Is God Male? (I.e. Can Women Represent God?)

It is often argued that God's maleness excludes women from ecclesiastical leadership for only men - being male human beings - can represent God. But is God male? It is possible only if God, who is a spirit without a corporeal body, can be likened to a created being. This, however, is impossible. 

To whom then will you liken God?

Or what likeness will you compare with Him?

As for the idol, a craftsman casts it,

A goldsmith plates it with gold,

And a silversmith fashions chains of silver.

He who is too impoverished for such an offering

Selects a tree that does not rot;

He seeks out for himself a skillful craftsman

To prepare an idol that will not totter.

Do you not know? Have you not heard?

Has it not been declared to you from the beginning?

Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,

Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain

And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

He it is who reduces rulers to nothing,

Who makes the judges of the earth meaningless.

Scarcely have they been planted,

Scarcely have they been sown,

Scarcely has their stock taken root in the earth,

But He merely blows on them, and they wither,

And the storm carries them away like stubble.

"To whom then will you liken Me

That I would be his equal?" says the Holy One.

Lift up your eyes on high

And see who has created these stars,

The One who leads forth their host by number,

He calls them all by name;

Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power,

Not one of them is missing.

Why do you say, O Jacob, and assert, O Israel,

"My way is hidden from the LORD,

And the justice due me escapes the notice of my God"?

Do you not know? Have you not heard?

The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth

Does not become weary or tired.

His understanding is inscrutable.

He gives strength to the weary,

And to him who lacks might He increases power.

Though youths grow weary and tired,

And vigorous young men stumble badly,

Yet those who wait for the LORD

Will gain new strength;

They will mount up with wings like eagles,

They will run and not get tired,

They will walk and not become weary. (Isa 40:18-31, NASU)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Rom 1:18-25, NASU)

God cannot be likened to anything in creation, only created beings can be likened to God. Humans are the only ones who are said to have been created in the image of God, in God’s likeness (Gen 1:26-27). Humans exist as male and female, wherefore God cannot be exclusively male, for both the male and female were created in the likeness of God (how can women be in the likeness of God if God is male?). Who God is and always has been is not based on creation; instead, creation is based on who God is and always has been. Because God is spirit and does not have a gender, both men and women were created in God’s likeness and can therefore represent God.

Head or Heart: Who Decides?

If the man has authority to make decisions in marriage because he is the “head,” why is it always the heart that deliberates and makes decisions in the Bible?

"Heart" [kardia in Greek] is mentioned 161 times in the New Testament. Below are a few examples on how the word is used in both the Gospels and the Epistles. All quotes are from the New American Standard Bible – Updated Edition

Heart in the New Testament

Matt 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, "Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?

Matt 12:34 "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart

Matt 15:18-20 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. "These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man."

Mark 2:6-7 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Mark 11:23-24 "Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, "Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him. "Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

Luke 2:34-35 And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary His mother, "Behold, this Child is appointed for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and for a sign to be opposed --  and a sword will pierce even your own soul -- to the end that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed."

Luke 12:45 "But if that slave says in his heart, "My master will be a long time in coming,' and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

Luke 16:15 And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God.

Luke 21:14-15 "So make up your minds [“hearts” in Greek] not to prepare beforehand to defend yourselves; for I will give you utterance and wisdom which none of your opponents will be able to resist or refute.

Luke 24:38-39 And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."

John 12:39-40 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM."

Acts 5:4-5 "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it.

Acts 8:20-22 But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! "You have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. "Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you.

Rom 8:27and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

Rom 16:17-18 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

1 Cor 14:24-25 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

2 Cor 9:7 Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Phil 4:7 And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

1 Thess 2:3-4 For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who examines our hearts.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Heb 8:10 "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

Heb 10:15-16 And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,"

James 1:26-27 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is worthless. Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

James 3:14-18 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

1 Peter 3:3-4 Your adornment must not be merely external -- braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.

1 Peter 3:14-15 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;

2 Peter 2:14-15 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children; forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

1 John 3:19-20 We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.

Rev 17:17 "For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled.

***

The mind is often linked to the heart in the above verses, but never to a "head." The "head" is just that - a "head"; it is the mind that thinks. [Greek: phroneo - to exercise the mind, i.e. to think]

Rom 8:5-8 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Rom 12:3-5 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

***

What then does a “head” do? When connected to a human body, it forms a human being. Unity - that's the material point in Ephesians 5: both husband and wife must make decisions together, for they are both responsible grownups. But what about final decisions in case of an impasse? Well, that's what prayer is for:

James 1:5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.

Genesis 3.16 & 4.7 - A False Comparison?

The editors of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, agree with Christians for Biblical Equality that Genesis 3:16 is not a prescription of what should be.[1] However, Grudem does not believe that the verse is the beginning of the man’s rule, but that it describes a distortion of the previously harmonious relationship due to man’s harsh rule and the woman’s desire to rebel against the man’s authority.[2] Piper acknowledges that historically there has been “grave abuse” and that even in our days men are sometimes “too possessive, harsh, domineering, and belittling,”[3] but he cannot provide historical proof of a similar “grave abuse” of women controlling men, for women have never ruled over men;[4] instead, they have cooperated by “trying hard to live down to what is expected of them.”[5] Most women have been, and still are, dominated by men and Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. believes there is a good reason for it.

Because she usurped his headship in the temptation, God hands her over to the misery of competition with her rightful head. This is justice, a measure-for measure response to her sin. … First, God may be saying, “You will have a desire, Eve. You will want to control your husband. But he must not allow you to have your way with him. He must rule over you.” … In this case, we would take “rule” as the exercise of godly headship. … Second, God may be saying, “You will have a desire, Eve. You will want to control your husband, But he will not allow you to have your way with him, He will rule over you.” If this is the true sense, then, in giving the woman up to her insubordinate desire, God is penalizing her with domination by her husband. Accordingly, 3:16b should be rendered” “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” The word “rule” would now be construed as the exercise of ungodly domination.[6]

Ortlund cannot choose either of the two options he gives, for the first option goes against Grudem’s view that “he must rule over you” is not “a prescription of what should be.”[7] The second option would make God, not sin, the source of the man’s harsh rule, since God is seen as penalizing the woman with the man’s ungodly dominion, which Ortlund himself calls “a monster and a virus,” from which women need to be released .[8] That God punished Eve with subjection was the patristic interpretation based on the sole guilt of Eve which became the foundation for the twofold subjection of the woman in the thirteenth century. And as seen in Ortlund’s theology, it is still a necessary component to support the subjection of woman as a created order.

Neither Grudem nor Ortlund are able to explain Genesis 3:16 for they give teshuwqah the meaning “desire to conquer or control” because of Genesis 4:7:“If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” Grudem finds a connection between the two verses because of the similarity of the language and he concludes that the woman has a desire to conquer the man just as sin has a desire to conquer humans.[9] But if the woman desires to control the man while the man becomes increasingly passive [10] how should one explain the conspicuous absence of matriarchs, especially since a society in which sin is ruled by humans does not exist? In addition, if the woman desires to conquer and control the man, she becomes an enemy who must be subjected and ruled as Ortlund perhaps unwittingly recognized.

Despite all efforts, it is not possible to create an analogy between the woman and sin, for as Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato explains, when the objects are found to be dissimilar, the analogy is invalid.[11] In chapter 3 God speaks to Eve about the man’s rule, while in chapter 4 God speaks to Cain about his own rule over sin; one is acted upon while the other is the actor. In other words, Cain is warned that the he must resist sin to protect himself, but the woman is warned that the man is going to rule over her when she turns to him.

The pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, (ca 250 B.C.) translated teshuwqah with apostrophê, which means “to turn,” “to resort, to recourse,” and rhetorically, “when one turns away from all others to one, and addresses him specially.”[12] The apostolic church used the Septuagint, but with the introduction of the sole guilt of Eve, the woman’s turning to the man begun to be viewed as a sentence from God – a tradition begun, as far as can be ascertained, in the second century with Tertullian.

If there dwelt upon earth a faith as great as is the reward of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at all, best beloved sisters, from the time that she had first “known the Lord,” and learned (the truth) concerning her own (that is, woman’s) condition, would have desired too gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; so as not rather to go about in humble garb, and rather to affect meanness of appearance, walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,—the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition. “In pains and in anxieties dost thou bear (children), woman; and toward thine husband (is) thy inclination (conuersion), and he lords It over thee.” And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die [13]

That all blame was placed on women was a decidedly Roman concept, which departed from the Grecian belief that the woman was helpless and therefore blameless, for the Roman woman was a force to be reckoned with. Even when the fault was clearly the man’s, the woman had to accept the consequences, wherefore Lucretia committed suicide after being raped rather than be a living unchaste example. Although the woman’s only option was to die if she fell for temptation, the man went ahead and married someone else, innocent as he was in the eyes of the world.[14] Ellen G. White, the founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, had a similar view of the superfluity of women, for she wrote, “Had Adam remained faithful God would have created another companion for him.”[15]

           Jerome knew teshuwqah meant “to turn,”[16] but he understood the woman’s turning to signify her subjection to the man because of her sole guilt. Also Jerome’s contemporary, Chrysostom, 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.’”[17]

Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton translated the Septuagint into English in 1851, but he followed the theology of his time (or the Vulgate) more than the Greek text for he wrote, “And thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”[18] Robert J.V. Hiebert (2007) followed the Greek literally and therefore translated the verse, “Your recourse will be to your husband and he will dominate you.”[19] In La Sagrada Biblia, a Spanish translation of the Septuagint, teshuwqah is translated with the word “conversion,” which is derived from the Latin convertere (“to turn around”).[20] 

Because modern theology rejects the sole guilt of Eve, and because the belief that the woman desires to conquer the man is clearly incorrect, how should we understand Genesis 3:16? The context is that of childbearing and the woman’s relationship to the man. Caring for an infant in the hostile new world made Eve unable to provide for herself and her child, which caused her to turn to Adam for protection and provisions. According to Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, “The new conditions of life that made sustenance the product of hard labor would naturally make women dependent on the physically stronger men.”[21] But as the woman turned to the man, he had an opportunity to rule over her due to his greater physical strength. Childbearing and ruling have traditionally been considered the dividing difference between men and women due to the false interpretation of Genesis 3:16. But in reality it is only in the physical realm that men and women differ, for both men and woman are equally intelligent and capable of making decisions, although they may perform the tasks differently.

John Stuart Mill explained how man’s strength became the source of his rule in The Subjection of Women (1869):

And in the second place, the adoption of this system of inequality never was the result of deliberation, or forethought, or any social idea, or any notion whatever of what conducted to the benefit of humanity or the good order of society. It arouse simply from the fact that from the very earliest twilight of human society, every woman (owing to the value attached to her by men, combined with her inferiority in muscular strength) was found in a state of bondage to some man. Laws and system of polity always begin by recognising [sic] the relations they find already existing between individuals. They convert what was mere physical fact into a legal right, give it the sanction of society, and principally aim at the substitution of public and organized means of asserting and protecting these rights, instead of the irregular and lawless conflict of physical strength. Those who were already been compelled to obedience became in this manner legally bound to it.[22]

Mill explained that as “the law of the strongest” was abandoned and no one was allowed to practice it in the civilized nations, people forgot the true reason for the institution. He wrote, “People flatter themselves that the rule of mere force is ended; that the law of the strongest cannot be the reason of existence of anything which has remained in full operation down to the present time.” Instead, they thought the institutions had “been preserved to this period of advanced civilization by a well-grounded feeling of its adaptation to human nature, and conductiveness to the general good.”[23] But as Mill points out, the “unnatural generally means only uncustomary, and that everything which is usual appears natural.” Thus Aristotle considered slavery natural; the divine right of the king was believed to have originated from God and the feudal nobility considered their power over the serfs to be “supremely natural” - as did the serfs themselves.[24]

The seductiveness of the man’s rule over the woman is that it gives every man the opportunity to rule, even if they are subject to other men.

Instead of being, to most of its supporters, a thing desirable chiefly in the abstract, or, like the political ends usually contended for by factions, of little private importance to any but the leaders; it comes home to the person and hearth of every male head of a family, and of every one who looks forwards to being so. The clodhopper exercises, or is to exercise, his share of the power equally with the highest nobleman. And the case is that in which the desire of power is the strongest: for every one who desires power, desires it most over those who are nearest to him, with whom his life is passed, with whom he has most concerns in common, and in whom any independence of his authority is oftenest likely to interfere with his individual preferences. It, in the other cases specified, powers manifestly grounded only on force, and having so much less to support them, are so slowly and with so much difficulty got rid of, much more it be so with this, even if it rests on no better foundation than those. We must consider, too, that the possessors of the power have facilities in this case, greater than in any other, to prevent any uprising against it. Every one of the subjects lives under the very eye, and almost, it may be said, in the hands, of one of the masters – in closer intimacy with him than with any of her fellow-subjects; with no means of combining against him, no power of even locally overmastering him, and, on the other hand, with the strongest motives for seeking his favor and avoiding to give him offence. In struggles for political emancipation, everybody knows how often its champions are bought off by bribes, or daunted by terrors. In the case of women, each individual of the subject-class is in a chronic state of bribery and intimidation combined.[25]

The subject feels compelled to please the master, especially if she fears violence, and this has been true of women ever since their subjection to men began. Male violence against women is accepted in all societies in which women are excluded from lawmaking, but female violence against men is not equally tolerated.[26] As a result, few women have complained about the subjection openly. Most have accepted the rule, for “it is a political law of nature that those who are under any power of ancient origin, never begin by complaining of the power itself, but only of its oppressive exercise.”[27] As women obtained the right to vote in the twentieth century, and the opportunity to change laws, they made male violence against themselves illegal and eventually felt safe enough to begin to challenge the rule itself, such as the false interpretation of Genesis 3:16 – the foundation of the twofold subjection.

---

[1] Piper and Grudem, 409.

[2] Systematic Theology, 463-464.

[3] Piper and Grudem, 42.

[4] Rosalind Rosenberg, Beyond Separate Spheres: Intellectual Roots of Modern Feminism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982), 111.

[5] Ibid., 172.

[6] Piper and Grudem, 109.

[7] Ibid., 409.

[8] Ibid., 105.

[9] Systematic Theology, Footnote 20, 464.s

[10] Piper and Grudem, 346.

[11] Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato, The Ways of Reason, New Revised Edition (Jerusalem: Feldheim Publisher, 1997), 100.

[12] Perseus Digital Library, www.perseus.tufts.edu (accessed June 29, 2009), s.v. “apostrophe.”

[13] Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, Book I, Ch. I.

[14] The Roman Way, 149-150.

[15] Mercedes H. Dyer, ed. Prove All Things, a response to Women in Ministry (Berrien Springs, MI: Adventists Affirm, 2000), 118.

[16] “And that after displeasing God she was immediately subjected to the man, and began to turn to her husband.” (Against Jovinianus, Book I, 27).

[17] Homilies on 1 Corinthians 11, Homily XXVI.

[18] “Genesis,” English Translation of the Greek Septuagint Bible, http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/indExod.htm. (accessed June 29, 2009).

[19] “Genesis,” A New English Translation of the Septuagint Bible (Oxford University Press, 2007) http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/01-gen-nets.pdf (accessed June 29, 2009).

[20]  “Y hacia tu marido, tu conversión, y él te dominará.” (La Sagrada Biblia, Version de la Septuaginta al Espanol, Pbro. Guillermo Junemann Beckschaefer, http://www.synodia.org/libros/junemann/ [accessed June 29, 2009]).

[21] Rabbit Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Chumash: The Stone edition (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1996), 8.

[22] John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women (New York City: Source Book Press, 1970), 8-9.

[23] Ibid., 11.

[24] Ibid., 21-23.

[25] Ibid., 18-20.

[26] E.g. in England the old law used to condemn the wife who killed her husband (who was legally her Lord) to be burnt on the stake (Ibid., 54).

[27] Ibid., 25.

Virginity and the Catholic Hierarchy

Nearly four hundred years after Jerome’s false translation ("Under the man's authority shall you be and he will rule over you") was rejected by Protestant theologians, Genesis 3.16 was returned to its original position as a description of a consequence of sin (in the 1980s). The Catholic response to the changing of the interpretation of Genesis 3.16 is seen in that although Rev. Regis Scanlon refers to Thomas’s twofold subjection, he views the verse as a description of a “bad” subjection given to Eve as a punishment and “a constant threat” from which the married couple escapes, for the husband’s authority is given to bring about mutual submission based upon their free commitment.[1] I.e., Scanlon no longer agrees with Thomas’s view that Genesis 3:16 mandates the man to rule over the woman. Scanlon believes also that virgins overcome the negative effect of the Fall and “the threatened rule of the male over the female” by being under the authority of the Catholic Church, for in his view it is “the perfect fulfillment of that hierarchy of authority found in God’s creation.” But by this statement he contradicts himself, for the church has always been, and still is, considered feminine, and thus he makes a celibate man subject to a woman, so to speak. Perhaps Scanlon considers the celibate man to be subject to the authority of the bishop, who is always male, and not to the church per se. But even if we would allow for such a distinction, the celibate man’s subjection does not fulfill the hierarchy in which a man has authority over a woman, unless we consider the celibate man to have become a woman.

If the church has always taught a creation based hierarchy, why does Scanlon refer only to the thirteenth-century theologian Thomas Aquinas? In fact, it is Scanlon’s own argument which proves the impossibility of implementing such a hierarchy in the case of virgins, which accords well with the patristic belief that virgins and chaste women were equal with men. Thus we may conclude that the early church did not teach a creation based hierarchy in which the man had authority over the woman, for although virginity was highly esteemed, also marriage was approved of and not viewed as a consequence of sin.