John Chrysostom and Two Tales of Creation

There are currently two explanations as to the meaning of the woman's creation from the man. The first says the woman was created as the man's equal, the second that the woman was created the man's subject. Which would the fourth-century theologian John Chrysostom have agreed with? The first one.

John Chrysostom, the eloquent bishop of Constantinople, is not popular with complementarians for not only did he explicitly mention that Junia was an apostle, Phoebe a deacon and Deborah a judge, his theology casts a long shadow of doubt on the claim that modern complementarian theology faithfully replicates the ancient apostolic tradition: when compared to Chrysostom's theology, modern complementarism appears to be a recent novelty, a complete reversal of John's fourth century beliefs.

Modern complementarism finds the woman's subjection in the creation account, and claim the woman is barred from teaching due to the man's prior creation. The fall account is said to represent the consequence of sin, not the beginning of the man's rule. Both 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor 11 are said to enforce female subjection as a created order. Chrysostom, on the other hand, believed that the woman was subjected because “she made an ill use of her privilege and she who had been made a helper was found to be an ensnarer and ruined all then she is justly told for the future, “thy turning shall be to thy husband” (Gen 3.16).” Neither God or the man said anything about subjection to the woman at creation, instead the man said she was “bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh,” which signified her equality with the man. (Homilies on 1 Corinthians 11, Homily XXVI) Neither did Chrysostom find subjection in 1 Cor 11:

But the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” Here the heretics rush upon us with a certain declaration of inferiority, which out of these words they contrive against the Son. But they stumble against themselves. For if “the man be the head of the woman,” and the head be of the same substance with the body, and “the head of Christ is God,” the Son is of the same substance with the Father. “Nay,” say they, “it is not His being of another substance which we intend to show from hence, but that He is under subjection.” What then are we to say to this? In the first place, when any thing lowly is said of him conjoined as He is with the Flesh, there is no disparagement of the Godhead in what is said, the Economy admitting the expression. However, tell me how thou intendest to prove this from the passage? “Why, as the man governs the wife, saith he, “so also the Father, Christ.” Therefore also as Christ governs the man, so likewise the Father, the Son. “For the head of every man,” we read, “is Christ.” And who could ever admit this? (Homilies on First Corinthians, XXVI)

According to Chrysostom, the woman was barred from teaching because of the fall, not creation.

If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” (1 Cor. xi. 9) Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband?” (Gen. iii. 16) This had not been said to her before… The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name. Was then the whole sex included in the transgression for her fault? As he said of Adam, “After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come” (Rom. v. 14); so here the female sex transgressed, and not the male. Shall not women then be saved? Yes, by means of children. For it is not of Eve that he says, “If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” What faith? what charity? what holiness with sobriety? It is as if he had said, “Ye women, be not cast down, because your sex has incurred blame. God has granted you another opportunity of salvation, by the bringing up of children, so that you are saved, not only by yourselves, but by others.” (Homilies on First Timothy, Homily IX)
Because it seemed irrational that women should earn their salvation through works, and because virginity was so highly valued in the fifth century church, Chrysostom felt compelled to explain the inconsistency, but he could only conclude that “this is the amount of what [Paul] says.”

Although Chrysostom remained remarkably faithful to the original beliefs handed down by the apostles, he was nevertheless influenced by the teachings of Aristotle, the fourth century BCE Greek philosopher, which is seen in his rather condescending remarks of the woman's ability to think for herself ("the woman is weakminded"), his insistence that equality is always hurtful (although he wrote that Abraham and Sarah obeyed each other), and his remark that women are inferior to men. His attempts to incorporate these into his theology accounts for the occasional inconsistency in his otherwise faithful transmission of the apostolic tradition and is clearly seen in his treatment of Genesis 3.16: he believed, alongside all fourth century theologians, that God punished Eve with subjection to Adam, who was deemed innocent (although he was somewhat inconsistently also charged with being the reason for original sin). If we change this one aspect in Chrysostom's theology and affirm with the first century and the modern church that Gen 3.16 is not God's mandate but a consequence of sin, Chrysostom's theology is faithfully replicated in the theology of modern egalitarianism.

Now that we have examined the theology of John Chrysostom, we must decide:
Keep it or Toss it?
Keep It!