payne ends up denying the very point of the passage, that modeling Christ and the church, the husband has authority over the wife, and they are to act accordingly. One has to wonder if Payne thinks Paul would also compare the wife to the role of Christ.

1 Timothy 2:8-15
One of the most explicit passages prohibiting a woman from pastoring or even teaching Scripture is 1 Timothy 2:12—“I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; rather she is to remain quiet.” Payne devotes three chapter just to this verse. Payne first argues that the present verb ἐπιτρέπω (epitrepo, “I do not permit”) indicates only a temporary prohibition (320-321). This is a ridiculous argument. The present tense does not indicate that a verb has a temporary meaning. While some of the other examples in the New Testament of the word ἐπιτρέπω involve the permission of a temporary action, this is because the action involved is brief, such as saying farewell (Luke 9:61). None of the other 18 uses of ἐπιτρέπω in the New Testament is a first-person verb, and only one other involves a negation—the parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 14:34, which uses οὐ (“not”). More importantly, Paul based his prohibition on the creation order (“for Adam was formed first, then Eve”), not some present situation. Thus, Payne’s claim that Paul “did not give 1 Tim 2:12’s restrictions on women in the Ephesian church any universalizing qualifier” is flat out wrong.

Payne next argues that the οὐδὲ (oude) in “teach or [οὐδὲ] exercise authority” forms a hendiadys, so that this is one function Paul is prohibiting (“authoritative teaching”) instead of two (“teaching or exercising authority”) (358). In the third chapter on 1 Timothy 2:12, Payne argues that αὐθεντεῖν (authentein) means “assume authority” rather than '“exercise authority” (385). Thus, for Payne, even if Paul intended a universal prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12, this prohibition is only on women “assuming authoritative teaching over men”—or as Payne says, “to take for herself authority to teach a man without authorization from the church” (393). It would not prohibit women from teaching or holding authority over men in general. Both of these are technical issues that are addressed well in the book, Women and the Church. Al Wolters shows that αὐθεντεῖν has the positive meaning of “exercise authority” (not “assume authority” or “domineer”). The verb is overwhelmingly used in a positive or neutral sense, which is in part based on the fact that “it often occurs in Christian contexts with God or Jesus Christ as its subject.”[1] Andreas Köstenberger argues that οὐδὲ joins two activities that are both viewed positively or negatively. Thus, Payne’s hendiadys proposal would not fit the pattern since he takes “teaching” as positive and “exercise authority” as negative. Köstenberger also points out that there is a difference between a single idea that encompasses two elements joined by οὐδὲ” and “a single idea that combines two elements joined by οὐδὲ.”[2] In other words, the verbs can be related but not merged. It is unlikely they are to be viewed as one task because (1) Paul uses the negative conjunction οὐδὲ (“or”) rather than καὶ (“and”), and (2) Paul separates the two verbs rather than keep them next to each other [διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός]. Further, even if these verbs form one concept, this activity is still contrasted [ἀλλ᾿, “but” or “rather”] with quietness/silence [ἡσυχίᾳ]. Women are to be quiet (or “silent”) in church, not teach.

Payne’s final move is to question the basis for Paul’s prohibition—“For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (2:13-14). Payne states that the word “for” [γὰρ] can be illative (giving a reason) or explanatory (e.g. “for example”). Of course, Payne argues that 2:13-14 is explanatory and that Paul is giving an example in Adam and Eve rather than the basis for his prohibition. Here is Payne’s critique of the alternative:

If Paul’s restriction in 2:12 is rooted in creation and verses 13-14 imply a principle of creation, what is that principle? Paul gives us no explanation here of what significance he draws from Adam being formed first. In the one other passage where Paul refers to Adam being formed first (1 Cor 11:8-12), he affirms in verse 11 the equal standing of woman and man, “woman is not separate from man, nor is man separate from woman” and in verse 12 he affirms that woman is also the source of man, apparently to keep readers from interpreting his affirmation that woman came from man as a basis for subordinating to men (402).

What is Paul’s creation principle? Paul tells us—women cannot teach or exercise authority over men because man was formed first and woman was deceived. It is right there in the text. So Payne’s claim that “Paul gives us no explanation” of the significance of the creation order is ridiculous. Payne then obfuscates things by appealing to his tortured exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:8-12. He again claims this refers to equality while he leaves out verse 9 that man was not created for woman “but woman for man.” Paynes says Adam’s being formed first “highlights that Adam is the source of Eve and through her of all women. Out of respect for man as her source, a woman should not assume authority over a man” (404). Now he is imposing his erroneous view of the man as “source” on 1 Timothy 2, even though nothing in the passage says such.

Payne does get one thing right, as he criticizes Grudem’s application of this passage. Grudem rightly holds that 1 Timothy 2 prohibits women from teaching or exercising authority in the church and that Paul bases this prohibition on the creation order in Genesis. Yet Payne says Grudem affirms that women may exercise authority over men in civil government, just not church or the home. Payne responds that Genesis “is not restricted to religious or domestic matters, so if it assigns leadership to men, then logically this should apply in society, business, and government as well as church and home” (403). In this case, I can only agree with Payne that Grudem does not go far enough. The creation order of men and women applies to all spheres of life, and women should not hold civil office in addition to church office.

While not necessary to the interpretation of 2:12, I still think 1 Timothy 2:15 is important in that it uses “childbearing” as a synecdoche (a part representing the whole) for womanly behavior. Thus, women are not to exercise authority over men (2:12), but instead are to act like women should, with childbearing being representative of womanly behavior—“she will be saved through childbearing.” Unsurprisingly, Payne does not take this view but interprets “the childbirth” to be a reference to Christ. He would never be caught promoting such sex distinctions. Payne thinks the synecdoche interpretation “requires” women to rear children to be saved and that such a requirement cannot be reconciled with salvation by grace through faith (426-427). However, this interpretation only takes Paul as saying that godly women will exercise faith by acting according to God’s design. Thus, this is a living faith, and Paul is not condemning women who are unable to have children. Paul could have easily mentioned Jesus here if he wanted. But he did not. And reading Jesus into this verse leads to reading other things into the verse, such as His mother Mary. As Payne says, “‘the childbirth’ implies Mary’s role at the culmination of that messianic line” (440). Contrary to this, the synecdoche interpretation takes Paul’s words at face value and does not run with the text.

1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9
Payne says that Paul never uses a masculine pronoun or “men only” requirement in the description for elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. He discusses the argument that the phrase “man of one woman” [μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα] (1 Timothy 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6) refers only to men, but then he dismisses this on the basis that the phrase only excludes polygamists and “probably any man not living in sexual fidelity to his wife” (445-446). Certainly Paul uses the phrase to require elders to be faithful and monogamous in marriage. But why does he say “man”? Payne’s answer—“Presumably the reason Paul did not include ‘one man woman’ in these passages is the same reason he did not include it with the other requirements for women deacons in verse 11. Polyandry was rare” (446).

There is a massive problem with Payne’s treatment here, which is that in order for a widow to be enrolled in the church, Paul requires that she be a “woman of one man” [μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα] in 1 Timothy 5:9. This is the exact opposite of the phrase for elders in 1 Timothy 3:2. Therefore, according to Payne’s logic, Paul must have also allowed for male widowers to be enrolled in the church, even though he only mentioned “woman.” But this cannot be the case based on the feminine nouns and description of widows in 1 Timothy 5:10-16. Obviously, only widows were enrolled because they were more vulnerable in the ancient world. Yet the point still stands that Paul only mentions a “man of one woman” regarding elders in 1 Timothy 3:2 and a “woman of one man” regarding widows in 1 Timothy 5:9. Paul only mentioned a “man” for elders because he required that elders be men. This parallel with 1 Timothy 5:9 deserves more attention, but Payne buries it in a footnote that only to make that point that the phrase excludes all sexual infidelity and not just polygamy (446, 451).

Conclusion
In both the beginning and end of his book, Philip Payne claims that Phoebe, Priscilla, Junia, Euodia, and Syntyche held “leadership positions” in the church (68, 444), a vague label used to equivocate when the real question is whether a woman can be a “pastor” or “elder.” Yet Payne proceeds throughout the entire work without dealing with the fact that the corresponding offices in the Old Testament were only held by men. All the elders of Israel were men (Exodus 4:29). And the teachers of God’s Word—the Levites and priests—were all men (Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 21:5; Malachi 2:6-7). What changed about human nature and God’s design so that women can now take on a role always reserved for men?

Typical of egalitarian scholars, Payne forces texts to say what they do not and then questions every aspect about passages that he does not like. Galatians 3:28 means sex-distinctions do not exist in the church (80). Ephesians 5 really means that husbands are also supposed to submit to their wives, even though Paul never said such (277). 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibits an “authoritative teaching,” not teaching and exercising authority—and anyway, this was only a temporary prohibition (320–321). And 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is just too much for the egalitarian position, so it must have been added by a scribe.

Philip Payne’s Man and Woman, One in Christ is the product of 36 years of studying the Apostle Paul’s teaching on men and women. While Payne has surveyed a vast amount of literature, his interpretations are so consistently wrong that one cannot avoid the conclusion that his work has been an exercise in futility. The Apostle Paul would not recognize Payne’s teaching as his own, but would condemn it as a distortion. Payne has forced his egalitarian presuppositions on the text of Scripture and proven himself to be an unreliable interpreter of God’s holy Word.

[1] Al Wolters, “The Meaning of Αὐθεντέω” in Women in the Church: An Interpretation & Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, eds. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner (3rd ed.; Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 113.

[2] Andreas Köstenberger, “A Complex Sentence: The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12” in Women in the Church: An Interpretation & Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, 146-147.

Book Reviews