Tertullian’s moral theology on women and the accusation of misogyny

Abstract

Some modern scholars have linked the second century church father, Tertullian, to misogynism. This article wades into the debate over whether Tertullian should be considered a misogynist. Through the combined approaches of historical enquiry and interpretative theory, this article probes the validity of such connections. This article also argues that a consideration of Tertullian’s infamous De cultu feminarum and prevailing views of gender in the second and third centuries CE establish that he was not a misogynist per se. Rather, the offending comments should be understood as part of his broader moral and theological worldview of his time to call the Christian women to genuine Christian virtues, sobriety, sincerity, and continence.

Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article provides a reinterpretation of Tertullian’s attitude towards women for modern readers. While modern thinkers become shocked of some of his remarks about women, we have shown that a proper understanding of Tertullian’s moral theology will change the perception of modern readers, especially on the accusation of misogyny.

Full text

hp://www.ve.org.za Open Access
Verbum et Ecclesia
ISSN: (Online) 2074-7705, (Print) 1609-9982
Page 1 of 8 Original Research
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
Authors:
Cliord Owusu-Gyam1
Daniel Dei1
Aliaons:
1Department of Theological
Studies, Valley View
University, Accra, Ghana
Corresponding author:
Cliord Owusu-Gyam,
owusugyamcli@gmail.com
Dates:
Received: 29 Sept. 2021
Accepted: 21 Jan. 2022
Published: 22 Apr. 2022
How to cite this arcle:
Owusu-Gyam, C. & Dei, D.
2022, ‘Tertullian’s moral
theology on women and the
accusaon of misogyny’,
Verbum et Ecclesia 43(1),
a2384. hps://doi.
org/10.4102/ve.v43i1.2384
Copyright:
© 2022. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS. This work
is licensed under the
Creave Commons
Aribuon License.
Introducon
The writings of Tertullian have offended modern thinkers, particularly on his moral theology of
the female gender and behaviour of Christian women in the church. Pierre Darmon, a French
specialist in the history of medicine, criticised Tertullian as ‘the most misogynist of all times’
because of his moral perception of the female gender.1 In the Mythologie de la femme dans l’ancienne
France (XVIe-XIXe siècle), Darmon (1983) wrote:
He is the first one to revive fearlessly the spirit of Isaiah (3, 16–23) and Ezekiel (16, 35–39) in a speech
where he denounces with passion the subversive activities of the woman. Because of her fault the man
was seduced by the devil, and she broke the alive image of the divinity and sentenced the human race to
death. To wash herself of this indelible stain, she should be in mourning for ever, remain covered with
rags, and to dedicate herself to an eternal punishment. (pp. 37–38)
The part of the writings of Tertullian that Darmon referred to is contained in the De cultu feminarum
in which Tertullian made some statements about women that could be disturbing to modern
readers. In the opening paragraphs, he wrote:
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. (Tertullian, De cultu feminarum (On the Apparel of Women), Book I:1–2)
In recent times, a significant number of theologians and feminists have followed Darmon in describing
Tertullian’s view in De cultu feminarum as misogynistic (Edwards 2019:317; Kraemer 1992:162;
Noddings 1989:51). Fiorenza (1983:55) has portrayed the theology of Tertullian as one that possesses
acute ‘misogynist contempt’. Ide (1984:76) has also claimed that Tertullian was the dreadful hater of
women among the church fathers. McGuire suggests that Tertullian’s hostility towards the female
gender showed up in the manner in which women who preached and led religious activities were
obnoxious to him (McGuire 1999:264). Other scholars accuse Tertullian of considering the female
gender as curse bearers (Knight 1974:120; ed. Ruether 1974:157). By extension, Tavard, Doukhan, and
Marga claim that the curse borne by the female gender is the cause of the misery witnessed in all
aspects of life (Doukhan 2020:3; Marga 2020:1; Tavard 1973:58, 59). For Still and Wilhite (2013:20),
1.Darmon was a prolic writer who authored several books including Le mythe de la procréaon à l’âge baroque (1977), Le tribunal de
l’impuissance (1979), Mythologie de la femme dans l’ancienne France (XVIe-XIXe siècle) (1983) and many others.
Some modern scholars have linked the second century church father, Tertullian, to misogynism.
This article wades into the debate over whether Tertullian should be considered a misogynist.
Through the combined approaches of historical enquiry and interpretative theory, this article
probes the validity of such connections. This article also argues that a consideration of
Tertullian’s infamous De cultu feminarum and prevailing views of gender in the second and
third centuries CE establish that he was not a misogynist per se. Rather, the offending comments
should be understood as part of his broader moral and theological worldview of his time to
call the Christian women to genuine Christian virtues, sobriety, sincerity, and continence.
Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article provides a
reinterpretation of Tertullian’s attitude towards women for modern readers. While modern
thinkers become shocked of some of his remarks about women, we have shown that a proper
understanding of Tertullian’s moral theology will change the perception of modern readers,
especially on the accusation of misogyny.
Keywords: Tertullian; misogyny; Montanism; virtue; female gender; male gender; De cultu
feminarum.
Tertullian’s moral theology on women and the
accusaon of misogyny
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.

Page 2 of 8 Original Research
hp://www.ve.org.za Open Access
Tertullian’s statements that the female gender was the ‘gateway
of the devil’ and ‘a temple built over a sewer’ were enough to
crystallise misogynistic thought in Christianity.
A number of apologetic claims have arisen to defend
Tertullian’s attitude of the female gender. Notable scholars
who have questioned the linkage of Tertullian to misogyny
include F. Forrester Church (1975), Elizabeth Carnelley
(1989), and Barbara Finlay (2003). In accordance with such a
sympathetic attitude towards Tertullian’s conception of the
female gender, the current study suggests that the relation of
Tertullian to misogyny is totally misconstrued. Claims that
he was a misogynist result from out-of-context interpretations
by modern audience. When properly understood, the second
century theologian comes to the fore as one who respected
women and advocated a way for them to escape the
victimised outlook that has been ascribed them by the socio-
historical settings of Tertullian’s days.
In this regard, the conclusion of this article aligns with
Finlay’s (2003:503–525) view in her ‘Was Tertullian a
misogynist? A reconsideration’. Like her, the present article
explores the prevailing attitude towards the female gender in
Tertullian’s period as well as the influence of Montanism on
Tertullian’s theological discourses. However, the present
study deviates from any subtle link between Tertullian and
the misogyny or any of its variants. Where Finlay (2003:511,
508) sees traces of androcentric theories in the writings of
Tertullian, the current study claims that the elements of
androcentrism, misogyny, and patriarchy observable in
Tertullian’s writings reflect the prevailing perception of the
female gender in Tertullian’s immediate socio-historical
milieu. Even in this socio-historical context, Tertullian’s
attitude towards women deviates from the norm, making the
claims of misogyny inconceivable, and hereby contested.
To authenticate these claims, the present study has offered a
historical inquiry and conceptual analysis to rethink the
claims of Tertullian’s ties with misogyny. Firstly, the article
presents a brief biography of the second century Church
Father. Secondly, the article probes the prevalent perception
of the female gender in the second and third centuries during
the Common Era. Thirdly, the article examines the specific
ways by which Montanism influenced the theological
discourses of Tertullian. Fourthly, the article inquires the
meaning, nature, and development of misogyny from
antiquity to the present time. These historical levels will
provide the basis for exploring the way Tertullian’s primary
audience understood and interpreted his views in De cultu
feminarum and other works about the female gender. Finally,
the present study suggests a conceptual reconstruction of
Tertullian’s views on the gender of women.
About Tertullian of Carthage
The biography of Tertullian is gathered from fragmented
documents of other authors because he himself never spent
the time to write about himself (Henne 2011:29, 30).2 It is
believed that his engagement in doctrinal apologetics, which
is of vast work in his book the Apology, did not permit him to
focus on himself in his writings (Henne 2011:29). Therefore,
writing about his life must be done with great caution
because of such obscurity.
It has been commonly accepted that Quintus Septimius
Florens Tertullianus, who is often called Tertullian, was born
in Carthage in Northern Africa (Munier 1996:11). His date of
birth is not certain. Timothy David Barnes situates it to
around 170–212 (Barnes 1971:57–59). Others similar to
Phillippe Henne and Charles Munier believe that he was
born between 150 and 160 or perhaps a later period (Henne
2011:31; Munier 1996:11). Jerome of Stridon accounted that
Tertullian was a presbyter whose father was a Roman
proconsular centurion probably stationed in Northern Africa
by the government (Jerome, De viris illustribus, 53). He
continued to say that Tertullian was always attached to his
home life and he was probably a very popular personality
(Jerome, De viris illustribus, 53; Henne 2011:31). Eusebius
gave a record that Tertullian was trained in law upon his
arrival in Rome (Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, 2.2.4).
Tertullian was not raised in a Christian home. He was raised
in a home deeply rooted in pagan practices (Tertullian
1997:18). His conversion into Christianity was in the later
part of the 2nd century. The conversion gave him the privilege
to connect with the Greek Church. He also encountered
Jewish traditions, Gnosticism, Marcionism and Montanism
(Tertullian 1997:20). Tertullian took great sympathy with
Montanism which he strongly defended (Tertullian 1997:20–
22). There is no evidence in his writings which suggest that
Tertullian left the mainstream church to Montanism.
Montanism was rather a movement that emerged in the
church of which Tertullian was much engaged with (Rankin
1995:27–38, 41).
Tertullian is considered as a prolific, rhetorical, and logical
writer. He wrote about 31 extant treatises in Latin. About 15
of his works cited by other writers are lost.3 He is considered
as the creator of the Latin theological language (Henne
2011:45). His first book was written in Latin after his
conversion (Henne 2011:46). His mastery of the Latin made
him invent many theological vocabularies. He became an
innovator of theological lexicons and theological concepts.
He created the terms incorruptela, incorrupatibilitas and trinitas
and gave more sense to the terms unio (uniom) and unitas
(community/unity) (Henne 2011:47–48).
Tertullian was not a systematic theologian. Most of his
writings are reactive and apologetic. One cannot also attribute
to him a specific area of writing. He wrote on various topics
ranging from ecclesiastical to social issues. His works could
2.Early writers such as Eusebius of Caesarea, Hist. eccl., II, 2, 4; Jerome, Vir. ill., 53; and
Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium give some informaon about Tertullian and
his works.
3.Lost works, viewed 28 September 2021, from hp://www.tertullian.org/works_lost.
htm.

Page 3 of 8 Original Research
hp://www.ve.org.za Open Access
be divided into three main parts, namely, (1) against
unbelievers, (2) against heretics and heretical ideas, and (3)
Christian living and contemporary issues.
Tertullian wrote extensively on women. He can be credited
with four major works on women: On the Apparel of Women,
On the Veiling of Virgins, To His Wife, and On Exhortation to
Chastity. There are other scanty comments about women in
some of his other writings, especially in his Prescription Against
Heretics. His major works on women are summarised here:
Ad uxorem (The Leer to His Wife)
This is the only work of Tertullian that describes about the
morality of marriage. He wrote this probably between 197
and 206 (Henne 2011:229). From the beginning, Tertullian
stated his purpose for writing the letter:
I have thought it meet, my best beloved fellow-servant in the
Lord, even from this early period, to provide for the course
which you must pursue after my departure from the world, if I
shall be called before you; (and) to entrust to your honor the
observance of the provision. (Tertullian, Ad uxorem [To His Wife],
Book 1:1)
This first sentence revealed the whole idea that Tertullian
was willing to communicate in his treatise. Firstly, Tertullian’s
usage of the phrase dilectissime mihi (my beloved or dear)
explains his gentleness and affection towards his life partner.
Secondly, the phrase in Domino conserua (a fellow servant in
the Lord) expressed a union that found its fellowship in the
Lord and the Christian faith. From these two perspectives, he
built his argument that (1) marriage should be guided by
moral affection and (2) the recommendation that marriage
should be a union between two people of the same faith.
De cultu feminarum (On the Apparel of Women)
This is probably the most criticised book. But his motive in
this book differs completely from how modern readers
interpret his views in this book. Tertullian made an argument
that women’s lives should be guided by the practice of faith
in the value of heavenly things other than earthly. He called
for the attention of women to the most essential element of
the Christian faith. While he began fiercely from the
beginning, his latter arguments were more pedagogic. His
compassionate salutation of using the same phrase sorores
dilectissimae (beloved/dear sisters) suggests his brotherly
connection with the women in the treatise. People who read
this book should appreciate it based on the merits of its
context and the merits of its valuable instruction on women’s
modesty in the practice of Christian faith.
De monogamia (On Monogamy)
In this treatise, Tertullian posed the question of monogamy
and remarriage of widows. But instead of being more
catholic, he takes his methodology from Montanism. While
his De Exhortatione Castitatis seems to be condemning
marriage, here, he reaffirms the legitimacy of marriage. Even
though some may see him as struggling with the subject,
Tertullian made a case for marriage and remarriage. His
views in this treatise coalesce with his recommendation to his
wife to remarry upon his demise. Tertullian suggested this in
his To His Wife. In this treatise, he refutes the heretical teaching
that only bishops should be monogamous.
De virginibus velandis (On the Veiling of Virgins)
In this treatise, Tertullian makes a moral argument that both
married and unmarried women must veil their heads. What
was important in this treatise was the fact that he made an
argument from different cultures of the world. For him,
because the veil was a sign of submission, married women
ought to wear it. Similarly, he entreated the unmarried
women to veil because they belonged to Christ. Tertullian
was more elaborate on this subject in this treatise than he did
in others. He finally made a conclusion that if women refuse
to put on the veil, it is not only pride but also against the
order of God, which he has put in nature.
Percepon of women in the
2nd and 3rd centuries of the
common era
This section explores the dominant Christian perception of
the female gender during the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the
Common Era. Inferences have been drawn from the views of
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. For obvious
reasons, Tertullian’s views on women have been excluded. A
major section has been given to the analysis of his views on
the female gender.
Generally, the church fathers conceived of the female gender
as the origin of sin, ‘lust’, and rebellion (Barr 2021; Ranke-
Heinemann 1990:185). Women were frequently considered
as a reminder of the shame of licentious lust. The church
fathers thought that suppressing the thoughts, activities, and
emotional expressions of the female gender was a divinely
sanctioned undertaking.
Two factors might have accounted for this repressive
conception of the female gender. Firstly, the emergence of
Christianity within the Hellenistic-Roman world meant that
some elements of culture and social perception subtly
permeated the central elements of Christianity. Of prime
importance was the influence of Platonism and Aristotelianism
(Doukhan 2020:3). The application of Plato’s concept of
dualism justified the superiority of men over women (Yen
2002:1). Aristotle’s conception of women as deformed men,
‘inferior beings’, and ‘defective beings’ with a persistent lack
of intellect and physical fitness established a negative pattern
of thinking about the female gender. Following Platonism
and Aristotelianism, the church fathers portrayed a master–
servant or a superior–subject relationship in which the
masculine gender was assigned the role of the master or the
superior (Ruether 2011:65).

Page 4 of 8 Original Research
hp://www.ve.org.za Open Access
Secondly, allegorical and literal interpretations given to
portions of the Bible solidified the view that the female
gender was ontologically inferior to the masculine gender
(Doukhan 2020:3; Lerner 1993:14). Biblical passages in the
Old Testament that were interpreted this way included
Genesis 1:27; 2:18, 20–23; and 3:1–24. Portions of the New
Testament text that was similarly interpreted included 1
Corinthians 14:33–35; 11:7–9; and Ephesians 5: 22–23.
Following the pattern of feminine inferiority, Irenaeus
considered women generally as the cause of sin and the
subsequent alienation of humanity from God. However, he
emphasised that Mary’s piety was far more important than
Eve’s curse. For him, the ‘virgin Mary’ has redeemed all
women from the sinful innate lust of the female gender
(Sawyer 1996:157). After the same pattern, Clement of
Alexandria proposed that God took away the weakness of
Adam and used it to create Eve. For this reason, he considered
women as weak, limited, passive, ‘castrated’, ‘immature’,
‘licentious, and unjust’ (Ide 1984:66).
Origen was the guiltiest and extremist in the adherence of the
church fathers to this pejorative pattern regarding the female
gender. His hostility towards women finds expression in his
abhorrence of marital sexual intercourse (Ranke-Heinemann
1990:51, 52). He attributed qualitative superiority to the
masculine gender claiming it was directly constituted of the
imago Dei. His description of women as lustful beings ‘worse
than animals’ summarises his hostility towards the female
gender (Weinrich 1991:258).
Although the Hellenistic-Roman world affected the
conceptions of the church fathers on the female gender, some
of them used undue pejorative descriptions of women who
easily lean towards misogyny and androcentrism
(Seitkasimova 2019:49, 51, 53). However, the context in which
they wrote describes a notion of doubts about the sincerity of
the female gender. In reflecting the dominant views about
women, the church fathers shared the mixed feelings they
had concerning the female gender. This notwithstanding,
their ambivalence eventually developed into a line of
pejorative thoughts concerning the female gender that later
writers explored in their misogynistic or androcentric
expositions of women across the centuries (cf. Ide 1991:96;
Lerner 1993:141; Ruether 1983:167).
Inuence of Montanism on Tertullian
Alternatively known as New Prophecy or Cataphrygian,
Montanism refers to a 2nd century movement within
Christianity that mainly emphasised ecstatic prophecy, the
dependence on the Holy Spirit as the promised paraklete, and
a rigorous ethical system (McKechnie 2019:9). It was named
after its founder, Montanus (eds. Newcombe & Harvey
2016:64). Popular scholasticism suggests that Montanus was
a new Christian convert who started his prophetic utterances
in Ardabau (Tabbernee 2009:12, 19). Together with Prisca/
Priscilla and Maximilla, Montanus claimed prophetic affinity
from the timeline of Phillip’s daughters and Agabus, through
to Quadratus and Ammia of Philadelphia (Tabbernee 2009:37,
40, 41, 89).
As Montanism spread from Asia Minor to Western Europe
and Northern Africa, it became established in Carthage. It
was here that Tertullian encountered the New Prophecy and
subsequently became one of its important adherents at the
beginning of the 3rd century in the Common Era (Trevett
2002:13, 14). From c. 207CE Tertullian expressed Montanist
sentiments by allowing genuine women to prophesy in the
church in Carthage. Additionally, he subscribed to and
further recommended the ascetic lifestyle of Montanism
(Trevett 2002:43). His strong advocacy of Montanist teaching
has been the occasion for the notion that he willfully
abandoned his priestly duty in the Catholic Church to join
the Montanists’ sect.
In addition to the initial proposition that Montanist practices
were kept under moderation in Carthage, ecclesiastical
records indicate that Tertullian became an avowed Trinitarian
Catholic Christian (González 1984:159–161). Adherents of
Montanism admirably referred to themselves as ‘spiritales
(spiritual people)’ and derogatorily referred to non-members
as ‘psychici (natural people)’ (Tabbernee 2009:110).
Common themes that formed the ethos of Montanism
included ecstatic prophesying, the ability of prophets and
martyrs to forgive sins, belief in the imminent second coming
of Jesus, the inclusion of women in church leadership roles,
the sacredness of martyrdom, and a strong ascetic emphasis
that rigorously required fasting (Ash 1976:236; ed. Calcagno
2016:185; Epiphanius 49.2.5; cf. Placher 1983:50; Searl-Chapin
2016:36; Tabbernee 2009:13–15, 91, 123). Also, they prohibited
impressive appearances and forbade remarriage both after
divorce and the demise of one’s spouse (Tabbernee
2009:13–15). They believed that widows and widowers had a
sacred duty to dedicate their lives to only ecclesiastical duties
(eds. Newcombe & Harvey 2016:65).
Montanism affected Tertullian in several ways (McKechnie
2019:112). Firstly, he believed that all sincere Christians ought
to live after God’s disciplina. Secondly, he suggests that a
marked evidence of a sincere Christian lifestyle is a Holy
Spirit endorsed continence. With this virtue, Tertullian taught
that the Christian could put ungodly and corrupt carnal
desires of the body under absolute subjection (Fiorenza
1983:55). Thirdly, he promoted ascetic lifestyle as that which
was pleasing to God (Finlay 2003:507). Accordingly, he
claimed that the intent to appeal to other individuals hinders
the Christian’s spiritual development. His De cultu feminarum
is an obvious expression of the extent to which Tertullian was
influenced by Montanists’ disciplinary views.
Origin and development of the
concept of misogyny
From the Greek μισογυνία (misogunia), the term misogyny
refers to a patterned thought, behaviour, and emotional

Page 5 of 8 Original Research
hp://www.ve.org.za Open Access
expression that exhibit bitterness, hostility, and inferiority
towards the female gender (Bloch 2021:1–3). The earliest
usage of the term appears in Greek classics. In his day,
Euripides was described as a hater of exponents of
misogynism (Deming 2004:224). Similarly, both Chrysippus
and Antipater regarded individuals with misogynic
tendencies as infirmed. They claimed that a healthy
individual will maintain an absolute balance between
‘philogyny and misogyny, philanthropy, and misanthropy’
(Salles 2005:485). Aristotle and Socrates, however, have been
described as misogynists (Ruether 1985:65).
Scholars have resorted to two main theories in their attempt
to understand the origin of misogynistic attitudes. These are
the traditional anthropologists’ view and the feminist
anthropologists’ view. The traditional anthropologists’ view
justifies male chauvinism on grounds that the female gender
is ontologically expected to be subordinated under the
masculine gender (Lerner 1993:16). In contrast, feminist
anthropologists claim that male supremacy has never been
supported by creation. Instead, male chauvinism emerged
from social, economic, and historical factors that affected the
original status of the relationship between the sexes
(Ehrenberg 1989:176; Smith 2013). Some feminist
anthropologists postulate that female chauvinism predates
male supremacy (eds. Davis & Farge 1993; Gimbutas 1991;
Ruether 1983). Like Marcus Tullius Cicero, these feminist
anthropologists believe that fear caused the masculine gender
to wrestle power from the female gender (Cicero 4:11).
The stance taken on the origin of misogynistic attitude
towards the female gender in this study is a modified version
of the viewpoint of the feminist anthropologists. It is believed
that the initial relationship between the genders was
characterised by mutualism (Peletz 2009:95). However, the
theological explanation of how sin and rebellion entered the
created order, perpetrated by various religions, especially the
three Abrahamic religions, caused the masculine gender to
be suspicious of the female gender. This suspicion eventually
developed the notion that the only way to trust women was
to control their way of thinking, behaviour, and the expression
of their feelings. The emphasis on the masculine gender as
the ruler of the sexes enunciated a struggle between the
genders. To curb these gender-based struggle and to ensure
the maintenance of male chauvinism, men grounded their
feelings of superiority and subjugation of women in sacred
literature (ed. Cade 1970:103, 198).
Consequently, interpretations given to some religious
documents portrayed the female gender as sinful. The
Christian religion, for example, has many passages that have
received such long-standing interpretations from notable
adherents. For this reason, many passages of the Bible have
been interpreted to lend support to the suppression of women
in religious services. A similar trend is observable in non-
religious literature. Generally, an assessment of the literature
that has been passed from generation to generation will seem
to suggest that few or no woman writers or heroes ever
existed. Instead, the works and exploits of men are
highlighted. Even in this preserved literature, the
comprehensive role of the female gender has been either
ignored or stereotyped (Pleck & Sawyer 1974:7, 8).
This attitude of male supremacy over women manifests in
different ways at different times and in different situations.
Depending on social historical settings, misogyny has
manifested in the form of patriarchal, androcentric,
machismo, and economic systems (Siapera 2019:24, 28, 32).
These social systems have been the basis of the derogation of
women in the history of humanity, either directly or indirectly
or in both ways. Some of the ways in which women have
been oppressed include gender discrimination, social
exclusion, the suttee system in India, female circumcision in
Africa, Malaysia, and some countries in the Middle East, and
witch-burning. Hence, misogyny does not only suggest male
chauvinist thoughts.
Rather, it describes an individual, male or female (in the case
of internalised misogyny), who considers the male gender
superior to the female gender and expresses such
considerations in ways that oppress or marginalise the female
gender (Bearman, Korobov & Thorne 2009:10). To claim
Tertullian was a misogynist is to accuse the 2nd century
church father of being a woman-hater and an instigator of
unspoken oppression and atrocities against the women
population of his church in Carthage. In contrast to any proof
of this, historical records show that he had close fellowship
with women of his congregation (Finlay 2003:508).
Reconstrucng Tertullian’s atude
towards the female gender
As already indicated, a misogynist is someone who hates
prejudices or has biases towards women. It comes in so many
ways such as denigration of women, violence against women
or ideological warfare against women. If Tertullian is accused
of being a misogynist, it means that he launched an ideological
bias or warfare against women with the sole intention to
denigrate and make them lose value. In this section, the
article examines the accusation of misogyny in the larger
context of Tertullian’s writings.
Sociological and theological contexts
As seen from our previous analysis, Tertullian wrote within a
period when both the society and the church considered
women as subordinates to men. Even though the idea of
equality existed in the theological frontline, there were still
social disparities between men and women. Clarke noted
that Tertullian’s theology on women was partly influenced
by the apostle Paul (Clark 1983:15–18).
The basis of Tertullian’s argument
Most scholars who accuse Tertullian of misogyny often refer
to the De cultu feminarum where Tertullian calls women the
‘Devil’s gateway’. Even though the current study recognises

Page 6 of 8 Original Research
hp://www.ve.org.za Open Access
Tertullian’s strong linguistic posture and rhetoric in the De
cultu feminarum, and his tendency to create an Eve-ontology in
the female gender, the accusation of misogyny would be an
out-of-context interpretation. Taking the De cultu feminarum
in its larger context and relation to other writings of Tertullian
on women, it is affirmed that Tertullian was a moralist whose
casuistic theological dogma about women was meant to
uphold commendable moral aptitude. The moral theology of
Tertullian in this treatise, therefore, is one of the inescapable
themes when carefully read in its larger context.
In the De cultu feminarum, Tertullian drew the attention of
women to the sinful nature. This sinfulness comes because of
the Fall in which the woman became an instrument of
deception and the fall of man.4 But Tertullian does not present
women as satanic. Instead, he presents women as the ‘Devil’s
gateway’, which is made possible because of elaborate
ornamental jewellery and profane dressing. Tertullian called
these as cultus and ornatus. It is the cultus which included
gold, silver, earrings, apparel and ambitio that contradicts
Christian humility/modesty. The ornatus, which included
hairdressing and body care, attracts attention (Tertullian
1971:21–22). Tertullian considered both cultus and ornatus as
satanic and akin to the standards of unchristian women.
Tertullian focuses on revealing the corruptible nature of these
elements mainly from chapters 5 to 90. He suggests that the
perception of the role that Eve played in the Fall should
induce women to be humbler in their appearances and
outlooks. Tertullian hopes that women shall escape the
derogatory perception that the society had of them, through
sobriety, sincerity, and continence.
Tertullian’s audience
Tertullian’s treatment of women’s adornment is about how
Christian women could live in accordance with Christian
standards. At least he was not writing to worldly women. As
indicated earlier, he wrote to sorores dilectissimae and ancillae
Dei (handmaids of God). It appears that these women were
new converts who needed to be taught Christian standards
(Tertullian 1971:43). At other times, he counselled Christian
men on the need for modesty in dressing and appearance
(Tertullian, De cultu feminarium, II:8; De Corona 5, 8). There is
a good reason to question that this affectionate salutation on
its own – especially a ritualised one – does not prove anything
to exonerate Tertullian from being a misogynist. But it is also
true that such affectionate salutation is not a hallmark of a
misogynist, unless otherwise proven sarcastic. From his
rhetoric, Tertullian did not write out of misogyny.
Tertullian and the gure of Eve
Tertullian employed the figure of Eve as the gateway of sin.
This allusion was not used by Tertullian to denigrate women.
Rather, the discourse of Tertullian gives evidence that Eve
became a vehicle of temptation that led to the fall of Adam.
Tertullian postulated the fact that one’s action can mislead
4.Elsewhere, Tertullian blames Adam for the Fall of humanity (cf. Tertullian 1959:15, 44).
the other into temptation. Hence, he encouraged women to
be modest. He made it clear when he interrogated:
But why are we a (source of) danger to our neighbour? Why do
we import concupiscence into our neighbor?… Are we to paint
ourselves out that our neighbours may perish? Where, then, is
(the command), ‘Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself?’ ‘Care
not merely about your own (things), but (about your) neighbor’s?’
(Tertullian, De cultu feminarium II:2, 2)
This was in support of an earlier point he had made about
the fall of holy angels (Tertullian, De cultu feminarium II:1,
2). Tertullian also made a similar assertion in the De corona
that:
For what is a crown on the head of a woman, but beauty made
seductive, but mark of utter wantonness, – a notable casting
away of modesty, a setting temptation on fire? (Tertullian,
De corona, XIV)
To avoid tempting men which leads to adultery and
prostitution, women must learn to put their adorning passion
under control. Finlay (2003) has noted that:
For Tertullian, women’s modesty was required in part to protect
brothers, sons, and husbands from the mortal sin of lust. He not
only saw feminine beauty and adornment as dangerous, but also
as unnecessary vanity. Hence, women’s ‘immodest’ dress was
inexcusable. (p. 510)
Tertullian in opposion to paganism
The De cultu feminarum must not be seen as the only place
where Tertullian stands against women’s immodesty. In fact,
it is not about women, but it is about the practice of paganism.
In De spectaculis, Tertullian advises Christians to stay away
from pagan amusement. He wrote:
[T]he rejection of these amusements is the chief sign to them that
a man has adopted the Christian faith. If any one, then, puts
away the faith’s distinctive badge, he is plainly guilty of denying
it. What hope can you possibly retain in regard to a man who
does that? When you go over to the enemy’s camp, you throw
down your arms, desert the standards and the oath of allegiance
to your chief: you cast in your lot for life or death with your new
friends. (Tertullian, Spectaculis, XXIV)
Tertullian’s moral theology should be seen as one that draws
people from the clutches of the world into the glory of
Christian virtue. He admonished Christian women to array
themselves after the directives of God and not after the beliefs
of the Hellenistic-Roman world (Ellingsen 2015:61).
Unfortunately, his critics and other modern readers have
polarised most of his writings in support of misogyny. The
sum of Tertullian’s theological works on the female gender is
a call to authentic Christian moral identity.
Summary and conclusion
Looking at the various meanings attached to misogyny, one
can hardly call Tertullian a misogynist. There is not enough
evidence to prove that Tertullian was a misogynist, at least
from the socio-historical context of his day. Tertullian
emphasised the value of Christian virtue with a higher
degree of holiness. His writings urged women to be modest

Page 7 of 8 Original Research
hp://www.ve.org.za Open Access
instead of satisfying the ungodly expectations of society. His
rejection of cultus and ornatus was to affirm humilitas. For
Tertullian, these ornaments were avenues that the Satan leads
women astray. Tertullian pointed out that these outward
ornaments led to prostitutio, the opposite of Christian castitas.
Although his rhetoric poses many theological questions from
the perspective of the modern reader, his overall arguments
on women and Christian modesty must be appreciated in
their proper context.
It could be seen that Tertullian was influenced by both his
society and the theological lineage of the apostles and
theologians before him. Both Paul and Peter called women to
the same Christian mode of virtue the way Tertullian did.
Like them, he used strong rhetoric that could easily be
swayed into misogynistic tendencies. He developed his
theological admonition from a socio-historical context that
marginalised the female gender. But Tertullian was always
gentle to women. He addressed them as dearly beloved of
the Lord.
Tertullian thinks that women do not belong to the devil. They
are saved by the Lord just like all men. His gentle approach
reflects his heartfelt commitment to the ministry of saving
women from the dungeons of paganism. As a presbyter, he
demonstrated his authority to nurture his church members,
of which women were part.
Tertullian does not subvert the activities of women. Instead,
he subverts their tendency to be swayed away by paganism.
It is true that because of their fault, Adam was seduced by the
devil. According to Tertullian, women can still be an avenue
to tempt men; therefore, they must control their adornment
in such a way that it does not cause further temptation and
the fall of men. Tertullian never made an assertion that the
male gender was to control the female gender. Again, he did
not argue that women must wear mourning clothes or cover
themselves with rags as penitence for their sins. Unfortunately,
such conceptions are distortions of Tertullian’s views about
the female gender. He appealed to women to adorn
themselves with the spirit of Christian humility in order not
to provoke more temptations. He called for their alertness to
self and to think of the salvation of others as well. Describing
Tertullian as a misogynist in the modern day is an insincere
way to interpret his genuine views on women. Darmon, and
others like him, subverted passages of Tertullian to make
unfounded conclusions. Thinking of the misconstruction that
may surround his works, Tertullian once wrote:
[T]his is the usual way with perverse and ignorant heretics; yes,
and by this time even with Psychics universally: to arm
themselves with the opportune support of someone ambiguous
passage, in opposition to the disciplined host of sentences of the
entire document. (Tertullian, De pudicitia, XVI:24)
Acknowledgements
Compeng interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal
relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them
in writing this article.
Authors’ contribuons
Both authors contributed equally to the writing of this article.
Ethical consideraons
This article followed all ethical standards for research without
direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding informaon
This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data
were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of
the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or
position of any affiliated agency of the authors.
References
Ash, J.L. Jr., 1976, ‘The decline of ecstac prophecy in the early church’, Theological
Studies 37(2), 227–252. hps://doi.org/10.1177/004056397603700202
Barnes, T.D., 1971, Tertullian: A historical and literary study, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Barr, B.A., 2021, The making of biblical womanhood how the subjugaon of women
became gospel truth, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI.
Bearman, S., Korobov, N. & Thorne, A., 2009, ‘The fabric of internalized sexism’,
Journal of Integrated Social Sciences 1(1), 10–47.
Bloch, R.H., 2021, ‘Medieval misogyny’, in R. Howard Bloch & F. Ferguson (eds.),
Misogyny, misandry, and misanthropy, pp. 1–24, University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
Cade, T. (ed.), 1970, The black woman, New American Library, New York, NY.
Calcagno, A. (ed.), 2016, Edith Stein: Women, social-polical philosophy, theology,
metaphysics and public history, Springer Internaonal Publishing, Charm.
Clark, E.A., 1983, Women in the early church, Message of the Fathers of the Church,
No. 13, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MI.
Darmon, P., 1981, Le mythe de la procréaon à l'âge baroque, Seuil, Paris.
Darmon, P., 1983, Mythologie de la femme dans l’ancienne France (XVIe-XIXe siècle),
Seuil, Paris.
Darmon, P., 1986, Le Tribunal de l'impuissance, Seuil, Paris.
Davis, N.Z. & Farge, A. (eds.), 1993, A history of women in the West, volume III:
Renaissance and enlightenment paradoxes, The Bellknap Press of Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.
Deming, W., 2004, Paul on marriage and celibacy: The hellenisc background of 1
Corinthians 7, 2nd edn., Wm Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI.
Doukhan, A., 2020, ‘The woman’s curse: A redempve reading of Genesis 3:16’,
Religion 11(600), 1–11. hps://doi.org/10.3390/rel11110600
Edwards, J.H., 2019, ‘ Tertullian’s views on women’, The Evangelical Quarterly 90(4),
317–325. hps://doi.org/10.1163/27725472-09004003
Ehrenberg, M., 1989, Women in prehistory, Brish Museum Publicaons Ltd, London.
Ellingsen, M., 2015, African Chrisan mothers and fathers: Why they maer for the
church today, Cascade Books, Eugene, OR.
Finlay, B., 2003, ‘Was Tertullian a misogynist: A reconsideraon’, The Journal of the
Historical Society 3(3–4), 503–525. hps://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1529-921X.
2003.00079.x
Fiorenza, E.S., 1983, In memory of her: A feminist theological reconstrucon of
Chrisan origins, Crossroad, New York, NY.
Forrester, C.F., 1975, 'Sex and salvaon in Tertullian', Harvard Theological Review 68,
April, 83–101.
Gimbutas, M., 1991, Civilizaon of the goddess, Harper, San Francisco, CA.
González, J.L., 1984, The story of Chrisanity: The early church to the present day, vol.
1, Prince Press, Peabody, MA.
Henne, P., 2011, Tertullien L’africain, Cerf, Paris.

Page 8 of 8 Original Research
hp://www.ve.org.za Open Access
Ide, A.F., 1984, Women as priest, bishop and laity in the early Catholic Church to 440
A.D, Ide House Inc., Dallas, TX.
Knight, M., 1974, Honest to man: Chrisan ethics re-examined, Pemberton, London.
Kraemer, R., 1992, Her share of the blessings, Oxford Press, New York, NY.
Lerner, G., 1993, The creaon of feminist consciousness. From the middle ages to
eighteen-seventy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Marga, A., 2020, ‘Marn Luther and the early modern beginnings of a feminist maternal
theology’, Religions 11(115), 1–10. hps://doi.org/10.3390/rel11030115
McGuire, A., 1999, ‘Women, gender, and gnosis in gnosc texts and tradions’, in
R.S. Kraemer & M.R. D’Angelo (eds.), Women and Chrisan origins, pp. 257–259,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
McKechnie, P., 2019, Chrisanizing Asia minor: Conversion, communies, and social
change in the pre-constannian era, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Munier, C., 1996, Pete vie de Tertullien, Descle de Brouwer, Paris.
Newcombe, S. & Harvey, S. (eds.), 2016, Prophecy in the new millennium: When
prophecies persist, Routledge, London.
Noddings, N., 1989, Women and evil, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Peletz, M.G., 2009, Gender pluralism: Southeast Asia since early modern mes,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Placher, W.C., 1983, A history of Chrisan theology: An introducon, John Knox Press,
Louisville, KY.
Pleck, J. & Sawyer, J., 1974, Men and masculinity, Prence Hall, Englewood Clis, NJ.
Ranke-Heinemann, U., 1990, Eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, Andr Deutsch,
London.
Rankin, D., 1995, Tertullian and the Church, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ruether, R.R. (ed.), 1974, Religions and sexism: Images of women in the Jewish and
Chrisan tradions, Simon & Schuster, NY.
Ruether, R.R., 1983, Sexism and God-talk: Toward a feminist theology, Beacon Press,
Boston, MA.
Ruether, R.R., 1985, Womanguides: Readings towards a feminist theology, Becon
Press, Boston, MA.
Ruether, R.R., 2011, ‘Should women want women priests or women-church?’,
Feminist Theology 20(1), 63–72. hps://doi.org/10.1177/0966735011411814
Salles, R., 2005, Metaphysics, soul, and ethics in ancient thought: Themes from the
work of Richard Sorabji, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Sawyer, D.F., 1996, Women and religion in the rst Chrisan centuries, Routledge,
London.
Searl-Chapin, S., 2016, ‘Francis Lee and the French prophets’, J.C. Laursen (ed.),
Histories of heresy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: For, against, and
beyond persecuon and toleraon, pp. 33–50, Palgrave Macmillian, New York, NY.
Seitkasimova, Z.A., 2019, ‘Status of women in ancient Greece’, Open Journal for
Anthropological Studies 3(2), 49–54. hps://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojas.0302.03049s
Siapera, E., 2019, ‘Online misogyny as witch hunt: Primive accumulaon in the age of
techno-capitalism’, D. Ging & E. Siapera (eds.), Gender hate online: Understanding
the new an-feminism, pp. 21–44, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Smith, S., 2013, ‘Engels and the origin of women’s oppression’, Internaonal Socialist
Review 88, viewed 28 September, 2021 from hps://isreview.org/issues/02/
engles_family/.
Sll, T.D. & Wilhite, D., 2013, Tertullian and Paul, vol. 1, T & T Clark, Bloomsbury.
Tabbernee, W., 2009, Prophets and gravestones: An imaginave history of Montanists
and other early Chrisans, Hendrickson, Peabody, MA.
Tavard, G.H., 1973, Woman in Chrisan tradion, University of Notre Dame Press,
Notre Dame, IN.
Treve, C., 2002, Montanism: Gender, authority and the New Prophecy, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Weinrich, W., 1991, ‘Women in the history of the church’, in J. Piper & W. Grudem
(eds.), Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood, Crossway, Wheaton, IL.
Yen, R.J., 2002, ‘Gender in Judeo-Chrisan tradion: A crique on Chrisan feminist
philosophies and a presentaon of the loyalist view’, American Journal of Biblical
Theology 3(37), viewed 18 February 2020, from hps://www.biblicaltheology.
com/Research/YenRJ01.html.