“It Was the Will of God”: Why this statement may not offer comfort in the face of suffering.

I’ve been a psychotherapist for nearly two decades now, and I’ve met with many people experiencing loss and/or trauma. It is often the case that well-meaning Christians attempt to offer comfort by describing some horrible experience as “the will of God.”

Typically, hardships allegedly from God are portrayed as one of three things:

1. Punishment for sin,
2. A lesson the sufferer needs to learn,
3. A necessary (though evil) means to a noble end.

Some of the tragedies I have worked to address, with the help of God, have included things like child abduction, sexual abuse, murder and ethnic-cleansing (genocide). Though it staggers the mind to consider it, some individuals have been impacted by all of these events in one life-time. Needless to say, they are in pain.

Which of the three explanations sometimes offered by well-meaning Christians affords them any comfort?

“Your child was abducted because you have sinned.”
“You were raped because God is trying to teach you a lesson.”
“God caused your spouse to be murdered to accomplish something noble, down the road.”

It’s a rhetorical question.

When presented with these explanations for tragedy, those suffering trauma or loss may feel that they can identify with the following words of Job:

“How helpful you all are to the powerless! Isn’t it wonderful that you aid the weak arm! How wonderful that you counsel the witless, always ready with a helpful suggestion! But who are you talking to, with these words of wisdom? Whose spirit spoke from your mouth?” (Job 26:2-4, TIB)

Whose spirit indeed?

Many who have read the Bible will be aware that Job is the story of a man who undergoes tremendous hardship, and is then approached by friends who attempt to comfort him. The comfort they offer is very similar to the three explanations often supplied by well-meaning Christians. Job did not receive this well.

Neither did God.

These are the words of God to Job’s would-be helpers:

“I am very angry with you and your two friends,” YHWH said, for not speaking truthfully about me as Job, my faithful one, did… I will accept Job’s prayer and not punish you as your folly deserves, for you have not spoken truthfully about me as Job, my faithful one, did” (Job 42:7-8, TIB).

The words of Job’s comforters wounded their friend; they also offended God because they did not speak truthfully about Him.

If this form of comfort wounds those we mean to help and simultaneously misrepresents the character of God, why do people offer it?

I can’t answer this question for everyone. I can, however, share what motivated a well-known theologian who attributed everything, including human sin (abduction, rape, murder), to the “will of God.” His name was John Calvin, and this is what he said,

“In short, Augustine everywhere teaches, that if anything is left to fortune the world moves at random… For which reason, he also excludes the contingency which depends on human will, maintaining a little further on in clearer terms, that no cause must be sought for but the will of God” (Institutes of the Christian Religion; as cited in Edwards, A God I’d Like to Meet, 2014, pp. 32-33).

John Calvin lived in a tumultuous time. In his own words, he tells us that the one thing he could not tolerate was the notion that “the world moves at random.” He evidently took comfort in the notion that everything on earth (including human decisions) are actually caused by “the will of God.” To paraphrase his worldview, one might say, “Despite all of the chaos, war, pestilence and plague we all experience or bear witness to, everything is proceeding exactly as God has planned.”

Is this a comforting thought? To John Calvin, it was. Apparently, he successfully addressed his fear of uncertainty by embracing a worldview commonly known as “determinism.” He is not the only influential theologian to take this approach. He indicates that he derived his worldview from the work of a 4th century A.D. Roman Catholic Bishop, named Augustine.

Augustine expressed the same deterministic worldview in the following terms:

“And so it comes to pass that the will of God is the first and the highest cause of all corporeal appearances and motions. For nothing is done visibly or sensibly, unless either by command or permission from the interior palace, invisible and intelligible, of the supreme Governor…” (De Trinity lib. 3 cap. 4; as cited in Edwards, 2014, p. 34).

In the eyes of these two influential theologians—one Catholic and the other Protestant—eliminating the notion that terrible things happen at random was paramount. To achieve this end, they also believed they had to eliminate the very notion of human choice. God, therefore, was made directly responsible for everything that takes place on earth, including human sin.

But isn’t this worldview “biblical”? Augustine believed that it was, and Calvin believed Augustine. Today, many pastors, priests and other church leaders continue to believe Augustine and Calvin. What they may not realize, however, is that Augustine did not derive this worldview from the Bible. He found it in what he referred to as the books of the “Platonists”:

“Simplicianus congratulated me that I had not fallen upon the writings of other philosophers, which were full of fallacies and deceit, ‘after the beggarly elements of this world,’ whereas in the Platonists, at every turn, the pathway led to belief in God and his Word” (Augustine’s Confessions, Book VIII, Chapter II; as cited in Edwards, 2014, p. 21).

One of the most popular Platonists read in Augustine’s day was a philosopher named Plotinus. In his work entitled, “The Enneads,” he shares a vision of a deterministic world:

“Evil has its origin in the All [the Source of all things], and without it, the All is incomplete. Are the evils in the universe necessary because it is of later origin than the Higher Sphere? Perhaps rather because without evil the All would be incomplete. For most or even all forms of evil serve the Universe–much as the poisonous snake has its use–though in most cases their function is unknown. Vice itself has many useful sides: it brings about much that is beautiful, in artistic creations for example, and it stirs us to thoughtful living, not allowing us to drowse in security” (as cited in Edwards, 2014, pp. 35-36).

According to Plotinus’ evil had its origin in the All [God] because even “vice” (e.g. human sin) “has many useful sides.” This is the source of Augustine and Calvin’s deterministic worldview. It is the source of the idea that God causes human sin: to punish us, to teach us, or to later accomplish some greater good.

If someone already believes in determinism, he or she is likely to interpret the Bible through these lenses. Bible passages that can be interpreted in many different ways will be hijacked by determinism. Present-day Calvinist, John Piper, for example uses the following passage to support a deterministic worldview:

“Proverbs 19:21: Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose that prevails” (Man’s Sin and God’s Sovereignty, Christian Post article; as cited in Edwards, 2014, p. 26).

Does this verse say that God causes everything that takes place on earth, including human sin? Frankly, no it does not. We’re simply told that whatever human beings may plan, it is God’s purpose that will ultimately prevail. The gospel of John tells us, for example, that God sent Jesus to take away the sins of the world (1:29). The gospel of Matthew tells us that King Herod would have prevented this from happening by slaughtering all of the boys in Bethlehem that were two years old or younger, including Jesus (2:16). God intervened, however, by warning Joseph in a dream to take Jesus and flee to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15).

In this story, did God cause Herod to slaughter innocent children? Of course not. What a horrendous thought! In fact, the Bible tells us clearly to never hold God responsible for human sin:

“When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’ For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers and sisters. Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:13-17).

In the story of Jesus’ preservation from Herod, did God take control of human choices? No. He simply warned Joseph in a dream to flee to Egypt, and Joseph—wisely—obeyed. “Many are the plans in a man’s heart, but it is the LORD’s purpose that prevails.” This passage has nothing to say in support of determinism, despite how it is sometimes interpreted.

When we encounter human suffering, I think we can expect to feel uncomfortable. In our discomfort, we may wish to reassure ourselves and others—as did Augustine and Calvin—that “everything is directly under God’s control.” In doing this, however, we may—like Job’s comforters—add insult to someone else’s profound injury. We may also be confusing a non-biblical philosophy (i.e. determinism) with the word of God. I pray that we will pause and reflect on other approaches to the problem of pain that is caused by human sin.

“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

Some personal thoughts:

When I have experienced trauma or loss (and I have experienced both) I have found the following Bible passages comforting:

“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever” (John 14:16).

“I will never leave you or forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5).

“Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me” (Psalm 23:4).

“Cast your cares on the LORD and he will sustain you” (Psalm 55:22).

“In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans” (Romans 8:26).

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). Please note, this does not say that God “causes” all things; the Bible actually never says this. Determinism is only inferred by people who already believe in a deterministic worldview.

“In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).

“Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted” (Matthew 5:4).

“He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

“God is love” (1 John 4:16).

The Sin of “Authentein”

Many are aware that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a verse often used to prevent women from “exercising authority” in the church. Some are also aware that the English expression “to exercise authority” originated as a 16th Century A.D. translation of the Greek verb “authentein.” For decades now, scholars have been debating the possible meaning of this verb, since it is found only once in the New Testament.

To help us understand what this word meant to the apostle Paul, I think it is helpful to examine the Bible he often cited in his epistles; namely, the Greek Septuagint (http://www.bible-researcher.com/quote01.html).

In the Septuagint (LXX), a noun form of “authentein” is used in following passage:

“Do you remember the ancient inhabitants of your holy land? You scorned them for their unholy ways, for their sorcery and profane rituals, their callous killing of children, their cannibal feasts on human flesh and blood. They practiced secret rituals in which parents slaughtered their own defenseless children” (Wisdom of Solomon 12:3-6, TIB).

The parents in this passage, who slaughter their children in profane rituals to false gods, are referred to as “authentas.”

Why would Paul use a verb form of this word in his letter to Timothy? Were child sacrifices being performed in or around Ephesus in the worship of false gods or goddesses? Historically, child sacrifices were indeed performed in Ephesus and the surrounding area by a matriarchal culture that worshiped a goddess named Cybele:

“They…dismissed all thought of intermarriage with their neighbours, calling it slavery rather than marriage. They embarked instead upon an enterprise unparalleled in the whole of history, that of building up a state without men and then actually defending it themselves, out of contempt for the male sex…. Then, with peace assured by their military success, they entered into sexual relationships with surrounding peoples so that their line would not die out. Males born of such unions they put to death, but girls they brought up in a way that adapted them to their own way of life…. After conquering most of Europe, they also seized a number of city-states in Asia. Here they founded Ephesus” (Pompeius Trogus, 1st Century B.C., as cited in Yardley, 1994, p. 29).

According to historians Ferguson and Farnell, the female-dominated culture in Ephesus viewed the male sex with contempt because masculinity was seen as a source of evil. Femininity, on the other hand, was seen as the source of life and purity. These views were reinforced by the culture’s creation myths. In the New Testament era, Cybele was still worshiped by a female-dominant culture, and they still viewed men with contempt. Although male children were no longer put to death, any men desiring to serve the goddess had to be purified of their masculinity through ritual castration. After this public rite, these men would sometimes fall into a trance-like state and begin prophesying for the goddess. Romans who witnessed this referred to the men as “interpreters of the divine word” (Favazza, 2011, p. 160). In addition to undergoing ritual castration, and shunning marriage, these men fasted from certain foods. Female worshipers looked to Cybele as the goddess who would save them in childbirth (Farnell, 1977, p. 444).

In Paul’s letter to Timothy, he warns against false teaching and mythology (1 Timothy 1:3). He connects this false teaching with those who shun marriage and forbid the eating of certain foods (1 Timothy 4:3). Those who practice this ascetic lifestyle claim to have access to special knowledge (gnosis) that Paul refers to as doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 6:20 & 4:1). Paul addresses the issue of being saved in childbirth (1 Timothy 2:15). He reminds Timothy that Adam was a source of life, and that Eve played a role in humanity’s fall (1 Timothy 2:13-14); this creation account directly contradicts the creation mythology of Cybele.

Paul also forbids the teaching and practice of “authentein” (1 Timothy 2:12). In this context, like that of the Wisdom of Solomon, it appears that “authetein” refers to ritual violence performed in the worship of a false god, or in this case the goddess Cybele, who was called Artemis by the Greeks.

Does the linguistic and historical data available to us support the idea that “authentein” should be translated into English as “to exercise authority”? No, I do not believe it does. Rather, I think it supports the notion that Paul is forbidding the teaching and practice of ritual violence.  In the case of Ephesus, this violence was done to men.

Appendix 1: What other authors say about “authentein.”

Catherine Clark Kroeger: “Authenteo, with its connotations of murder and of “sexuality related to death,” may imply a ritual action, for the mysteries contained both sex and death.  Possibly there was a ritual subjection to female dominance in order to gain purification…” (Women, Authority and the Bible, 1986, p. 244).

Leland E. Wishire: Between the 2nd century B.C. and the 2nd century A.D. Greek authors outside of the biblical text used a form of “authentein” in the following ways:

-Polybius used the word authenten, 2nd century B.C., to mean the “doer of a massacre.”

-Diodorus Siculus used three variations of the word (authentais, authenten, authentas), 1st century B.C. – 1st century A.D., to mean “perpetrators of sacrilege,” “author of crimes” and “supporters of violent actions.”

-Philo Judaeus used the word authentes, 1st century B.C. – 1st century A.D., to mean “being one’s own murderer.”

-Flavius Josephus used the words authenten and authentas, 1st century A.D., to mean “perpetrator of a crime” and “perpetrators of a slaughter.”

-The apostle Paul used the word authentein once during the same time period as Diodorus, Philo and Josephus.

-Appian of Alexander used the word authentai three times, and the word authenten twice, 2nd century A.D., to mean “murderers,” slayer,” “slayers of themselves” and “perpetrators of evil.”

-Harpocration used the word authentes, 2nd century A.D., to mean “murderer.”

-Phrynichus used the word authentes once, 2nd century A.D., to mean “one who murders by his own hand.” (Insight Into Two Biblical Passages, 2010).

Appendix 2: Comparison of Bible verses from the Septuagint and 1 Timothy

The Bible Paul was reading (LXX) included a book called The Wisdom of Solomon. In it, we find the following verses:

τέκνων τε φονέας ἀνελεήμονας καὶ σπλαγχνοφάγων ἀνθρωπίνων σαρκῶν θοῖναν καὶ αἵματος, ἐκ μέσου μύστας θιάσου καὶ αὐθέντας γονεῖς ψυχῶν ἀβοηθήτων, ἐβουλήθης ἀπολέσαι διὰ χειρῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν
(http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=29&page=12)

Here is an online English translation:

And also those merciless murderers of children, and devourers of man’s flesh, and the feasts of blood, With their priests out of the midst of their idolatrous crew, and the parents, that killed with their own hands souls destitute of help

Here are Paul’s words in 1 Timothy 2:12

γυναικὶ δὲ διδάσκειν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.
(http://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/new-testament/timothy_1/2.asp)

Speaking to a culture that had a history of sacrificing male children (in Ephesus) and was currently sacrificing male genitalia to an idol, why do we think Paul was talking about “authority” here?

I do not believe he had “authority” in mind.  “Authority” as a translation does not appear until Erasmus’ 16th century Latin “auctoritatem” (Wilshire, 2010).  English Bibles based on this Latin edition translated the word as “authority.”  The King James, for example, follows this tradition.

Confusing “Equality” with “Sameness”: Clearing up a Complementarian Misconception

Time after time, I’ve read complementarian literature that seems to misunderstand what is meant by biblical equality for women and men. The heart of the misunderstanding appears to be a misperception of what is meant by the term “equality.” Very often, the complementarian literature I’m familiar with assumes that egalitarians are advocating for the “sameness” of men and women in the church, rather than their equality. For example, in her book entitled, “The Feminist Mistake,” Mary A. Kassian uses the terms “equality” and “sameness” interchangeably (p. 37). She also assumes, wrongly, that Christian egalitarians want women to be “just like men” (p. 38).

Sameness suggests that there are really no differences between men and women. Numerous complementarian books, journal articles and blogs expend vast amounts of time and energy refuting this notion of “sameness.” They believe they are refuting biblical equality, but they are wrong.

Equality is not blind to the rather obvious biological differences between men and women. Equality, however, does not view biological differentiation as a basis for subjection. In other words, it does not believe that authority in human relationships should be designated solely on the basis of a person’s sex at birth.

Theologically, the association of “maleness” with leadership characteristics has a long history. For example, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) declared, “Man is stronger and purer since his is uncastrated and has a beard. Women are weak, passive, castrated and immature… His beard, then is the badge of a man and shows him unmistakably to be a man. It is older than Eve and is a symbol of the stronger nature. By God’s decree, hairiness is one of man’s conspicuous qualities, and, at that, is distributed over his whole body. For what is hairy is by nature drier and warmer than what is bare; therefore, the male is hairier and more warm-blooded than the female; the uncastrated, than the castrated; the mature, than the immature” (Trombley, 2003, Who Said Women Can’t Teach, p. 234).

Clement argues that beards, penises and body hair are a sign of maturity, strength and purity. Theologians throughout church history have concluded that these qualities make men—and not women—fit candidates for leadership. Clement’s notion that beards, body hair and male genitalia relate to maturity demonstrates a profoundly androcentric and erroneous worldview. He wrongly evaluates a woman’s maturity in terms of issues related to male puberty.

Is it really true that men are more intellectually, emotionally or spiritually mature than women? If you asked St. Augustine, the influential 4th century Roman Catholic Bishop, he would have answered, “yes.” He believed that women must be subject to men because “the weaker brain must serve the stronger” (Questions on the Heptateuch, Book I, § 153).

After immersing himself in Augustine’s commentaries, prominent Protestant reformer John Calvin came to similar conclusions about a woman’s “nature” and how it rendered her unfit for leadership: “[A woman] is formed to obey; for gunaikokratia (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” (Commentary on Timothy, Titus and Philemon). In the eyes of Calvin, women were created to “obey” not lead. He also viewed obedience and teaching as mutually exclusive activities.  In his commentary on Genesis, he referred to female subordination as “the order of nature.”

Today, complementarians continue to associate “masculinity” with “leadership” and “femininity” with “submission.” One of the founders of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, for example, said that women may not exercise authority because of their “characteristic weaknesses” (Piper, desiringgod.org, “affirming the goodness of manhood and womanhood in all of life”). Another complementarian leader expressed this viewpoint more bluntly, stating simply that women are more gullible and more easily deceived than men (Driscoll, as cited at the wartburgwatch.com, “danger flee churches which teach that women are easily deceived”).

Is it accurate to equate masculinity with leadership? No, I don’t believe so. This is really just a mental association resulting from gender-socialization. I don’t believe this particular association is evidence-based, though it has a long history in church tradition.

Do many women want to share decision-making authority in their churches and homes? Yes. Some of these women are also gifted to teach the Bible and/or preach the gospel of salvation. Does this mean that they want to be “just like men?” Only if we assume that maturity, leadership, teaching and preaching are distinctly “male” characteristics…and they are not. Equality is not sameness. Women can be distinctly female and–of course–spiritually mature; they can share decision-making authority with men, teach the Bible and preach the gospel: beards, body hair and male genitals are not required.

Male Shame, and the Projection of Blame onto Women

When Adam ate fruit from the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden, he knowingly disobeyed God’s command (Romans 12:5-14). Prior to this event, Adam knew no shame (Genesis 2:25). After his decision to sin, however, his feelings changed dramatically (Genesis 3:10).

When questioned by God about his actions, Adam’s first words were, “The woman you gave to be with me — she gave me fruit from the tree…” (Genesis 3:12). Why does Adam focus attention on his wife, when he is questioned about his own actions? Is this the first example in biblical history of attempting to defend against shame by projecting blame onto someone else? It may well be.

Even if this inference about Adam’s response to God is not an exact reflection of his motives, theologians throughout church history have projected blame for the fall of humanity onto women more overtly:

Tertullian: 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. (https://equalityinchrist.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/must-women-keep-silent-1-corinthians-14-the-apostle-paul-and-the-traditions-of-men/)

St. Jerome: And that the lot of a woman might not seem a hard one, [because of God] reducing her to the condition of a slave to her husband, the Apostle recalls the ancient law and goes back to the first example: that Adam was first made, then the woman out of his rib; and that the Devil could not seduce Adam, but did seduce Eve; and that after displeasing God she was immediately subjected to the man, and began to turn to her husband; and he points out that she who was once tied with the bonds of marriage and was reduced to the condition of Eve, might blot out the old transgression by the procreation of children: provided, however, that she bring up the children themselves in the faith and love of Christ, and in sanctification and chastity… (http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/jerome.asp#undone)

According to both of these influential theologians, Adam (the man) was too formidable a target for the devil to tempt. They tell us that Satan had to work through humanity’s “weak link”—woman–to achieve his goal.

According to this incredibly sexist interpretation of the Genesis account, Adam (the man) is portrayed as a victim of female influence. It seems as though the commentators hoped to believe, “There’s no shame in being victimized by irresistible feminine wiles.”[1] Jerome even offers a solution to the alleged problem of a woman’s influence: women must be reduced to the condition of slaves.[2] Specifically, he tells us that female sin will be blotted out when women submit to men in marriage, bear them children (i.e. have sex with them), and raise their offspring “in sanctification and chastity.”

Male shame is transformed into the blame of women, which leads to their subjugation: Historically, this is the foundation for every doctrinal tradition that subjects women to the authority of men in the church or in the home.

Why were some of the early church fathers so inclined to defend against shame by projecting blame onto women? Answering this question requires at least a brief exploration of what theologians like St. Jerome were so deeply ashamed of. Put bluntly, Jerome was ashamed of simply being human. More specifically, he was ashamed of the passionate emotions that are part of human nature. This shame stems from the fact that Jerome was an ascetic. This means that he had embraced a philosophy that said the mind and the spirit are good, whereas the body and the emotions are less good. When he combined this worldview with the Bible, he came to the conclusion that his passionate emotions (especially sexual feelings) needed to be put to death (i.e. mortified). His self had to be annihilated—crucified with Christ. He felt especially successful in his pursuit of this understanding of spirituality, when he was not in the company of a woman he found attractive. If he did notice a woman that he found attractive, and if he did experience the involuntary arousal of sexual feelings, he believed he had already sinned. It seems as though the acknowledgement and healthy regulation of sexual emotions was not a concept he was familiar with. Jerome and other like-minded theologians seem to make no distinction between impulse and action.

At one point in his pursuit of ascetic spirituality, St Jerome spent three years as a desert hermit, hoping to isolate himself from environmental cues that might stimulate “concupiscence” (i.e. sinful desire). The following passage from a book entitled, “After Eve” describes this experience:

Jerome spent about three years in the desert, studying, mortifying the flesh, learning Hebrew to prevent his mind being filled with erotic fantasies. (He tells us that his mind boiled with lust in the desert and he was much troubled with visions of dancing-girls.) To his disappointment he found that the desert-hermits were less saintly than he had expected, and, not by any means for the first time, or indeed the last, he quarrelled with those around him, and gave up desert-life in disgust. (http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/barr.asp)

After this experience, Jerome returned to Rome where at last he found himself reasonably comfortable in the company of women who also embraced an ascetic lifestyle. They too denied their emotions in general (sexuality in particular) and went to great lengths to conceal their femininity, lest they allegedly cause men (like Jerome) to stumble:

Jerome became deeply involved in the religious life of Rome, the Pope took a great interest in his work, he started on a new translation of the Bible ([the Latin] Vulgate) and, very important for our subject, he became very friendly with a group of well-born Roman matrons. These ladies had already become very interested in asceticism, and when Jerome, with his own recent desert experience, arrived and became known to them, they hailed him with joy, and their delight was reciprocated. They met frequently for prayer and Bible study. They exchanged letters constantly on matters of Biblical exegesis and meanings of Hebrew words. This intimacy gave rise to prurient gossip. There were accusations of sexual impropriety, which Jerome hotly denied, and there was indignation that these ladies, with their high social standing, their beautiful villas on the Aventine Hill, were following a regime which involved dressing in rags, never bathing, and indeed carrying mortification of the flesh to such lengths that one young woman died…

…Jerome had a horror of women’s sexuality. How is his attachment to [these women] and their devotion to him reconcilable with his anti-feminist views? I think he succeeded in seeing these women, with their saintliness, their love of Scripture, their ready acceptance of asceticism, as being no longer women, but men. Let me quote a letter he wrote to Lucinius, a wealthy Spanish nobleman who has made a vow with his wife that they will live the rest of their married lives in complete continence [sexual abstinence]: “You have with you one who was once your partner in the flesh, but is now your partner in the spirit, once your wife but now your sister, once a woman but now a man, once an inferior but now an equal.” (http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/barr.asp)

When Jerome experienced passionate emotion, he felt ashamed. He believed that such feelings were an indication that he had failed to successfully “mortify the flesh” through faith in Christ’s crucifixion. To help maintain the illusion that he had succeeded at annihilating his emotional self, he spent time in the company of women who denied their femininity and their sexuality. They dressed in rags and did not bathe. Other ascetic theologians from this era (e.g. St. Augustine) insisted that women be veiled in public to avoid causing men to experience “sinful” desire. ( Edwards, A God I’d Like to Meet, 2014)

In Adam’s case, moral failure evidently led to feelings of guilt and shame. He apparently dealt with these feelings by focusing his attention on Eve’s role in humanity’s fall, rather than his own.

In Jerome’s case, the experience of passionate emotion was wrongly perceived as sin. Evidently he felt guilty and ashamed for simply being human. He also failed to distinguish between feeling and action, temptation and sin. He apparently dealt with his feelings by avoiding women who did not conceal their femininity from him with filth and rags.

In the case of both Adam and Jerome, responsibility for male guilt and shame is projected onto women. Historically, this has led to the subjugation of women, and—ironically–the disempowerment of men. Women have been compelled by the church to hide their femininity, lest they cause men to stumble. This line of thinking suggests that men cannot find a woman attractive, and yet choose not to engage in sexually sinful behavior. Men, it would seem, have no choice but to sin in the presence of female beauty. Some complementarian church leaders have told me this is exactly what they believe. This is why some faith communities insist that women clothe themselves in loose fitting attire from head to toe. This is why some religious traditions insist that a woman cover her hair.  In some faith communities the sight of a woman’s hair is perceived as an irresistible sexual cue.  There is relevance here to the all-too-prevalent practice of blaming female victims for sexual assault.

Is projecting blame onto women for male guilt and shame God’s plan for his church? No, I don’t believe it is. In fact, I strongly believe that the status quo we find in many churches is the opposite of what God would have us do.

In the case of Jerome, rather than spending time only with women who wore rags and refused to bathe, I think he needed to encounter the truth that human emotions are not evil. I believe he needed to recognize that impulse and action are not the same thing; there is an important difference between temptation and sin (Hebrews 4:15). Rather than compelling women to deny their femininity, Jerome needed to be set free from a lie—the human philosophy of asceticism: “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

I also believe that God has provided a solution to guilt and shame other than the projection of blame onto others. John’s gospel tells us that Jesus Christ came to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29). To experience forgiveness, however, we must first acknowledge when we have done wrong (1 John 1:18). Then we can turn from sin to God, with faith that Jesus took our sins to the cross and nailed them there (Colossians 2:14). This is how we can experience real forgiveness from God.

Further, Jesus’ coming shows us that shame is essentially a lie. Shame tells us that if we have made mistakes we are worthless failures that cannot be loved. The truth of the matter is that God does not see us this way. God loves us, even though we are not perfect. Jesus died for us on the cross to take our sins away, while we were yet his enemies (Romans 5:10). God sees us as people who are worth saving. He sees that we are worth loving. I recognize that some theologians dispute this, claiming that God can’t help loving us, because he is love and we are all just loathsome worms. This is the very theological tradition, however, that springs from St. Jerome’s blending of the gospel with the human philosophy of asceticism. I do not believe it is an accurate interpretation of God’s love, made known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

Ascetic philosophy would have us believe that passionate emotion is evil. It would have us make no distinction between impulse and action, temptation and sin. Human defense mechanisms would have men deny responsibility for their own behavior and project blame for any wrong-doing—be it actual or merely perceived—onto women. Continuing in this direction will continue to oppress women and disempower men.

I don’t believe this is God’s redemptive plan for humanity. Rather, I believe God would have us trust in the love that has been revealed to us in Christ, accept ourselves as God’s dearly loved children, and love our neighbour as ourselves by saying “no” to impulses that would lead us to engage in hurtful behaviour. I believe this is the promise and hope of the “gospel” message, and that we can continue to grow in this direction, with the help of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:14-25). Surely this is a better solution to male shame than blaming and subjugating women.

End Notes

[1]In the Middle Ages, this belief had horrific consequences. Men caught in sexual sin would accuse women of irresistibly enticing them, with the aid of the Devil, through witchcraft. Many women were subsequently put to death. Shockingly, women who challenge patriarchal traditions in the church today are still accused of witchcraft, or of having a “Jezebel spirit.”  Have patriarchal church leaders forgotten that similar accusations were made against Jesus (i.e. that he had a demon) when he challenged the religious traditions of his day?

[2]Yet the Bible tells us that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free (Galatians 3:28).

How Prejudice Can Distort the Bible

What does it look like when the Bible is taken out of context, and seen through the eyes of prejudice…against men?

It might look something like this:

We can see in the Genesis account that God’s creation progresses from those things that are more basic to those that are more complex and beautiful. Thus we see God begins with creating such basic things as light and dark, land and water. He then creates plants and basic animal life. Finally, he progresses to humanity, beginning with the man and finishing with the pinnacle of his creative work: woman. (Genesis 1:1-27)

The notion that God’s creation progresses from the lesser to the greater is affirmed in the writing of the apostle Paul. Specifically, he refers to the first man as “the glory of God,” whereas he refers to the woman as the glory of this glory. By this the apostle indicates that the woman is twice as glorious as the male! (1 Corinthians 11:7)

That women are the pinnacle of God’s creation is also demonstrated in God’s choosing a woman, without the involvement of a man, to give birth to the Savior. “And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18). It is clear that a man would not have been worthy to play a role in God’s redemptive plan, because it was the man—not the woman—through whom sin and death came to the whole world: “through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners” (Romans 5:19).

We see, in fact, the cowardly and unbelieving nature of men (in general) by looking at the story of Barak and Deborah. Barak, a man, was unwilling to obey the Lord’s command to go into battle. He would only go if accompanied by Deborah. Deborah, a woman, had faith and courage. Therefore she enjoyed the Lord’s blessing and was appointed a leader over Israel. (Judges 4:4-8)

The fearful and unbelieving nature of men is further demonstrated in the New Testament, when Jesus entrusted the news of his resurrection exclusively to women. They bore witness to our Lord’s victory over sin and death. The men who first received the good news–even though they had spent much time in the company of the Lord, and had seen many miracles–did not believe: “When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women” (Luke 24:9-11).

What have I done to achieve such a monumental distortion of the Bible’s message? I simply began reading with the underlying assumption that men are inferior to women, and that Adam (because of his inferiority) was ultimately responsible for humanity’s fall. This assumption has reframed each and every text I’ve cited, removing it from its original context, and distorting its meaning.

Throughout church history, the same process has been used to distort the meaning of the Bible as it relates to women. The following influential theologians began reading the Bible with the basic assumption that women are somehow inferior to men and that they are ultimately to blame for humanity’s fall:

Origen: “It is not proper for a woman to speak in church, however admirable or holy what she says may be, merely because it comes from female lips.”

Tertullian: “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.”

Augustine: “It is the natural order among people that women serve their husbands and children their parents, because the justice of this lies in (the principle that) the lesser serves the greater…. This is the natural justice that the weaker brain serve the stronger. This therefore is the evident justice in the relationships between slaves and their masters, that they who excel in reason, excel in power.”

Calvin: “Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings.”

and

“Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex.” (https://equalityinchrist.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/must-women-keep-silent-1-corinthians-14-the-apostle-paul-and-the-traditions-of-men/)

Today, the interpretive framework laid down by Origen, Tertullian, Augustine and John Calvin continues to lift the biblical text out of its original context, and make sense of it as if there is something inherently wrong with women. One prominent complementarian, for example, explains that women may not share leadership authority in the church or the home because of their “characteristic weaknesses” (http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/affirming-the-goodness-of-manhood-and-womanhood-in-all-of-life). Another has said that women are simply more gullible and more easily deceived than men (http://www.dennyburk.com/mark-driscoll-on-women-in-ministry-2/). Ignoring the context of various biblical passages, these and other like-minded leaders in the church, infer a doctrine of male authority and female subordination.

As a result of reading the Bible through the lenses of systemic prejudice, women have been given lists of what they may not do in the church or in the home. Essentially, they may not lead or teach. In other words, they are prohibited from sharing decision-making authority and/or teaching the Bible…because of alleged characteristic weaknesses.

This article is an attempt to highlight how prejudice can affect our interpretation of the Bible, and how this kind of prejudice still affects women in the church today. It is also a call for humble reflection, and—I hope—repentance. My prayer is that the church would lay aside the distorting lenses of prejudice against women once and for all, in Jesus name.

Is Your Church Teaching You to Follow Jesus Christ or Plato?

Eternal Subordination of the Son, Male Authority, Death of the Self, Predestination: Do these ideas have their origin in the Bible or in human philosophy?  To answer this question, I’d like to begin by looking at the work of a man named “Plato.”

Plato was a philosopher in ancient Greece who attempted to make sense of life, the universe and everything using human reason or logic as his starting point. The worldview that he developed is referred to as “Platonism.”

Platonism was based on the concept of “natural order.” Some things, according to Plato, were naturally superior to others. The spirit was superior to the body; reason was superior to emotion; men were superior to women; the best born and best educated men were superior to men who were slaves etc.

Platonism was hierarchical. In order for justice to prevail in society, according to Plato, the superior must rule over the inferior. The spirit must rule the body, reason must rule emotion, men must rule women, and the “best-born” men must rule over allegedly lesser-born slaves. These two concepts, natural order and hierarchy, formed the foundation of a rigidly class-based society. As long as everyone was in the proper class and fulfilling their proper function, all would be well with the State. If a person attempted to function outside of his or her class, this action was defined as “injustice.” Mingling of the classes was viewed as rebellion against the natural order of things. (Plato’s Republic)

How has Platonism influenced Christianity? One of the earliest Christian theologians studied Platonism in the 3rd century A.D.. His name was Origen. He studied under a man named Ammonius Saccas. When Origen read the Bible, he began to make sense of it through the lenses of Platonism. (Encyclopedia Brittanica)

When he considered the Trinity for example, he saw a hierarchy of classes:

”Origen begins his treatise On First Principles by establishing, in typical Platonic fashion, a divine hierarchical triad; but instead of calling these principles by typical Platonic terms like monad, dyad, and world-soul, he calls them “Father,” “Christ,” and “Holy Spirit,” though he does describe these principles using Platonic language.” (http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/#SH3a)

Today, Christian leaders who follow in the theological tradition established by Origen refer to this hierarchical view of the Trinity as “the Eternal Subordination of the Son.” Does the Bible teach that Jesus was and is eternally submissive to God the Father? Explicitly, no. This doctrine has been inferred by theologians following in the philosophical footsteps of Origen.

Studying Platonism alongside Origen was a non-Christian philosopher by the name of Plotinus. His views are still available in works referred to as “the Enneads.” In the Enneads, the universe is once again portrayed in terms of natural order and hierarchy. Plotinus also shares a view of God that is deterministic. The divine Source (or “All”) is responsible for everything that takes place in the universe, including evil.

How did Plotinus, a non-Christian, influence Christianity? St. Augustine, an influential theologian from the 4th century A.D. was introduced to the work of Plotinus by a mentor. In his Confessions, Augustine praises “the books of the Platonists,” and explains that they helped him to make sense of the Bible. Like Origen before him, Augustine began to read the Bible through the lenses of Platonism (specifically the neo-Platonic views of Plotinus). What were the results? As far as Augustine was concerned, God is responsible for everything that takes place on earth, including sin. Human choice is subject to God’s decree. The spirit must rule over the body, and men must rule over women:

Adam said, “This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.” And the apostle saith, “He that loveth his wife loveth himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh.” Flesh, then, is put for woman, in the same manner that spirit is sometimes put for husband. Wherefore? Because the one rules, the other is ruled; the one ought to command, the other to serve. For where the flesh commands and the spirit serves, the house is turned the wrong way. What can be worse than a house where the woman has the mastery over the man? But that house is rightly ordered where the man commands and the woman obeys. In like manner that man is rightly ordered where the spirit commands and the flesh serves. (On John, Tractate 2, § 14, womenpriests.org)

How are Plato, Origen, Plotinus and Augustine relevant to the church today? Influential Protestant Reformer John Calvin made sense of the Bible through the philosophical work of Plato (Commentary on Genesis) and the theological work of St. Augustine (Institutes of the Christian Religion). What did John Calvin conclude? God is in control of everything that takes place on earth, including sin. Human choice is subject to God’s decree. What human beings choose and the results of those choices are predetermined by God. It is not enough for human emotion to be made subject to the mind; it must in fact be annihilated. This is accomplished when believers share in the crucifixion of Christ. God is good; humanity is evil. God must exercise complete control over humanity. (Institutes)  Men must exercise authority over women to safeguard the church from error and destruction (Commentary on Ephesians).

Today many Christian leaders continue to read and teach the Bible through the lenses of a philosophy that has been handed down to them from Plato through to John Calvin.  Some refer to themselves as “the New Calvinists.”  Instead of teaching “the natural order,” they teach “God’s created order.” The language is slightly different, but the ideas and origin are the same. Some teach the “Eternal Subordination of the Son of God” to God the Father. In keeping with a hierarchical view of the universe, they maintain that men must also rule over women. Any attempt to challenge what is essentially a class-based social structure in the church, determined exclusively by a person’s sex at birth, is viewed as rebellion against God’s created order. It is seen as “injustice” or sin.  The “self” is depicted as evil, and must be put to death.  Human choice is ultimately an illusion.

Does your church teach that there is an eternal hierarchy in the Trinity? Does it teach a hierarchy of men over women? Does it teach a form of determinism that says human beings are not actually responsible for their actions? Does it teach that human emotion is somehow bad that that the “self” must be extinguished?

If you answer “yes” to any of these questions, your church may be teaching you to follow Plato rather than Jesus Christ–something to prayerfully consider.

“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” (the apostle Paul, Colossians 2:8, NIV)

House of Shame or Kingdom of Love?

When Adam sinned by eating the forbidden fruit, he felt ashamed.

When God approached him, he turned his shame into blame: “The woman you gave to me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”

When the mighty empire of Rome began to lose its war with Carthage, its leaders—all men—felt shame. How did they cope? By turning their shame into blame. Women, it was said, were wasting the empire’s resources on selfish indulgence. They had been allowed too much freedom. The gods must be appeased by strengthening the laws that made all women subject to men.

In the middle ages, when “Christian” men were caught in adultery, they felt shame. They turned their shame into blame. Women had allegedly cast spells on them, forcing them to commit impure acts. The unrestrained lust of men was attributed to female sorcery. Women were imprisoned, hanged or burned alive.

Theologians for centuries—all male–have pondered for centuries how humanity could have fallen away from the paradise of Eden. Eve, we’re often told, had rebellion in her heart against God and his created order. She yielded to the serpent, and took her husband—and the rest of the world—down into darkness. As a result, all women must be restored to their rightful place of subjection. Only then will the church, and all humanity, be protected from error.

Blame-shifting,

Control,

Subjugation,

Abuse.

This is not the Kingdom of God. It is a house of shame.

In the light of God’s love for us,

With an understanding of our worth in His eyes,

Will we not turn from the lies of shame?

Will we not come out of the darkness, and meet with the Lord of light?

Will we allow Him to make us clean and forgive the mistakes we all have made?

Will we welcome Him into our hearts and lives to establish His Kingdom of Love?

I Call It “Injustice”

There is a place on earth where one group of people is considered “born to rule,” and another “born to serve.”

These groups are established solely on the basis of one biological trait.

This trait has nothing to do with intelligence, integrity or the capacity to lead.

Where there is disagreement, the will of the ruling class always prevails.

The servant class is required to “submit” and “obey.”

The ruling class claims to rule by divine right.

They reserve the exclusive right to interpret and teach from their sacred texts.

They sometimes call themselves God’s prophets, priests and kings.

The ruling class is called “men.”

The servant class is called “women.”

Some people call this place “church.”

I am not one of those people.

I call it “injustice,” wrongly attributed to God.

“The LORD promotes equity and justice; the LORD’s faithfulness extends throughout the earth.” (Psalm 33:5, NET)

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28, NIV)

“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.” (Matthew 23:10, NASB)

10 Myths Used to Keep Women in Subjection, And the Truth to Set Them Free

Myth 1:
Adam named the animals in Eden; this means that he had authority over them. Adam named Eve; this means that he must have had authority over her also.

Truth:
“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

“Male and female” both had dominion over the animals. This role was not Adam’s alone. The Bible does not say anywhere that “naming equals authority.” Some theologians have assigned this significance to the act of naming. The Bible itself does not.

Myth 2:
Eve was created to be Adam’s “help-mate.” This means that she was designed to be his assistant, and to follow his lead.

Truth:
The expression “help-mate” does not occur in the Bible. It is a misunderstanding of the old English language used in the King James translation. Eve was a “help” that was “meet” for Adam. The term “meet” was an adjective used to modify the noun “help.” It simply meant that Eve, as Adam’s help, was “suitable” or “comparable” to him. Furthermore, the term “help” as it is used in the Bible is not an indication of subordination. The same term in Hebrew (ezer) is used repeatedly of God.

Myth 3:
God made Adam, the man, before he made Eve. Being made first, chronologically speaking, is a clear indication of authority.

Truth:
The creation order for living things on earth, according to the Genesis account, proceeds as follows: aquatic life, birds, livestock, creatures that move along the ground, wild animals, humanity–male then female (Genesis 1:20-27, NIV). In this order of creation, animal life is made before humanity. If chronology equals rank, human beings should be subject to the animals. If, on the other hand, we assume that humanity should have dominion over the animals because we were created last, and are therefore the pinnacle of God’s creation, the woman would be God’s crowning achievement and should have dominion over all. Assuming that the chronological order of creation equals rank, however, is not an idea that can be found in the Bible. It is merely a human assumption, one the Apostle Paul appears to challenge in his first letter to the Corinthians: “Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.  For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God” (1 Corinthians 11:11-12, NKJV).  Some commentators suggest that chronology does not mean rank, until we come to men and women.  Once again, this is a human assumption; it is not an idea found in the biblical text itself.

Myth 4:
God gave Adam authority over Eve in the creation story; therefore all men have authority over all women, for all time.

Truth:
The Bible nowhere states that God gave Adam authority over Eve. Human inference has led some to this conclusion (see Myths 1-3), but the idea does not originate in God’s Word. In fact, the first mention of any kind of authority structure between men and women occurs only after humanity has fallen into a sinful state (Genesis 3:16).

Myth 5:
Jesus chose only men to be his disciples. Therefore only men should be leaders and teachers in the church.

Truth:
Jesus chose only Jewish men to be his disciples. Based on the spurious logic of Myth #5, we should only allow Jewish men to be leaders in the church. Yet Paul tells us in his epistle to the Galatians, “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-28, NKJV).

Furthermore, the Bible includes evidence of women functioning as leaders and teachers in both the Old and New Testaments:

– “Now Deborah, a prophet, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time” (Judges 4:4, NIV).

– “And I commend you to Phebe our sister — being a ministrant of the assembly that [is] in Cenchrea — that ye may receive her in the Lord, as doth become saints, and may assist her in whatever matter she may have need of you — for she also became a leader of many, and of myself” (Romans 16:1-2, YLT).

– “Greet Andronicus and Junia (female name), my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was” (Romans 16:7, NIV).

– “Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately” (Acts 18:24-26, NIV).

Myth 6:
God chose Deborah to be a leader in Israel only because there were no suitable men available.

Truth:
As with earlier myths, the notion that God chose Deborah because he could not find a suitable man does not appear anywhere in the biblical text. It is yet another example of human assumption wrongly confused with God’s Word.

Myth 7:
The only reason Priscilla could teach a man the gospel was because she did so under the authority of her husband.

Truth:
This qualification is not found anywhere in the Bible. It has once again been supplied by human inference.

Myth 8:
The Bible says that wives must “be subject” to their husbands. It also says that wives “ought to be” subject to their husbands just as the church is to Christ.

Truth:
These phrases are contained in some English translations of the Bible (e.g. Ephesians 5:22 & 24, NASB). They do not appear in the earliest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. They have been added—allegedly for clarification–by the translators. These additions actually change the meaning of the text. Since they do not appear in the Bible’s original language, they are not, in fact, the Bible.

Myth 9:
The Bible clearly states, “And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:12, NKJV).

Truth:
As with Myth #8, this is an English translation. The Greek verb translated “to have authority over” is “authentein.” In the language of the Greek Septuagint, a noun form of this word, “authentas,” is used to describe parents who commit acts of ritual violence in the worship of false gods (Wisdom of Solomon 12:3-6). Between the years 60 B.C. and 100 A.D., the word is used repeatedly by historians such as Diodorus Siculus and Flavius Josephus. If their uses of the word are applied to 1 Timothy 2:12, we have the following English translations:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to support violent actions against a man.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to perpetrate sacrilege against a man.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to perpetrate violence against a man.
I do not permit a woman to teach or to commit crimes against a man.[1]

Notable contextual information to help with translation: Paul is concerned about false teachers (1 Timothy 1:3), who give heed to deceiving spirits (1 Timothy 4:1), and forbid marriage and command people to abstain from certain foods (1 Timothy 4:3). Priests of an ascetic cult in the area of Ephesus (where Timothy taught) were false teachers, were not allowed to marry, had to abstain from certain foods, and were subject to ritual castration in the service of their goddess.[2]

Mounting evidence suggests that the traditional translation of authentein (e.g. to have authority) is incorrect. This tradition began with St. Jerome’s translation of the Bible into Latin in the 4th century A.D.. It was Jerome who said, “a wife is classed with the greatest evils.”[3] Jerome also encouraged celibacy and prescribed ritual fasts for his followers, ironically much like the false teachers Paul is evidently warning against.

Myth 10:
We need men to “step up” and fulfill God’s call on their lives as leaders in the church and in their homes.

Truth:
“Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ” (Jesus, Matthew 23:10, NASB).

 

End Notes

1 Thesaurus Linguae Graeca database, as cited in Wilshire, L. (2010). Insight into Two Biblical Passages: The Anatomy of a Prohibition, 1 Timothy 2:12, the TLG Computer, and the Christian Church.

2 Edwards, B. (2013). Let My People Go: A Call to End the Oppression of Women in the Church, Revised and Expanded.

3 Against Jovinianus, Book 1, §28, as published by http://www.womenpriests.org

Ephesians 5: a mandate for male authority?

To answer this question, I’d like to share a portion of chapter 5 of my new book entitled, “A God I’d Like to Meet: Separating the Love of God from Harmful Traditional Beliefs”:

Reading the Bible through the lenses of Plato’s philosophy, St. Augustine came to believe that his mind (or spirit) must be completely in control of his body (or flesh) and its emotional responses. Understandably, he found this goal difficult to achieve. As we’ve seen (in chapter 4), he was especially troubled when his body would respond to a woman he found sexually attractive. Rather than learning to accept and regulate his emotions, he believed that hierarchical control of his environment was the solution to his problem. He concluded that women should not be allowed to stimulate “sinful concupiscence” in men.[1]  To prevent this from occurring, men needed to exercise absolute control over women. Augustine did not find this teaching explicitly stated in the Bible. Rather, he inferred it from passages in the book of Genesis that were cited by the apostle Paul:

The apostle puts flesh for woman; because, when she was made of his rib, Adam said, “This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.” And the apostle saith, “He that loveth his wife loveth himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh.” Flesh, then, is put for woman, in the same manner that spirit is sometimes put for husband. Wherefore? Because the one rules, the other is ruled; the one ought to command, the other to serve. For where the flesh commands and the spirit serves, the house is turned the wrong way. What can be worse than a house where the woman has the mastery over the man? But that house is rightly ordered where the man commands and the woman obeys. In like manner that man is rightly ordered where the spirit commands and the flesh serves. (Augustine, On John Tractate 2, § 14)[2]

The passages of the Bible that St. Augustine is referring to are Genesis chapter 2 and Ephesians chapter 5. I believe it is important to note that in neither of these chapters (nor anywhere else in the Bible) is a husband, or a man, compared to “the spirit.” In fact, the biblical authors are not discussing the importance of a mind over body hierarchy at all. Further, they are not projecting this hierarchical paradigm onto the manner in which men and women should relate to one another. The notion that women (representing the lower part of human nature) must be ruled over by men (representing the higher part of human nature) does not have its origin in the Bible. This dualistic, hierarchical and sexist paradigm can, however, be found in Plato’s work of philosophy entitled, “The Republic”:

Let me further note that the manifold and complex pleasures and desires and pains are generally found in children and women and servants…. Whereas the simple and moderate desires which follow reason, and are under the guidance of the mind and true opinion, are to be found only in a few [all of them men], and those the best born and best educated…[3]

Very true. These two, as you may perceive, have a place in our State; and the meaner desires of the [many] are held down by the virtuous desires and wisdom of the few…

Seeing then, I said, that there are…distinct classes, any meddling of one with another, or the change of one into another, is the greatest harm to the State, and may be most justly termed evil-doing? This then is injustice…[4]

You are quite right, he replied, in maintaining the general inferiority of the female sex….”[5]

In Plato’s Republic, a dialogue between two philosophers (above) is used to express the notion that women are governed by emotion, whereas men are governed by reason. In light of this assumption, both conclude that men must rule over women. The so-called “meaner desires” of the many (women, children and slaves), must be “held down” by the “virtuous desires and wisdom of the few” (the allegedly best born and best educated men). I believe it is important to notice how Plato defines the term “injustice” here. In his mind, violating a male-dominated social hierarchy was the definition of “injustice.” It was referred to as “evil-doing,” and was regarded as a great threat to the well-being of the State.

When Augustine teaches the importance of male authority and female submission, he uses concepts and language derived from Plato:

It is the natural order among people that women serve their husbands and children their parents, because the justice of this lies in (the principle that) the lesser serves the greater…. This is the natural justice that the weaker brain serve the stronger. This therefore is the evident justice in the relationships between slaves and their masters, that they who excel in reason, excel in power. (Questions on the Heptateuch, Book I, § 153)[6]

In the eyes of Augustine, “justice” consisted of so-called lower classes (women, slaves and children) being subject to the authority of a higher class; specifically, men. He viewed this class-based, hierarchical society as the “natural order” of things.

Intentionally following in the philosophical footsteps of St. Augustine, John Calvin also inferred a doctrine of male authority from language used by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians:

[Regarding Ephesians 5:22] Wives, submit yourselves. He [the apostle] comes now to the various conditions of life; for, besides the universal bond of subjection, some are more closely bound to each other, according to their respective callings. The community at large is divided, as it were, into so many yokes, out of which arises mutual obligation. There is, first, the yoke of marriage between husband and wife; secondly, the yoke which binds parents and children; and, thirdly, the yoke which connects masters and servants. By this arrangement there are six different classes, for each of whom Paul lays down peculiar duties. He begins with wives, whom he enjoins to be subject to their husbands, in the same manner as to Christ — as to the Lord. Not that the authority is equal, but wives cannot obey Christ without yielding obedience to their husbands.

[Regarding Ephesians 5:23] For the husband is the head of the wife. This is the reason assigned why wives should be obedient. Christ has appointed the same relation to exist between a husband and a wife, as between himself and his church. This comparison ought to produce a stronger impression on their minds, than the mere declaration that such is the appointment of God. Two things are here stated. God has given to the husband authority over the wife; and a resemblance of this authority is found in Christ, who is the head of the church, as the husband is of the wife.

And he is the savior of the body. The pronoun HE (αὐτός) is supposed by some to refer to Christ; and, by others, to the husband. It applies more naturally, in my opinion, to Christ, but still with a view to the present subject. In this point, as well as in others, the resemblance ought to hold. As Christ rules over his church for her salvation, so nothing yields more advantage or comfort to the wife than to be subject to her husband. To refuse that subjection, by means of which they might be saved, is to choose destruction.[7]

When John Calvin read the 5th chapter of Paul’s letter to the church in Ephesus, he believed he “saw” a class-based society, with a higher class (men) ruling over a lower class (women). He believed that wives—because they are women—were obligated to “obey” their husbands, just as the church is obligated to “obey” the Lord. Speaking of the importance of obedience, for the church and for wives, Calvin issues the following warning: “To refuse that subjection…is to choose destruction.”

It is not difficult to see the influence of Augustine’s dualistic, hierarchical and sexist philosophy on John Calvin’s commentary. The notion of classes is present, as is the emphasis on the alleged importance of male authority and female obedience. Both Augustine’s and Calvin’s interpretations of the same portion of the New Testament are thoroughly Platonic. What they may not be, however, is an accurate reflection of the Bible’s intended message.

Just as the apostle Paul nowhere refers to husbands in Ephesians chapter 5 as “the spirit” (St. Augustine’s inference), he also nowhere commands that wives must “obey” their husbands.[8]  The idea that women must “obey” men in Christian marriage is an inference that is supplied by John Calvin.

The apostle Paul does write about “submission,” but he by no means directs these comments to wives (or to women) alone. He tells all Christians, male and female, “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21, NIV). In John Calvin’s commentary, he cites Ephesians 5:22 as supplying an additional command: “Wives submit yourselves [to your husbands].” In the oldest Greek manuscripts available to us today (P46 and Codex Vaticanus), the additional imperative verb “submit,” directed exclusively to wives, is not present.[9]  The only command, “submit to one another,” is directed to all Christians, regardless of their sex.

John Calvin was not, however, reading Greek manuscripts of the New Testament written in the 3rd or 4th centuries A.D.. He was citing the 16th Century Greek/Latin Bible compiled by a scholar named Erasmus. Erasmus’ Bible was compiled using only a few Greek manuscripts written in the 12th century A.D. or later. Erasmus also made use of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, sometimes translating from the Latin back to the Greek. As a result of this unique process, the Greek edition of Erasmus’ Bible has words and sentence structures that cannot be found in any Greek manuscripts of the New Testament whatsoever.[10]

Contrary to the commentary work of John Calvin, the apostle Paul nowhere instructs husbands to rule over their wives, either in his letter to the Ephesians or anywhere else in the New Testament. In fact, in his letter to the church at Ephesus, he emphasizes Christ’s suffering and sacrificial service as an expression of love. He then commands that husbands love their wives in the same manner: “Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” (Ephesians 5:25, NIV).

Paul provides the same instructions to all Christians, regardless of their sex or marital status, in his letter to the Philippians:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! (2:5-8, NIV)

Jesus similarly describes his earthly ministry as one of sacrificial service:

You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:42-45, NIV)

When the apostle Paul tells husbands to emulate the sacrificial love of Jesus in his letter to the Ephesians, is he truly establishing a mandate for male authority? No, I don’t believe he is.

References:
[1]R.R. Reuther, “Augustine: Sexuality, Gender and Women,” Feminist Interpretations of Augustine, ed. J.C. Stark, (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007) 56.

[2]Augustine, On John Tractate 2 § 14, ed. John Wijngaards, http://www.womenpriests.org.

[3]Plato, The Republic, 117.

[4]Plato, 120.

[5]Plato, 138.

[6]Augustine, Questions on the Heptateuch, Book I § 153, ed. John Wijngaards, ww.womenpriests.org.

[7]John Calvin, Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle, 1 June 2005, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 19 August 2014, <http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom41.iv.vi.v.html&gt;

[8]The Greek New Testament: Third Edition (Corrected), eds. Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger and Allen Wikgren, (Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies) 676-677.

[9]Harold H. Buls, “Ephesians 5:21-31,” Pericope.org, 19 August 2014, <http://pericope.org/buls-notes/ephesians/ephesians_5_21_31.htm&gt;.
John Calvin, Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians.

[10]Bruce Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: It’s Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (4th Edition), (New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc.) 142-145.