And the fact too that this grace was revealed by means of a woman agrees with the interpretation that we have given. For since, as the apostle tells us, “the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression,” and was by her disobedience foremost in the revolt from God, for this reason she is the first witness of the resurrection. This is so that she might retrieve by her faith in the resurrection the overthrow caused by her disobedience. Indeed, by making herself at the beginning a minister and advocate to her husband of the counsels of the serpent, she brought into human life the beginning of evil and its train of consequences. Therefore, by ministering to his disciples the words of him who slew the rebel dragon, she might become to men the guide of faith, whereby with good reason the first proclamation of death is annulled.
But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, "The serpent beguiled me." But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, "she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as "not deceived." For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he "saw the tree was good for food," but of the woman, and that she "did eat, and gave it to her husband": so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. 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"; so here the female sex transgressed, and not the male.
So, too, we must believe that Adam transgressed the law of God, not because he was deceived into believing that the lie was true but because in obedience to a social compulsion he yielded to Eve, as husband to wife, as the only man in the world to the only woman. It was not without reason that the apostle wrote, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived.” He means, no doubt, that Eve accepted the serpent’s word as true, whereas Adam refused to be separated from his partner even in a union of sin. This does not imply that he was on that account any less guilty, since he sinned knowingly and deliberately.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.
For Adam was formed first. Since Adam was formed first, the woman should not have authority over the man, but should be in submission to him.
Adam was not deceived. As to the comparison with the deceit with which the woman was deceived, the behavior of Adam is neither deceit nor trickery. For it is much more reasonable to be deceived by the serpent than to accept the fruit from the woman and eat it. Therefore, in his defense, Paul says that he was not deceived, but that "The woman whom you gave to be my helper, she gave to me and I ate." (Gen. 3:12) Calmly showing that Adam did not even err after listening to his helper. "He was not deceived." Note that what precedes is to be understood as implied.
In another way also. How was Adam not deceived? Because neither does Scripture say this, but the woman indeed: "The serpent deceived me." (Gen. 3:13) But Adam does not say; "The woman deceived me," but, "She gave me." She gave to me: For it is not the same to be persuaded by a fellow and companion, and to be persuaded by a beast, slave, and one who is subordinated. Therefore, that was the deception. But neither did Adam see the tree that it was beautiful to eat, but the woman.
but the woman being deceived. And Paul brings this forward to prevent a woman from teaching. For once a woman has taught, Paul says, she overturns everything and makes the man subject to disobedience: for she was the author herself and advised him to eat. Therefore, he does not say: Eve was deceived; but the woman was deceived, indicating a nature that is easily deceived.
but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. Not only Eve became accountable to transgression, but also the whole sisterhood of women. For as in Adam we all die, so in Eve all have sinned.
I heard that the Church of England was being advised to declare women capable of Priests' Orders. I am, indeed, informed that such a proposal is very unlikely to be seriously considered by the authorities. To take such a revolutionary step at the present moment, to cut ourselves off from the Christian past and to widen the divisions between ourselves and other Churches by establishing an order of priestesses in our midst, would be an almost wanton degree of imprudence. And the Church of England herself would be torn in shreds by the operation. My concern with the proposal is of a more theoretical kind. The question involves something even deeper than a revolution in order...
To us a priest is primarily a representative, a double representative, who represents us to God and God to us. Our very eyes teach us this in church. Sometimes the priest turns his back on us and faces the East - he speaks to God for us: sometimes he faces us and speaks to us for God. We have no objection to a woman doing the first: the whole difficulty is about the second. But why? Why should a woman not in this sense represent God? [...]
Suppose the reformer stops saying that a good woman may be like God and begins saying that God is like a good woman. Suppose he says that we might just as well pray to 'Our Mother which art in heaven' as to 'Our Father'. Suppose he suggests that the Incarnation might just as well have taken a female as a male form, and the Second Person of the Trinity be as well called the Daughter as the Son. Suppose, finally, that the mystical marriage were reversed, that the Church were the Bridegroom and Christ the Bride. All this, as it seems to me, is involved in the claim that a woman can represent God as a priest does.
Now it is surely the case that if all these supposals were ever carried into effect we should be embarked on a different religion. Goddesses have, of course, been worshipped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity...
Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him...
We men may often make very bad priests. That is because we are insufficiently masculine. It is no cure to call in those who are not masculine at all...
Lady Nunburnholme has claimed that the equality of men and women is a Christian principle... Unless "equal" means "interchangeable", equality makes nothing for the priesthood of women.
[AD 395] Gregory of Nyssa on 1 Timothy 2:14