The Meaning of Feminine Submission

“Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” — 1 Timothy 2:11-12

Such is the teaching of St. Paul, with similar verses found in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and Ephesians 5:22-24. It can be safely asserted that this Pauline prohibition is not applied literally in the Catholic Church. After all, the writer of this article holds a Ph.D. in theology and has taught hundreds of men over the past four decades (including men studying for the priesthood), instructing them and standing in judgment of the worthiness of their academic work. I have thus “exercised authority over men.” The same can be said of the many other women who hold positions in Catholic high schools and institutions of higher learning.

Inez Fitzgerald Storck, in her well-done review of my book In the Beginning: Crucial Lessons for Our World from the First Three Chapters of Genesis (Jul.-Aug.), seemed uneasy with my exegesis of Genesis 2:18 regarding the creation of Eve, as I reject any interpretation of this verse indicating that women have a status subordinate to men. In this verse, God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.” The term “suitable partner” in the New American Bible (1970) is a translation of the Semitic term ezer. Sometimes ezer is translated as “helper fit for him,” “helpmate,” or “helper,” the latter being far closer to the sense of the word, which literally means “savior.”

These common translations, however, give the wrong impression that woman is secondary to man, as if Adam were given primary responsibilities, and Eve is there to simply aid him, as a person in charge of a project might have an assistant. But “helper” here does not mean that woman is man’s subordinate. The noun ezer is derived from the verb azar, which means to aid, to succor, to help — and to offer such help in desperate circumstances. It is often used to describe God’s aiding His people. It is also used in reference to dire military circumstances, for instance, when a band of skillful archers come to the aid of David in his battles with Saul (cf. 1 Chron. 12:1). Ezer, therefore, does not describe someone who is inferior or subordinate. Indeed, an ezer is a savior figure.

Thus, God created woman to rescue man from his original condition of “extremity” — in other words, from the isolation that is the antithesis of authentic human living. Woman, therefore, exercises a feminine authority, a true strength in relation to man, as she saves him from the “not good” from which he needed freeing. Eve brings Adam into human communion, and thus with her begins the moral center of creation: marriage and the family.

As mentioned above, ezer is most often used in reference to God, for example, in Psalm 115:9: “The house of Israel trusts in the Lord; he is their help [ezram עֶזְרָ֖ם] and their shield.” As Hebrew scholar Sarah E. Fisher explains, “Clearly God was not a servant here. He was a rescuer (help) and a defender (shield). Ergo, the same can be said of a woman. Being an ezer had nothing to do with being subservient; an ezer was not a docile assistant or submissive sidekick” (hebrewwordlessons.com, May 13, 2018).

If we want to characterize Eve as Adam’s “helper,” it must be as one who aids the sufferer of a terrible accident, as the Good Samaritan helps the man beaten by robbers and left half dead.

Fr. Eugene H. Maly, in the Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968), discusses the headship of Adam to Eve, arguing that “man dominates woman in the domestic and social order,” and that due to the Fall, “man’s domination, although part of the order of creation (cf. 2:21-23) is intensified by sin beyond the divinely willed measure…when God tells Eve that Adam will be her master.” It is perplexing how Fr. Maly could come to this conclusion. There is no indication that God designed man to “dominate” woman. It’s just not there. It certainly isn’t in Genesis 2:21-23, in the first instance of human speech, when Adam celebrates the creation of Eve: “This one at last is bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called woman, for out of her man this one has been taken.”

Perhaps the idea that man is meant to dominate woman is a problem of semantics. The word “dominate” does not have the same sense as the word “head.” To dominate is to assert authority over someone lesser, unequal — the dominator gives orders, and the dominated obeys. This is indeed the kind of authority Jesus asserts over the principalities and powers. St. Paul says He is “high above every principality, power, virtue, and domination, and every name that can be given in this age or in the age to come.” God the Father has “put all things under Christ’s feet and has made him, thus exalted, head of the church, which is his body: the fullness of him who fills the universe in all its parts” (Eph. 1:21-22). Christ dominates the cosmological powers. He is “high above” them, and all things are under His feet, indicating that the powers have been put down by force. But this is nowhere near the same as Christ’s relation to the Church. He is not said to be “high above” her; instead, He is one with her. She is His body.

St. Paul does not say that Christ is head of all things, including the Church, but that He is “head over all things to [for] the Church.” Indeed, the original Greek word Paul uses here, τὴ, is sometimes translated as “to” or “for.” Christ is exalted precisely because He has subdued all powers. Now He can be head “for” the Church in His glory and triumph — as if to say, Christ can be her head because He has subjected all other powers for her. The Church as Christ’s bride has an exalted head, and she is in a privileged position in relation to Him.

Headship does not simply mean “ruler.” Scripture studies show that the word “head” has two meanings. One sense is “overlord,” and the other “source” or “beginning.” For example, in the Old Testament, a ruler is sometimes designated by the Greek word for “head” (e.g., Judg. 11:11; 2 Sam. 22:44) or by the word for “beginning” (e.g., Exod. 6:25; Micah 3:1). In this sense, Christ is the head of the Church’s existence. Paul says of Christ: “It is he who is the head of the Church; he who is the beginning, the first born of the dead, so that primacy may be his in everything” (Col. 1:18).

Perhaps the definitive revelation of the relation of Christ the head to His body, the Church, is found in Ephesians 5, in which His headship is given as the model for husbands in relation to their wives:

Wives should be submissive to their husbands as if to the Lord because the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of his body the Church, as well as its savior. As the Church submits to Christ, so wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. He gave himself up for her to make her holy, purifying her in the bath of water by the power of the word, to present to himself a glorious church, holy, immaculate, without stain or wrinkle or anything of that sort. Husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Observe that no one ever hates his own flesh; no, he nourishes it and takes care of it as Christ cares for the Church — for we are members of his body. (22-29)

This passage clearly states that wives should be “submissive” to their husbands” and “submit” to them “in everything.” However, this is far from any idea of “domination,” certainly not according to the ancient Greco-Roman model of a ruler-subject relationship. Indeed, this passage is revolutionary; something new is happening here. The wife is called to be “submissive,” but the husband must first “love” her, and love her according to the model of the Bridegroom who “gave himself up” for His bride. Through the sacrifice Christ offered on the cross, the Church, a New Eve, comes from the New Adam, as it is Christ’s sacrifice associated with His headship that brings the Church to life.

The wife now offers her submissiveness in a whole new way. Indeed, it is the appropriate and free response to a spouse who, in a true sense, submitted himself to her by first loving her, not dominating her but, as Paul teaches, nourishing her and taking care of her as Christ cares for His Church.

Pope St. John Paul II, in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem (1988), called this an “innovation of the Gospel.” Christian authority is a radical departure from all that is of this world. Authority is not, as Christ taught, a matter of lording it over others (cf. Mt. 20:25-27) but is power put to the service of life. John Paul II teaches that this “innovation” indicates that there now exists “mutual subjection” between spouses “out of reverence for Christ.” Husbands must love their wives because of that unique bond whereby a man and a woman become “one flesh” in marriage. John Paul states that between Christ and the Church, “the subjection is only on the part of the Church.” But it is important that we not miss the fact that Christ already subjected Himself to her. He gave up His very life so she may be exalted in holiness. Christ’s authority is life-giving, and He has given Himself for the Church in the most radical subjection of all. Thus, John Paul concludes, “In the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual” (no. 24).

A peculiar teaching in Ephesians is that somehow even the Church completes Christ. The Church, as Christ’s body, is called “the fullness of him who fills the universe in all its parts” (1:23). This makes sense if indeed the unity between Christ and the Church is a marital unity, with the ultimate revelation of this truth found in Ephesians 5. Here Paul goes all the way back to Genesis 2:24: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cling to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.” Paul then provides the definitive exegesis of this passage when he states, “This is a great mystery — for it refers to Christ and the Church,” affirming that from the beginning God intended male and female sexuality to be transcendent sacramental signs.

Those who believe God wills that men dominate women believe they have support from 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. If Paul’s teaching is based on a monist-unilateral understanding of power, then that may be the case. Let’s consider the passage in full:

The head of every man is Christ; the head of a woman is her husband; and the head of Christ is the Father. Any man who prays and prophesies with his head covered brings shame upon his head. Similarly, any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered brings shame upon her head. It is as if she had had her head shaved. Indeed, if a woman will not wear a veil, she ought to cut off her hair. If it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, it is clear that she ought to wear a veil. A man, on the other hand, ought not to cover his head, because he is the image of God and the reflection of his glory. Woman, in turn, is the reflection of man’s glory.

Man was not made from woman but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. Yet, in the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man independent of woman. In the same way that woman was made from man, so man is born of woman; and all is from God. I will let you judge for yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that it is dishonorable for a man to wear his hair long, while the long hair of a woman is her glory? Her hair has been given her for a covering. If anyone wants to argue about this, remember that neither we nor the churches of God recognize any other usage.

It appears that women here are in a secondary position to men, who image God, and are merely the reflection of men, who have headship over them. It is a mistake, however, to read this passage as a rationalization for male power. It is really about the marital/covenantal order of the male and female relation that has for its foundation the Trinitarian relation between the Father and the Son.

It is important to keep in mind that being a head means not only lordship but being a source. Paul states that Christ is the head of all males. The Greek word used here means “male” and not “mankind,” which would include both men and women. Certainly, Christ is the Lord of males and females. So, why does Paul teach here that Christ is head only in relation to the masculine sex? How could he say that men are in God’s image, and women are not, when he knew very well that both males and females are created in God’s image? It must be that men are the “image of God and the reflection of his glory” in some special way. There must be something shared between God and males that is not shared between God and females. Christ is called the head of males, while males are the heads of their wives. Christ and men are heads because they are both origins.

Notice that even Christ is under the headship of someone, namely, the Father. He is under the headship of the Father because He is from the Father, eternally begotten by Him. Christ is the head of males because there is something about both Christ and males that images God. Christ’s headship in relation to males is that of archetype to image. God the Father is the head of Christ because Christ is His image. Christ is the head of males because they are His image. Males, therefore, have a representative sacramental role; they are symbols of Christ. The meaning of masculine authority is derived from Christ. Thus, men are the “image of God and the reflection of his glory” in a way women do not. After all, like Christ, men can be bridegrooms, while women cannot.

Husbands are the heads of their wives because, in the beginning, man served as the origin of woman. Eve is made from the side of Adam. He is her source. This is the explanation for her being, as the Father is the explanation for the Son’s being. C.K. Barrett, in A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (1968), explains that “as the existence of Christ is given in the existence of God, and as the existence of woman is given in the existence of man, so the existence of man is given in the existence of Christ.”

Man is woman’s source. She is drawn from his side, part of his being. Yet she is different from him and so reveals who he is. Man is completed through the creation of woman. The authority of headship is derived from being the origin of life to another. Woman is thus not head in the sense that man is; yet she, too, is a source and has authority, different from man’s but in relation to his.

The key section in this passage states: “In the Lord, woman is not independent of man nor man independent of woman. In the same way that woman was made from man, so man is born of woman; and all is from God.” We have already seen how male headship results from his being the origin of woman. Here Paul states the essence of feminine authority: “Man is born of woman.” If woman has authority because she is a source in relation to man, then how can Paul teach that when a woman prays or prophesies she must wear a veil as a sign of her inferiority? Simply put, Paul does not teach this. This passage is focused on the proper order of the marital covenant, based on Genesis 2:21-23, which has to do with who came first and who is from whom. Paul is not concerned with demonstrating the inferiority of woman but with sexual differentiation. He says it is a disgrace for a man to wear his hair long. A woman, on the other hand, must wear a veil. The man’s short hair and the woman’s veil distinguish them and are ways for them to exalt the created order that results from God’s wisdom. By wearing a veil, a woman visibly shows her difference.

The veil is a sign of feminine power. It is a sign of a woman’s liturgical “authority,” as Paul says, her ability to worship. Being covered means she has been brought into God’s covenant. In the Oriental world, veiling was a sign of honor, not degradation. In the Old Testament, shame is what is uncovered. To go without covering was a sign of harlotry and idolatry (cf. Ezek. 16:37). When God covers His people, it is a sign that He is married to them. The sign that God renounces His people is that He will “strip her [Israel] naked, leaving her as on the day of her birth” (Hos. 2:5). To be covered has marital/covenantal significance, while being uncovered denotes being outside the covenant or in violation of it. The veiling of a woman’s hair is a liturgical action. Far from a symbol of inferiority, it is a sign of her feminine authority to worship God.

Some Bibles translate 1 Corinthians 11:10 as “For this reason a woman ought to have a sign of submission on her head because of the angels.” This is inaccurate. The Greek word exousia does not mean “submission” but “authority.” The verse should read, “For this reason a woman ought to have authority on her head because of the angels.” Furthermore, as William Ramsey explains in The Cities of St. Paul: Their Influence on His Life and Thought (1907), exousia is power that is not exercised by someone over someone else but power a person possesses and exercises in his own right. The Oriental roots of the word give it this meaning. The veil is not a sign of male power over a woman; it is a sign of a woman’s own power.

Man is the head of woman because he reflects Christ as his source and archetype. But male headship and female authority exist according to the marital order of human sexuality. When Paul defines authority, he goes back to the beginning, teaching that authority is embedded in the very structure of the man/woman relation. Yes, man is head because, like Christ, he is a cause; woman is from him and for him; and man and woman are defined in relation to each other. Man is also from woman; this forms the basis of her authority. But man is not from woman only in the biological sense that women give birth to males. Rather, the creation of woman is the climax of creation. Eve, though derived from Adam, completes him. She is his body, “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” Eve provides Adam his masculine self-identification. Furthermore, in relation to Adam, Eve is also a source: “The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living” (Gen. 3:20).

God’s declaration that “it is not good that the man should be alone” expresses an anthropological truth concerning all mankind: We are called to communion. God solves the problem of the “not good” of solitude by creating woman in relation to man. This act is equally a declaration that woman is the foundation of marriage and the family — the highest instances of human communion. How interesting that when a man and woman wed, they enter a thing called “matrimony” — meaning the man is drawn into a feminine project, as “matrimony” has its roots in the Latin word mater, which refers to woman’s life-giving power.

Male headship, patterned on the sacrifice of Christ, ultimately leads the wife to what is good for their marriage and leads her to holiness, as Christ’s headship of the Church causes His bride to be “without stain or wrinkle or anything of that sort.” Thus, a wife should be subject and obedient to her husband.

In the end, women exercise a true feminine, life-giving authority, and male headship doesn’t mean men have the prerogative to dominate women. Christ, in His correction of the Pharisees regarding divorce (cf. Mt. 19:3-9), locates the truth about marriage in the beginning, before domination ever existed.

©2026 New Oxford Review. All Rights Reserved.

To submit a Letter to the Editor, click here.