Grave Stele (AD 261–268, time of emperor Gallienus)

Tracing the Influential Roots of an Ancient Anti-Feminine Bias to 3 Sources

January 30, 2023 Cynthia Hester

While tracing the influential roots of an ancient anti-feminine bias, I read a revealing statement by theologian and priest John Wijngaards: “Prejudices against women existed everywhere in the past.”[1] Wijngaards describes the pervasiveness of both secular and religious anti-woman prejudices. From what sources do Westerners argue for the inferiority of women and the subordination of women to men?

Three significant influences—some of which overlapped—colored the early views of women: patriarchy, the early church fathers, and male historians.

Cultural Patriarchy

Patriarchy, a setting in which male societal rule was the norm, is one primary lens through which women have been viewed since the dawn of early Christianity. The history of patriarchy has been oppressive to many women. On the ancient value market, a son consistently appraised higher than any daughter.

“Patriarchy is not the Bible’s message,” argues author Carolyn Custis James, “it is the fallen cultural backdrop that sets off in the strongest relief the radical nature and potency of the Bible’s gospel message.” She continues, “The prevalence of this cultural system on the pages of Scripture, in cultures around the world, and throughout history can easily lead (and has led) to the assumption that patriarchy is divinely ordained.”[2] James is correct, patriarchy is not the Bible’s message. Point of fact, historians have noted, “We have examples of women living their lives with creative energy and mobility, taking opportunities as they arise, owning agency and demonstrating religious conviction in ways that surprise modern sensibilities, and contributing to the variegated story of early Christianity.”[3] And across the pages of Scripture, it’s clear that God values women. The triune God values the faith, words, courage, wisdom, strength, leadership, sacrifice, and kingdom work of women.

Early Church Fathers’ Misogyny

A second influential root of ancient anti-feminine bias towards women originates from the church fathers. The history of Christian interpretation reveals that from the time of the first church fathers through the twentieth century, women were largely viewed as ontologically inferior to men (inferior in their being).[4] Esteemed for their contributions to Christian thought and practice, the early church fathers’ thoughts about women, unfortunately, echoed a universal belief that women were inferior to men.

The church fathers’ writings reveal numerous misogynistic statements, with the Latin fathers harsher than the Greek fathers. Latin Fathers, “Tertullian, Augustine and Jerome routinely implied that women owed their ‘state of punishment’ to Eve.”[5] Judy Wu Dominick writes, “What we need to do is attempt to understand the social and philosophical contexts the early church fathers were part of and the way deeply entrenched, taken-for-granted worldly assumptions that existed in those contexts formed their beliefs about and sensibilities toward women—beliefs and sensibilities they unwittingly imported into their reading of certain biblical texts.”[6]

Known as “The Philosopher,” Aristotle (384–322 BC) claimed women were inferior to men. Therefore, in his view, since a female is an inferior being, they are rightly subordinate/subject to males. Aristotle argued, “The guilt of the first woman, Eve, as the cause of all sin, rests on all women (and subordination is a post-fall punishment for it).”[7] Aristotle, a pagan, was held in high esteem by the early fathers. Many fathers adopted Aristotle’s misogynist views which resulted in pervasive effects on the Church.

Wijngaards, along with many other theologians, argue that the church fathers’ anti-feminine views about women influenced the early Christian interpretations of the Bible beginning with Genesis 1:26–28, and including 1 Corinthians 11:7 and 1 Timothy 2:12.[8] Augustine (354–430) and others believed that while both the man and woman image God in their soul, a woman’s body was inferior, including her “weaker brain.”[9] Around this same period, Ambrosiaster authored a commentary on Paul’s letters and taught that men, but not women, image God. [Did he skip reading Genesis 1:26–28?] Ambrosiaster, therefore, reasoned that men hold God-given authority and power to rule. Linking women’s subjection to the laws of the day, Ambrosiaster wrote, “How can one say of the woman that she is in the image of God, whom we see subject to the rule of man without having any authority. For she can neither teach nor witness in court, nor commit her word, nor judge, how much less can she command?”[10]

Patristic Statements Reveal Misogynistic Interpretations

Patristic statements reveal the pervasive belief that women were unequal (in being) to men, and by nature more easily deceived and prone to deceive. Here are some examples:

- Tertullian (155–240) – You [women] are the devil’s gateway[11]

- John Chrysostom (347–407) – The sex [woman] is weak and fickle[12]

- Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) – As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten[13]

- For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates[14]

- Martin Luther (1483–1546) – By divine and human right, Adam is the master of the woman…There was a greater wisdom in Adam than in the woman[15]

- John Wesley (1703–1771) – She [woman] is more easily deceived, and more easily deceives.[16]

Are Women More Easily Deceived?

Are women more easily deceived than men? Historians Ruth Tucker and Walter Liefeld address the myth that women are more easily deceived, saying, “This view is not supported by historical fact. On the contrary, it appears that women have been slower than men to adopt unorthodox theology and to accept the kind of biblical criticism that undermines the faith.”[17] Professor Sandra Glahn addresses Eve’s deceit from a biblical perspective: “Much has been extrapolated about females’ nature from the fact that Eve was deceived and Adam was not. Yet the Bible does not teach that vulnerability to deception is an innately female trait—it is a human trait. (Note that when warning the Corinthians, Paul tells both men and women that he is concerned that they will be deceived as Eve was by the evil one—see 2 Cor 11:3).”[18] Kevin Giles, an Australian theologian, explains that the “traditionalist” view, which considers women ontologically inferior to men, permeated history.[19] Giles explains, “It is difficult to find a book written on the relationship of the sexes before the middle of the twentieth century, by a Christian or a non-Christian, that does not speak of men as ‘superior,’ women as ‘inferior.’”[20]

A Male Historian Lens

The third influential root of ancient anti-feminine bias is the fact that the majority of early church historians were male. Christian women’s lives and ministries have predominately been viewed through a male lens. Historians Ruth Tucker and Walter Liefeld note, “the vast majority of published church histories are histories of men.” Women are “overlooked even when they made outstanding contributions…Their role in religion down through the ages has been flagrantly neglected.”[21]

Fortunately, during the twentieth and twenty–first centuries, scholars, female and male, have researched and written about the lives and public ministry of Christian women and their contributions to the faith.[22] In addition, three new types of evidence have shed new light on current understandings of New Testament backgrounds, and they impel reexamining the biblical text: online searchable concordances, social-history findings, and archaeological discoveries.[23] Historian Margaret MacDonald explains that some of this new scholarship focuses on recovering details of early Christian women’s involvement in spreading Christianity.

Key Takeaways About the Influential Roots of Anti-Feminine Bias

We’ve now traced three influential roots of ancient anti-feminine bias against women: patriarchal culture, the early church fathers’ view that women were defective males, and our Christian history long viewed exclusively through a male perspective. Here are three key takeaways. One, cultural patriarchy is not a firm ground to establish the subordination of Christian women. Two, because Aristotle’s view of a female as a “mutilated male,” was embraced by many early church fathers, these views were “translated into biological, obstetrical, and theological tracts” and continue “to have authoritative influence.”[24] Finally, regarding a male lens on history, I like Bernadette Brooten’s admonition: “The history of early Christian women must be more than the study of male attitudes toward women; the primary focus should be on women.”[25] Thankfully, the LORD ensured the words and faith-filled stories of women were preserved in his holy Scriptures.

[1] John Wijngaards, The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church: Unmasking a Cuckoo’s Egg Tradition (London: Darton, Longman, & Todd Ltd., 2001), 44.

[2] Carolyn Custis James, Malestrom: Manhood Swept into the Currents of a Changing World (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 31.

[3] Lynn H. Cohick and Amy Brown Hughes, Christian Women in the Patristic World: Their Influence, Authority, and Legacy in the Second through Fifth Centuries (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), xxv.

[4] Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 4.

[5] Wijngaards, The Ordination of Women, 45.

[6] Judy Wu Dominick, “How Some of the Early Church Fathers’ Views on Women Affect Us Today,” lifereconsidered.com, February 12, 2020, accessed March 3, 2022, https://lifereconsidered.com/2020/02/12/how-some-of-the-early-church-fathers-views-on-women-affect-us-today/.

[7] Dominick, “How Some.”

[8] John Wijngaards, “Created in God’s Image: Theological and Social Impact,” in Priscilla Papers 35, no. 4 (October 31, 2021): 24, https://www.cbeinternational.org/resource/article/priscilla-papers-academic-journal/created-gods-image-theological-and-social-impact.

[9] Wijngaards, “Created in God’s Image,” 24–28.

[10] Ambrosiaster, Scriptural Order Old Testament, 1^st category OT, qu. 45, quoted in Wijngaards, “Created in God’s Image,” 24–28.

[11] Hannelie Wood, “Feminists and Their Perspectives on the Church Fathers’ Beliefs Regarding Women,” Verbum et Ecclesia 38, no. 1 (1692). https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v38i1.1692

[12] Wood, “Feminists.”

[13] Dominick, “How Some.”

[14] The Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, Second and Revised Edition, 1920, trans. the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Online Edition, NewAdvent.org, Compiler Kevin Knight, 2017, accessed March 8, 2022, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/.

[15] Glahn, “Eight Views.”

[16] Glahn, “Eight Views.”

[17] Ruth A. Tucker and Walter Liefeld, Daughters of the Church: Women and Ministry from New Testament Times to the Present (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 15.

[18] Sandra Glahn, “Gender: Male and Female in Interpersonal Expression,” Ch. 5 in Sanctified Sexuality: Valuing Sex in an Oversexed World, ed. Sandra L. Glahn and C. Gary Barnes (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2020).

[19] George Winston and Dora Winston, Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women: An Exegetical Response to Traditionalism and Feminism (Maitland, FL: Xulon Press, 2003), 32–34. See also Glahn, “Eight Views.”

[20] Kevin Giles, “The Genesis of Confusion: How “Complementarians” Have Corrupted Communication,” Priscilla Papers 29, no. 1 (2015): 22–29; see also Kevin Giles, The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002), 145–55.

[21] Tucker and Liefeld, Daughters of the Church, 13.

[22] See Catherine A. Brekus, Strangers & Pilgrims: Female Preaching in America, 1740–1845 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1998); Bettye Collier-Thomas, Daughters of Thunder: Black Women Preachers and Their Sermons, 1850–1979 (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998); Nicola Denzey, The Bone Gatherers: The Lost World of Early Christian Women (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2007); Eisen, Women Officeholders in Early Christianity; Susan Hill Lindley, You Have Stept Out of Your Place: A History of Women and Religion in America (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996); Elizabeth Gillan Muir, A Women’s History of the Christian Church: Two Thousand Years of Female Leadership (Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 2019); Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek, eds., Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2005); Amy Oden, ed., In Her Words: Women’s Writings in the History of Christian Thought (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1994); Ruth A. Tucker, Extraordinary Women of Christian History (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2016); Robin Darling Young, “Holy Women: Their Spiritual Influence in the Middle Ages,” in Spiritual Traditions for the Contemporary Church, ed. Robin Maas and Gabriel O’Donnell (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1990).

[23] Sandra Glahn, ed., Vindicating the Vixens: Revisiting the Sexualized, Vilified, and Marginalized Women of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2017), 16.

[24] Maryanne Cline Horowitz, “Aristotle and Woman,” Journal of the History of Biology, No. 2 (Autumn 1976), 183–213. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4330651

[25] See Bernadette Brooten, “Early Christian Women and Their Cultural Context: Issues of Method in Historical Reconstruction’ in Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship, ed. Adela Y. Collins (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1985), 80, quoted in Margaret Y. MacDonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 13.

________

Image: Personal photo. Grave Stele. Large Herculaneum Woman and Man. (During the time of emperor Gallienus, AD 261–268.) National Archaeological Museum, Athens, Greece.