Thomas Aquinas' Twofold Subjection Explained, Part 7

1970

A part of the church is absolutely convinced that feminism was born in 1970 and that Christian women happily accepted traditional theology and their subservient position until their secular counterparts made them unhappy with the arrangement. If we for a moment ignore historical facts that led to a shift in attitudes and focus solely on theology, we find the reason why 1970s stands out like a sore thumb: it was the decade when theologians challenged and defeated Thomas Aquinas' twofold subjection. This left two new strands of theology: a creation-based subjection of women by God, and a fall-based subjection of women by men. This is what the modern debate is all about.

Considering sin has always tried to infiltrate the church, it would be rather miraculous if the church had remained faithful to the original message, and suddenly out of the blue, succumbed to the pressure of feminism. What power did these women have that they were able to do what no other generation had done? Especially when we consider the modern interpretation of Genesis 3:16 that tells us that because of sin, women desire to control men. All those generations of women who desired to control men, and none were able to. How strange.

It all becomes less strange when we remember that the vote women gained in the early twentieth century made it possible for women to change laws. This was the one thing earlier generations had not been able to do, leaving them little choice but to accept their subservient position. One of the laws women changed, or we should say, added in the West, was the criminalizing of domestic violence. No longer would women have to accept violence from those who had vowed to love them, and this freedom emboldened them to challenge more than just their role in the home. Suddenly Western societies saw an influx of women into areas that had traditionally been the exclusive domains of men; theology was one these "Men Only" bastions that had successfully resisted integration.

When women began to do theology, more than one dogma found its way into the trashcan, and the debate that hadn't existed because there had been none to take up the challenge, began. Had God subjected all women to all men, or was the subjection of the woman caused by sin? The argument from hierarchical theologians was based on the woman having being created as a help to the man, the counter-argument from egalitarians was that even God is called a help. Hierarchical theologians countered with 1 Tim 2, which seemingly gives the man authority, egalitarians pointed out that the Old Testament doesn't know of such a concept. In turn, hierarchical theologians referred to 1 Cor 11 where the woman is said to have been created for the man, but egalitarians countered with the question, if the woman was created for the man, why did Paul say singleness was better than marriage?

This debate would end today if both sides realized that the creation-based subjection was created by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Why debate something that never was, and never can become, biblical?

Thomas Aquinas' Twofold Subjection Explained, Part 6

Equal But Different

Because equality was erased in the 13th century, women deacons vanished, as did women bishops and elders. When equality before God was returned in the 20th century, theologians had a difficult time reconciling the equality of men and women with traditional theology. If men and women are equal, why should the man have authority over the woman? "Equal but different" was coined to explain why women should be subservient to men, but how exactly does it work?

If men and women are equal and created in the image of God, a concept that was considered to be heresy in the 19th century when women were considered inferior (because of Thomas Aquinas' synthesis of Aristotle's philosophy with medieval theology), and subjected because of the sole guilt of Eve (because of Jerome's translation of Genesis 3:16 in the Vulgate), why was the man given authority?

The answer: no one knows.

When women became legally grownups in 1920 when they finally become eligible to vote, it was suddenly impossible to continue to argue that they were inferior. But if women weren't inferior, why did God give the man authority over the woman? "Equal but different" was supposed to explain why God gave the man authority: because men and women are different, the woman was given the role of bearing and rearing children and the man was given the role of leading. This was a necessary division, for if family is the meaning of life, the woman's role is easily defined, but what about the man? Without authority he would be little other than the woman's assistant whose role is to help the woman become a mother and then support the mother and child through hard labor. Not a very glorious role. So, to prevent the man from becoming the woman's servant, he had to become the women's leader.

But what if Jerome was right that men and women were created equal, what need was there for authority in the garden? No hard labor or homemaking existed. Family was not the meaning of life, just part of life; the roles of men and women were identical, and consisted of taking care of the garden, and talking to God in the cool of the evening. God did not place the woman in a box, nor did the man roam the garden on his own; instead, the two were found together when the serpent came for a visit.

If Thomas Aquinas had not subjected the woman to the man in the 13th century, there would never have been doubt any about the equality of men and woman as God's image bearers. All of this was changed when the crusaders brought back the writings of Aristotle, and the inferiority of the woman became solidified into an entrenched dogma that would take 700 years for theologians to remove.

Where Can Truth Be Found?

If you ask a Christian where truth can be found, you will most certainly hear that truth is found in Christianity. And they would be correct in saying so, but if you asked them again if Christianity was the truth, they would say yes to that question too. But how can that be?

It is one thing for something to contain the truth, and quite an other thing for it to be the truth. Just as space allows light to travel from the sun to the earth without being light itself, so does Christianity allow the truth to travel from God to us without being the truth itself.

If Christianity was the truth, there would have to be several truths, for there are several kinds of Christianity. Plato recognized the fallacy of relativity wherefore he rejected the belief that what is right to an individual is the truth, for if every person has his or her own truth, how can philosophy exist? Why search for that which is right before one's own eyes: one's opinion.

When opinions become the truth, the ones who hold the opinions become themselves gods, with the task of forcing everyone else to agree. When the opinion-holders consider themselves Christians, their version of Christianity becomes the truth all must accept - even God.

Truth cannot be squeezed into a mold that is smaller than itself. Because humans are a mixture of truth and lies, good and evil, we will continue to create versions of truth. The wise recognize this and allow truth to remain with God, and God to be the truth.

Sisters, Make Up Your Minds

People who rise from oppression can do one of two things: they can either forgive and move on, or they can become like their oppressors.

Women as a group are the most oppressed class of people on earth. It doesn't matter where they live, what they look like, or how they behave, all women will at some point of their lives meet the cold reality of being treated with disrespect just because they are women. For some it is just an inconvenience (such as not being able to take the car to the shop because she knows she'll get ripped off), but for some it is a matter of life and death. Thousands of women are beaten, assaulted, maimed, and murdered just because they are women.

Nineteenth and Twentieth-century Western women made a huge impact on how society saw them by securing rights to themselves and their daughters that other women in the world could only dream off. Emboldened by their success, some women chose the path of moving on, but some chose the path of becoming like their former oppressors. Just like men who can't make up their minds whether to have a woman undress or cover up until one wonders if there is a woman underneath the garments, some women claim oppression when they see a scantily clad woman, and when they they have to guess whether it is a woman they are looking at. There is no difference between a man who can't make up his mind whether to seek power or pleasure, and a woman who can't make up her mind about the same. A woman knows her power is found in her body, and whether she dresses to hide it (to avoid unwanted attention), or undresses (to get the attention she wants), she is claiming she has the right to act as she pleases. It would help their cause enormously if women would decide if they want to be treated with respect or if they just want to get their way.

Clothes are chosen according to the occasion, and there are many occasions in life that require different kinds of clothing styles. Yet, if women insist that they have the right to choose indiscriminately and disregard what their brothers have to say, they have become what they claim men have been and still are, for one of the claims feminism has made for decades is that men do not listen to women. We need to listen to each other if we want equal rights. Equal rights requires that none have more rights than others, which is why it would be helpful if everyone would just make up their minds about oppression and what it looks like, and what we should do to eliminate it.

The Kingdom of God and the Blue-Cross Flag

This morning I wondered why American churches place the sign of Imperial power in the forefront of their churches, and suddenly it dawned to me: they believe that the United States represents the Kingdom of God on earth, wherefore the flag represents the cross and all it stands for.

There is only one problem with the concept: it doesn't, for the Imperial power of the United States has as much to do with the Kingdom of God as Imperial Rome had to do with the crucifixion of Christ: it can only kill, it cannot give life, and life is what the Kingdom of God is all about; the only death that we should pursue is the death of the works of the flesh.

The problem is, of course, that it can be difficult to reconcile one's loyalty to the Kingdom of God and the fact that we live in a world filled with evil. There is, however, another way of reconciling the two: instead of bring the world into the church, we should bring the church to the world.

Being a native Scandinavian I never really thought why the Scandinavian flags have crosses on them. The answer is rather simple: instead of pledging allegiance to the Imperial powers and merging theology with the will to power that keeps the war-machine going, the Scandinavian countries have pledged their allegiance to the Kingdom of God, and infiltrated their societies with the Kingdom principle of social justice. It isn't hard to see why American Christians have an increasingly difficult time convincing people that the Gospel works when their message is drowned by drones, and why the eyes of the world are turned to Scandinavia to see why they succeed where others fail.

The Kingdom of God cannot be merged with the world without the world destroying the message of peace, love, and holiness. Where the Kingdom of God infiltrates the world like the light that shines in the darkness, it begins to change people from within. The Kingdom of God can be seen only in the people who have pledged their allegiance to the Kingdom of God, and live according to its principles, for as the light cannot be merged with darkness, neither can the Kingdom be merged with the Kingdoms of the world.

The Church and the Flag

As I visited a new church last Sunday I was greeted with a familiar sight: the flag of the United States with the Imperial symbol, the eagle, at the forefront. I cringed but kept quiet. Yesterday I began to think about all the reasons why the flag was there. Because the United States is a Christian nation? But how can it be? The separation of church and state makes it impossible.

Then I thought what would happen if a church in Afghanistan put an Afghan flag in their church. What would be the objections be? That Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, and that Muslims kill, or threaten to kill, Christians? But doesn't the Imperial United States kill, or threaten to kill, Muslims in Afghanistan? Does having better and bigger guns somehow sanctify the flag and make it more Christian? What would Jesus, the Prince of Peace, say?


In the ancient Rome, the eagle was a symbol of imperial authority. The Holy Roman Empire (1250-1806) adopted the two-headed eagle to represent both the church and the state, the church being united with the state, and the emperor being the ruler of both. Now the question is: can American churches have the imperial insignia in their buildings and yet refuse to obey the state, whose power it represents? Should American churches worship both Caesar and King Jesus, or should American churches insist with the early church that there can be no compromise; there can only be one king?

As long as American Christians are met with the flag when they go to church, their light will be dimmed by the lampshade that controls how much light they are allowed to disperse. The Roman Empire wanted to put out that light, why do we think Imperial United States is any different?

Thomas Aquinas' Twofold Subjection Explained, Part 5

Erased Equality 

So far we have examined the beliefs of the patristic church (4th century) and the modern church (1990 -) and their disagreement with each other as far as the subjection of the woman to the man is concerned. The modern church believes God subjected the woman to the man before sin; the patristic church said God subjected the woman to the man after sin.

The reason the patristic and the modern centuries do not agree is because Thomas Aquinas added the creation-based subjection of the woman to the 4th-century sin-based subjection in the 13th century, erasing equality from theology.

Because Thomas Aquinas by necessity used Jerome’s interpretation of Genesis 3:16 in the thirteenth century, he believed that the subjection which began after the Fall was a proper punishment for the woman’s sin. In the Summa, Thomas wrote, “As regards family life she was punished by being subjected to her husband's authority, and this is conveyed in the words, "Thou shalt be under thy husband's power." (Gen. 3:16)”

In the thirteenth century, equality as a created order was still recognized, wherefore Thomas had to answer the argument whether the woman should have been created before sin, because her subjection begun after the Fall.

“Further, subjection and limitation were a result of sin, for to the woman was it said after sin (Genesis 3:16): "Thou shalt be under the man's power"; and Gregory says that, "Where there is no sin, there is no inequality." But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man; "for the agent is always more honorable than the patient," as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16). Therefore woman should not have been made in the first production of things before sin.”

Thomas answered, “as regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten [i.e. an impotent male].” But “as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation.” He concluded that the woman’s subjection is twofold: sin causes a subjection which is “servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit,” but the subjection from creation is based on reason which predominates in the man, for good order can only be preserved if people are governed by those who are wiser. In other words, because the woman is a defective human being, she cannot possess the man’s reason, wherefore her subjection from Creation is due to her body, while the subjection which begun after the Fall was caused by her sin.

In the 1970s the twofold subjection created by Thomas was challenged, and hierarchialists began to teach a creation-based subjection without a sin-based subjection, whereas egalitarians began to teach a creation-based equality. 

However, now the church had to also deal with the word changes created by the Reformation. The 16th-century English translations of the Bible used the word "desire," communicating the idea that the woman desire the man sexually as a result of sin.

It appears that the first translator to insert the concept of “desire” into Genesis 3.16 was Myles Coverdale (1535).

“And vnto the woman he sayde: I will increase thy sorow, whan thou art with childe: with payne shalt thou beare thy childre, and thy lust shal pertayne vnto yi hußbande, and he shal rule the.”

All English translations follow Coverdale’s translation, although they favor the word “desire” instead of “lust.”

As a result of this change, modern hierachialsists had to find an alternative interpretation for Genesis 3.16. The only option available was to return the verse to its original meaning – a consequence of sin instead of a commandment of God - but with this change came also the puzzling question why only a few women actually chase every shirt they see if women desire men as a result of sin? There was obviously something wrong with the word “desire,” but since it was what they had to work with, hierarchical theologers changed the meaning of the word from a sexual desire to a desire to control. But even with this change, precisely the same problem remained: if women desire to control men, why have men always controlled women? The problem is yet to be solved.




Sources:


Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 92, Objection 1

Ibid., Question 92, Answer to Objection 2

God Only (No Humans allowed)

Jason Dye, of Leftcheek fame (http://leftcheek.wordpress.com), brought a tweet from Cory Copeland to our attention on Facebook today. In the tweet Mr. Copeland let us know that the concept that people should be able to spend time with whomever they want because Jesus hung out with drunks and prostitutes is ridiculous because Jesus is God, while we aren't.

But why don't we take this a bit further.

Jesus healed the sick. Should we ignore the sick, because we aren't God?

Jesus fed the hungry. Should we not share our food, because we aren't God?

Jesus preached the Gospel. Should we remain silent, because we aren't God?

Jesus prayed. Should we refuse, because we aren't God?


If only Jesus was allowed to do what he did because he was God, why are we told to imitate God?

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Ephesians 5:1-2, NIV).

Maybe hanging out with people who don't look like they were shaped with a religious cookie cutter isn't such a bad thing. Maybe it's a divine thing to do.

Thomas Aquinas' Twofold Subjection Explained, Part 4

Patristic Church on Genesis 3:16

Jerome knew teshuwqah, found in Genesis 3:16, meant “to turn,” 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.'" An earlier theologian from the third century, Tertullian, believed that each woman was an Eve and therefore thoroughly subjected to men who were solely created in the image of God. Tertullian considered any kind of “glory,” i.e., recognition, to be unlawful for women since they were in a state of probation because of Eve’s sin, and their lot was ”humility of every kind” and modesty. According to Tertullian, men prayed rightly to God with their heads uncovered, for freed from sin they had nothing to be ashamed of.

The subjection that began after sin was based on the sole guilt of Eve, and the concept that not event the death of Christ could redeem from this subjection.

This is found also in the writings of Adam Clarke, the 17th century theologians:

"It is added further, Thy desire shall be to thy husband-thou shalt not be able to shun the great pain and peril of child-bearing, for thy desire, thy appetite, shall be to thy husband; and he shall rule over thee, though at their creation both were formed with equal rights, and the woman had probably as much right to rule as the man, but subjection to the will of her husband is one part of her curse, and so very capricious is this will often, that a sorer punishment no human being can well have, to be at all in a state of liberty, and under the protection of wise and equal laws."

The patristic church taught that the woman could not be redeemed by Christ, and that only the man was created in the image of God in order to subject the woman to the man as a result of sin. The modern church couldn't disagree more.

Sources

The Apology, Ch XXX.The Apology, Ch XXX.

On the Apparel of Women, Book I, Ch. I; On the veiling of virgins, Chapter X.

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

Homilies on 1 Corinthians 11, Homily XXVI.

Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1996 by Biblesoft

Thomas Aquinas' Twofold Subjection Explained, Part 3

Early Church and Equality from Creation

The 4th century church believed Eve was subjected to Adam because of her sole guilt in the fall of humankind, since she had displeased God by taking the fruit. The idea behind it was the Roman concept of the enslavement of a person who had hurt an equal, the rational behind the enslavement of captives of war.

This brings us to the conflict between modern theology and the early church. Since the patristic church taught Eve was subjected to Adam as a result of her sin they had to also believe Eve was created equal to Adam. Do we find this? 

Yes, we do.

Jerome, for example, wanted virgins to remind themselves that Genesis 3:16 was only for the married woman, for the life they had accepted was independent from sexual differentiation. In Jerome’s theology, the married woman was considered inferior and subjected to the man because of the sole guilt of Eve; chaste women were equal to men in accordance with Galatians 3:28.

And, indeed, when chastity is observed between man and woman, it begins to be true that there is neither male nor female; but, though living in the body, they are being changed into angels, among whom there is neither male nor female. The same is said by the same Apostle in another place: “As many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Because Genesis 2:24 explicitly mentions marriage, Jerome explained that marriage is not found in the image of God, but is a metaphor of Christ and the Church. Since Christ had been a virgin in the flesh, husbands ought to love their wives as Christ – chastely, wherefore even a married woman could become the man’s equal through continence. Jerome explained further that “when difference of sex is done away, and we are putting off the old man, and putting on the new, then we are being born again into Christ a virgin." I.e., we return to the time before the Fall. 

 

The patristic church could not have subjected the woman to the man as a result of the fall had the church not believed in equality from creation. Because of this problem, the modern church must explain why the patrisic church subjected the woman after the fall, if the church has always taught subjection from creation.

Sources:

Adrian Hastings, ed. A World History of Christianity, (Grand Rapids: MI,  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 47.

Jerome, “Letter XXII: To Eustochium,” The Letters of St. Jerome 18-19.

Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, 20.

“Letter XLVIII: To Pammachius” The Letters of St. Jerome.

“Letter XXII: to Eustochium” The Letters of St. Jerome. Irenaeus (180) believed Adam and Eve were virgins in the Garden) but the exact reason for his belief is uncertain (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, XXII).

Against Jovinianus, Book I, 27.

Apology of Jerome, Book I, 28-29

Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I, 16