Christianity ...... and then women

In his treatise “On Paradise,” Saint Ambrose of Milan wrote that “though the man was created outside Paradise, an inferior place, he is found to be superior, while woman, though created in a better place, inside Paradise, is found inferior.” Ambrose was certain, due to the Bible’s teachings, that women were inferior. And for centuries since the Bible was written, women have been regarded as the lesser creation that came from man and was subservient to man. Cataloguing the injustices committed against women throughout history would fill books (and probably has), so here are some highlights: marital rape, blame for husband’s infidelity, forced marriages, little to no political rights, father’s then husband’s property, emotional manipulation, oppressive dress rules, blame for men’s lust, sole responsibility and punishment for adultery, and practical slavery in the home, among others. While many argue that the Christian subjection of women derives largely from Greek myth and Roman law, the basic premise of much of the early church fathers’ teachings centered on Paul’s arguments (in I Timothy 2) that women were created after men and drew men into sin and from the belief that God is masculine. While modern Christianity would have us believe that it has left behind its subjugation of women, many or even most denominations of Christianity and other religions that believe in the Bible still hold to these basic and corrupt premises. By holding onto the hierarchal and patriarchal power structure taught here, Christianity falls far short of renouncing its oppression of women. Instead, modern Christianity reinforces these stereotypes and generalizations while claiming to denounce them by maintaining this fraudulent foundation.


Many great philosophers and theologians in Christian history demeaned women and relegated them to statuses barely above animals. Thomas Aquinas, Catholic priest and immense influence of much of Western Christianity and thought, argued that in “regards [to] the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power....” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica,Q92, art. 1, Reply Obj. 1.) So women are only valuable in as much as they reflect men. And since they fall far short of men, women are that much more imperfect and defective. Not only were women considered flawed, but, as Tertullian argued, all women are like Eve; they are “the devil's gateway,” “the unsealer of that forbidden tree.” Tertullian further argued that the woman (and therefore all women) was “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 even the Son of God had to die” (Tertullian, “On the Dress of Women”). Tertullian blamed women not only for dragging men to hell, but for causing Jesus to die.

Some of the harshest words ever penned about women come from Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation: “Women are created for no other purpose than to serve men and be their helpers. If women grow weary or even die while bearing children, that doesn’t harm anything. Let them bear children to death; they are created for that” (Martin Luther as quoted by Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks in “Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe”). But it wasn’t like Luther one day woke up and decided to oppress women with such degrading and asinine statements. Luther merely finds himself essentially quoting the Apostle Paul, who says to “let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” (I Timothy 2:11-15). It’s incredible how so much oppression can stem from this verse and the two others that Paul includes in his writings. If oppression of women were relegated to only the Old Testament (covenant), then perhaps women would have stood a better chance of attaining equality. However, because of Paul’s words here and in I Corinthians 11:3 and 14:34, Christianity has found many ways to keep the women subjected and out of power.

Protestantism’s (and larger Christianity’s) rallying cry is solo scriptura, or Scripture alone. But Paul’s teaching about men having been created first contradicts what is actually written in Genesis. In Genesis 1:27, where God creates the first human being, the Hebrew word “adam” was used where we have the word “man.” However, this translation conveys masculinity where masculinity is absent in the Hebrew. Rather, the word “adam” is gender neutral. In Strong’s concordance, the Hebrew word “adam” (H120) means “a human being, an individual, the species of mankind, a person.” English did not contain a genderless pronoun (in modern English we use “it,” but translators did not want to apply “it” to a human), so the translators used the word “man.” But instead of having created a man as we define man today, God had created a genderless human being. This was the first human, and it was created in God’s image. The last phrase of the verse shows that “adam” is not male; when verse 27 says that “male and female created he them,” the word “male” is a completely different Hebrew word. “Zakar” is Hebrew for male or masculine, and “nqebeh” is Hebrew for female. And even though Christian history has named the first human Adam and assigned masculine gender to Adam, the truth is quite different. Even the Hebrew name Adam (Genesis 2:20) merely means “the first human” (Strong’s H121).

In the second creation account, in Genesis chapter 2, we find the same genderless word for human in verse 7: “And the Lord God formed ‘adam’ from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and ‘adam’ became a living soul.” God then, in verse 8, placed ‘adam’ in the Garden of Eden. Even when God was creating the second human later in the chapter, God never took a rib out of ‘adam.’ Rather, the word King James’ translators translated “rib” actually literally means “a side of the body” according to Strong’s concordance (H6763). So the first human wasn’t gendered, and what God created the second human from was half of the first human. No wonder ‘adam’ immediately, upon awaking, exclaims that its new companion is “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh” (2:23).

Paul neglected to take this into account. He, in accordance with Greek myth, Roman law, and Christian tradition, assumed that men were created before women and were alone created in God’s image. However, if God created the second human from half of the first, who is to say which of the halves bears the image of God and which does not? Rather, both were and are equally God’s image. Relationship defined the atmosphere of God’s creation. Everywhere the first human looked he saw friendship and companionship. Even though God had created a complete human and declared that creation “good,” something was still missing. The animals all had partners, but the human, “adam,” did not have anyone to cherish, love, and become one with. The whole point of dividing “adam” into two was so that the two could reunite as “one flesh” (2:24). The point of creation was companionship.

There was no power structure in the first account of humanity. Hierarchy was nonexistent in God’s perfect, created world, because love consumed every thought and all intent, leaving no room for control. There was nothing to control. Even the first rule, the only rule that God gave the first humans, had nothing to do with controlling them or their actions. Instead, God’s command to not eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil centered more on the desire for power and knowledge of sin than eating an actual fruit. The fruit was merely a symbol for the larger picture: God created humans to live in love. They lived in a world devoid of selfishness, as evidenced by the fact that both humans were naked and didn’t even notice. Nudity didn’t register in their thoughts because no one was taking advantage of anyone else – raping, killing, stealing, swindling, and fighting did not exist. But when they were tempted by the serpent to eat the fruit, the serpent did not merely offer a delicious fruit – they were already in a garden full of wonderful fruit.

The real temptation came when the serpent informed the humans that choosing to do something, anything, just for their own pleasure and satisfaction (pure, unhindered selfishness) would allow them to be like gods knowing good and knowing evil. And there’s the catch. They already knew good; it surrounded them. But they had nothing to compare good to. For a comparison, humanity had to literally experience evil. Immediately upon taking this fruit, the reward of their selfishness became apparent. They knew they were naked, and they were afraid. They had experienced evil by acting selfishly, and now they could not stop. It controlled them, and they feared its power. In reaction, Adam selfishly blamed Eve. Eve then selfishly blamed the serpent. Selfishness defined them, and fear consumed them.

God proceeded to curse the serpent and to change childbirth from a joyous occasion to one of pain. Then, God pronounces the most interesting declaration. God told Adam that the earth itself has been cursed on account of humanity’s sin, and God tells Eve that her “desire shall be to [her] husband, and he shall rule over [her]” (Genesis 3:16). God never says that he wants this to happen or that he is causing it to happen due to his just and righteous punishment. Rather, God informs the two humans that this is their fate due to their own selfishness. God is actually predicting what form humanity’s selfishness will take. And how right God was! Throughout the centuries, injustice in the form of male domination over women has been rampant. Ironically, its hold on humanity has only been fueled by Christianity’s insistence that God wants this to happen. This was the very sin that started sin. This selfishness (that results in men taking advantage of women emotionally, sexually, and hierarchically) was the exact same selfishness that led the first humans to choose themselves over God by eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. How horribly mocking the serpent was when it claimed that selfishness doesn’t bring death (Genesis 3:4-5). No, the first humans and humanity after them were condemned by their own selfishness to a fate worse than death, a life characterized and consumed by unfulfilled and unfulfillable desire, a living death.

Not only do Christians employ the image-of-God-on-men argument to subjugate women, many argue that because the Bible indicates that God is masculine, men should retain and maintain the authority over women. Paul himself seemed to combine these two arguments into one treatise on hierarchical power, arguing that “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (I Corinthians 11:3). Paul uses this argument here to defend his position that women should cover their heads to show proper respect for men. God is presented by Paul as the head of Christ, who is the head of the man, who is the head of the woman. In other words, Paul is arguing that only males can be the head of anyone because the image of God is passed through the men.

But when Colossians 1:15 says Christ was the image of the invisible God, should we take that to mean that God looks like a shepherd, has long hair, and has a beard? Obviously not, because the phrase directly after says God is invisible. God is invisible because, as Jesus argued, God is Spirit (John 4:24). The true essence of God is not his visage or appearance; this is no physical description. His true being is spiritual. So when we are created in God’s image, this too is not a physical description, but spiritual. God’s image is clearly stated in I John 4:8: “God is love.” Therefore, being created in that very image, we are created to love like God does. This theme is constant throughout Jesus’ ministry and teachings.

The image of God, pure and unconditional love, has been marred by the evil of choosing and experiencing selfishness. But it would be absurd to argue that Adam looked just like God before sin, and after sin his entire physical form changed. Instead, Adam and Eve both changed on the inside. They suddenly had a break in their relationship with God; they changed spiritually. They were sinful, and fallen, and depraved (Romans 3). That was the difference. There were still remnants of God's image left, but they were completely obscured and scarred by sin. Sin is spiritual, as is God’s image of love.

God is indeed referred to hundreds of times with masculine names and with masculine pronouns such as “he,” “him,” and “his.” God is never given a feminine name, or referred to with feminine pronouns such as “she,” her,” and “hers.” But this does not mean that God is male. The masculine pronouns referring to God in the Bible are always the second, generic sense, referring to both male and female. Just as “Man” has been used for centuries by translators and theologians alike to refer to both men and women, so “He” was used to intimate a genderless, spirit-being named God. To argue that God is male or female is unbiblical. God exists eternally, and in the eternal sphere there is no sexual differentiation (Matthew 22:23-32). God is God. When Moses asked, “Who are you,” God said, “I am that I am!” (Exodus 3:14). Just as the Pharisees and Sadducees argued which husband would get the seven-times-married woman, today Christians argue about God’s gender. In heaven, there is no physical marriage; no sexual gender. Instead, there is a spiritual marriage, and spiritual, genderless beings.

Many Christians might point to the fact that God appears as men throughout the Bible in what are termed Theophanies and Christophanies. But Isaiah presents God as a woman in childbirth (42:14), a mother (66:13), as a pregnant woman (46:3), and as a woman who refuses to forget her child (49:15). In a parable (a picture of truth), Jesus portrayed God as a woman diligently sweeping her house in search of one lost coin (Luke 15:8-10). Jesus, in Matthew 23:37, portrayed himself not only as a female, but a hen. The Holy Spirit appears in a physical form like a dove (Luke 3:22). God would not be insulted by taking the physical form of any of His creation.

Still, Christians will point out that Jesus refers to God as his father many times during his time on earth. But since God is absolutely Spirit, Jesus’ prayer to “Our Father” is not defining God as a human gender. It is rather a picture much like those Isaiah presents. His reference to Father most likely refers to God's providential character that a loving human father emulates. This is definitely one of the closest analogies to God's providential and caring nature. But just as “Father” humanly describes attributes of a divine God, so do other analogies that God gave in Scripture about Himself. To describe the incredible compassion and faithfulness God has for his children, He uses the analogy of a human mother in Isaiah 49:15. Does this mean God is defined as a human mother? No. But His attributes can be enhanced by understanding this image.

Interestingly, most Christians have no problem equating God with the Father that the wayward son ran away from in the Prodigal Son story in Luke 15. But what about the analogy used right before it, of the woman searching diligently for the lost coin? Can we accept that some of God's attributes are described just as thoroughly by a diligent woman as a providential Father? Even more poignantly, not only does God employ women to analogously describe His eternally Spiritual attributes, but He also uses another of His creation: animals. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus describes Himself as a mother hen who wants to gather it's chicks under her wing, but is rejected. He is not saying that His eternal visage is a beak, wings, and eggs. However, Jesus' (and therefore God's) attribute of love for His children and his eternal sadness when his children reject him is well described by a mother hen. The analogy of a dove was used by God to describe Holy Spirit. Those watching said Holy Spirit looked like a dove. Does this mean that Holy Spirit's eternal form is that of a dove? No. But perhaps a dove describes Holy Spirit well.

Every physical or human quality used to describe God is merely an attempt to bring God slightly more within our grasp of understanding. As a Spirit, He does not have a body and therefore does not have hands or feet or a nose or any of the “bodily” qualities that we so often refer to. He may choose to show Himself in that way to help us understand Him better, but he is not limited to a male form, a Jewish form, or even a human form. He is a spirit. To worship God as a man completely disregards Numbers 23:19, where God clearly states that “God is not man.” God wanted to distance Himself and His character from man’s propensity to lie and change his mind. God is, however, much more and much better than a man – He is the essence of the opposite: Truth! Therefore, to say that God’s eternal character is masculine is to indict Him for lying and changing His mind. So saying that “God cannot be a woman” is partially true – God cannot be defined as a human female. However, with the same respect, God cannot be defined as a human male. But God does indeed associate with both male and female qualities, thus describing Himself in human terms to help us humans better understand His completely divinely Spiritual nature.

Any arguments for man’s inherent superiority result in faulty reasoning, further selfishness, and continued subjugation of women. The fallen nature of humanity is shown most clearly in God’s prediction that men would subjugate women, literally reigning over them. History shows, once again, that God sees and predicts the future accurately. It would seem appropriate that those who hate God and his essence of love should embrace the definition of sin; selfishness. But the unfortunate irony of our depraved world shows us that the most ardent advocates of the curse of sin are those who claim to be God’s children. These are the same Christians who have perverted Christ’s message of unconditional love into a call to war. They transform Christ’s saving sacrifice of himself, the ultimate act of unselfishness, into a creed and a law and a noose. The very selfishness that Adam and Eve chose has come full circle; many of today’s God-followers claim that selfishness as truth. They have twisted the essence of God’s character from love to selfishness, which is the polar opposite of love. To these Christians Isaiah (5:20) pronounces his most profound warning: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” For, truly, this is when the anger of the Lord burns most fiercely.