“Paul” Preaches BAPHOMET Ephesians 5. A Woman An “It”… “Thing”… Bodily Appendage Of A Man [The Person].

You will hear deceived and seduced “preachers and teachers”.. and false teachers… quote “Paul” in Ephesians 5: saying it’s a “beautiful picture” of “marriage”. No, it’s the ongoing assault of satan through “Paul” against women.

In Ephesians 5, “Paul” declares women to be non-entities; non-persons.

“Paul” declares women to be “things”… “objects”… “its”.

“Paul” declares women to be a sack of flesh: a “body”.

The vision of “Paul” is so perverse… he is denying that a woman is a PERSON.

There is ZERO discussion of a woman being a PERSON in Ephesians 5.

Rather, a woman is an “it” [a “thing”] and a body; and this body that a woman “is” as an “it” is not a distinct body from that of her husband’s body. Rather, the body of the woman is “part of” the man’s body as a bodily appendage of the man.

The woman is not even DISTINCT from the man BODILY: but rather she is her husband’s body. A man who loves his wife as a body [as an “it” – a “thing” therefore] is loving his own body.

“Paul” as this site shows forth in post after post after post after post: is not a born-again believer in the true Jesus Christ. Rather, “Paul” worships Lucifer and declares that “his ‘Jesus'” is Lucifer.

So, when you see this perverse display of “Paul” in repeatedly defining a woman as an “it” [a “thing”] as a body [not a distinct person] with ZERO distinction of body from her husband’s body because the wife’s body is his body and by loving the body of the wife the man is loving himself.

The perversion of “Paul” is in declaring that a woman is not a person. In Genesis, nowhere does either God, nor Adam, deny that woman is a distinct person from Adam. Rather, the creation of woman is stated to be a distinct person: woman.

Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

You will see that nowhere in Ephesians 5 does “Paul” call the wife “a woman”. Rather, it is man [person] and wife [thing]. “Paul” literally denies that a woman is a person distinct from the man. Rather, she is “wife” as bodily appendage to man as an “it”. This is the perversion of “Paul” of all scripture. It is the nature of his “headship” doctrine. And it is the work of satan being spoken in a seducing and deceiving spirit of GNOSTICISM: so that those who are not powerfully anointed enough to “catch the devil at work” thus “catch the thief” just won’t “catch it”.

“Paul” is literally defining man and wife as one body and one person. Because the man is stated to be the person and the wife the “it”; there is only one person in the marriage. So, there is no distinction in the person and the body of male and female. There is a conjoining of “one body” and “one person” that is both male and female

That’s Baphomet.

“Paul” states marriage the parallel of his “Christ” and the church. Therefore, this is “Paul’s” “Christ”: Baphomet.

Women [and church parallel of women] defined as a “body” to begin Ephesians 23. [A “body” is a thing ~ an “it” not a person.]

Women [and church parallel of women] defined as an “it” [a thing; not a person]: in a “pentagram” of 5 times in Ephesians 5.

  • Verse 25 ~ 1 time
  • Verse 26 ~ 1 time
  • Verse 27 ~ 2 times
  • Verse 29 ~ 1 time
  • Total ~ 5 times

Verse 28, “Paul” declares that a woman as an “it” and a “body” is her husband’s “body”. A woman is not a person; nor is she a “separate body” from the body of her husband. Rather, the woman as a body is defined in relation to men “their own bodies“. Therefore, a woman as a body is not a separate distinct body from the body of a man: but rather is a bodily appendage “pertaining to and belonging to the man“.

The point of a woman being an “it” and thus a “thing” as a “body” [not a person] and moreover being a bodily appendage “pertaining to and belonging to the man” is heightened in the statement: that when a man loves “his wife” [an “it”; a “thing”; a bodily appendage “pertaining to and belong to the man”] he “loveth himself“.

So, in a sexual connotation – because this woman is an “it”, thus a “thing”, and a bodily appendage “pertaining to and belonging to the man”: the man in having sexual intercourse with the woman is masturbating. For that “body” is “his body” and he is “loving himself”. That is masturbation in the use of an object that pertains to and belongs to the man: an “it”.

In a certain manner of speaking in the sexual intercourse “Paul” describes in the man having sexual intercourse with an “it” thus a “thing” that is a “body” as an object, the woman is therefore a “sex toy”. She most certainly is a “sex toy” belonging to the man as “his body”. And, as such, of course, she is called upon to “submit” to the man in “everything” as if the man is God. Because, in “Paul’s” analysis of male/female and male/female relationship: the man is the person as the head; and the wife is the body, the “it”, thus the “thing” that belongs to the man as a bodily appendage of his: his own body. She is, of course, a sex slave as a sex toy body belonging to the man as his own body, his “it”, his “thing”.

The man is the person; the woman is the bodily appendage “pertaining to and belonging to the man” as “his body”.

If persons would like to “object” to my statements: the proof is in the pudding. The writings of “Paul” have throughout church history been used as the basis for enslaving women as objects, property, things: not persons under the law.

One such case is Mrs. Packard. And you will read of her ordeal here. In America, under the law, Mrs. Packard was held to be the slave and personal property of her husband as his bodily appendage in laws based on the doctrines of “Paul”. [I will endeavor to do a greater post on this topic of Mrs. Packard.]

Literally, the law based upon the doctrines of “Paul”, even in America, declared that the man being the husband was a person; the wife was an object and thing as his slave as a non-entity. My case is thoroughly proven.

[The fact that biblical scholars recently have arisen as more thoroughly egalitarian rejecting previous interpretations of “Pauline” heresy: is due to the work of the Holy Spirit returning saints to the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Old Testament in greater weight than statements of “Paul”. And, in attempting to form a “cohesion” of all that is given to them as scripture: “re-interpreting” what “Paul” wrote.

However, my position is that “Paul” must stand separate from the rest of the whole of scripture in his own epistles. “Paul’s” epistles must be used as their own “collection of books” to determine in part and as a whole the false “Jesus”, the false gospel that “Paul” truly preached – along with the false conversion of “Paul”.

And “Paul” is to be examined as he declared himself to be: “THE apostle to the Gentiles” at the top of the top down hierarchy he formed ~~ which is the office of pope.]

The man is told to “love the wife” as he loves himself. Because she is not a distinct person from himself in the teaching and preaching of “Paul”. She is an “it”, a “thing”, a “body” belonging to and pertaining to the man as “his body”.

Just like, if we consider ourselves to be persons having one head and one body as individual human beings reading this… one head and one body is one person. One head and one body is not “two distinct persons” but only one person. So, with the man being the “head” as a person and the woman being the “it” as a “thing” as the body whose body is the man’s body: the man is the person who has a woman’s body and his own body that is his one body.

That is exactly what “Paul” is saying.

To those who would debate with me saying, “No! That is not what “Paul” said!” It’s exactly what “Paul” is saying in Ephesians 5 and throughout all of his “epistles”. “Paul” denies that a woman is a person. “Paul” teaches that a woman is an “it”, a “thing”, a “body”, the bodily appendage pertaining to and belonging to a man.

“Paul” literally denies that a woman is capable of being personally saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit individually as a human being: throughout his “epistles”.

If persons would read a few things, they would learn that this is exactly what “Paul” is saying in Ephesians 5: and it is exactly what the church has long in history believed “Paul” to be saying.

The “early church fathers” [Jesus said to call no man “father”] declared that a woman was inferior, subordinate to a man, a body part, and the slave of a man: not an equal person with a man. Also, “John Calvin” [from time of Reformation] has exposited “Paul” to declare that a woman is a “bodily appendage”, inferior, and created as a domestic and sex slave.

Because that is exactly what “Paul” preaches throughout his “epistles” denying that a woman is a person; denying that a woman can know Jesus Christ directly through personal relationship with Jesus Christ in personal salvation. [Instead declaring that women are “under men” as their “heads”; even saying in Ephesians 5 that the man is the savior of the woman as a body; because the man is the person and the woman is merely nothing more than a bodily appendage of a man.]

Please see another article I have done “Paul” Drew The Pic Of A Roman Priest As Husband Ephesians 5. I start to bring out the dominator/submissive sex slave role and the beginning of NWO handler/MK Ultra mind slave [Stepford Wife] this Luciferian false gnostic apostle “Paul” preaches.

Augustine, as cited in (Lerner 1993), says:
I have said, when I was treating the nature of the human mind, that the woman together with her husband is in the image of God [meaning the woman cannot be “the image of God” which LITERALLY MEANS “of the Spirit of God” which LITERALLY MEANS “born again and saved” being INDWELT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT AND JESUS]

 but when she is referred to separately to her quality of ‘help-meet’, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God, but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one [THE WOMAN HAS NO SALVATION APART FROM THE MAN – she is under the curse of Eve with NO HOPE of salvation — except THROUGH MEN]. (p. 141)

1 Corinthians 11:For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Based on “Paul’s” writings that declare women unregenerate, and all under the curse of Eve – not born again

In his De Culta Feminarum, cited in Ruether (1974:157), Tertullian, a North African theologian and montanist, claimed that Eve was the originator of sin and therefore all women carried the curse of Eve:
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 do you bear (children), woman; and toward your husband (is) your inclination, and he lords it over you. 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. (Tertullian in Lerner 1993:141)

1 Timothy 2:I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

[So, the curse of Eve is on all women – and no women have any redemption directly through Jesus Christ that cleanses them from their own sin or the sin of Eve.

Rather, women must earn their salvation in subjection to men their “heads” as bodily appendages. Only men can save women as saviors of their own bodies: for women are the bodies of men as “its” as the bodily appendages of men.

Men may lift up holy hands. But women do not have holy hands. Women are under the curse of Eve in perpetuity. Women must be shamefaced because of their sin and the sin of Eve upon them as their curse. Women must be ashamed before holy men, their superiors, and in subjection to men. Women must do works to earn salvation doing everything “Paul” and their husbands say to continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Women do not have salvation as men do according to “Paul”. Because men are persons as “heads” and the image and glory of God; but women are not persons nor are women the image and glory of God. Rather, women are bodies pertaining to and belonging to men as the bodily appendages of men. And, correspondingly, women are the glory of men as the bodily appendages of men.

Women are “its”.

Women cannot be saved as men are. The holiness of women is only in their subjection to men their “heads” because their “heads” are holy and can lift up holy hands to God. Women cannot. Women are unholy, under the curse, and must be shamefaced in their sins unregenerate. Men are saved. Women shall be saved [in the future]: if [possibly… maybe… because it’s conditional salvation based on their good works]… IF they perform right in good works.]

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it26 that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two [NOT two PERSONS; because the woman is body and the man is “head” and that body is the man’s body; so the two means male and female: BAPHOMET] shall be one flesh32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

John Calvin Commentary 1 Timothy 2:

Now Moses shews that the woman was created afterwards, in order that she might be a kind of appendage to the man; and that she was joined to the man on the express condition, that she should be at hand to render obedience to him. (Genesis 2:21.) Since, therefore, God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man an inferior aid, the Apostle justly reminds us of that order of creation in which the eternal and inviolable appointment of God is strikingly displayed.

14 And Adam was not deceived He alludes to the punishment inflicted on the woman:

“Because thou hast obeyed the voice of the serpent, thou shalt be subject to the authority of thy husband, and thy desire shall be to him.” [43] (Genesis 3:16.)

Because she had given fatal advice, it was right that she should learn that she was under the power and will of another; and because she had drawn her husband aside from the command of God, it was right that she should be deprived of all liberty and placed under the yoke. Besides, the Apostle does not rest his argument entirely or absolutely on the cause of the transgression, but founds it on the sentence which was pronounced by God.

Yet it may be thought that these two statements are somewhat contradictory: that the subjection of the woman is the punishment of her transgression, and yet that it was imposed on her from the creation; for thence it will follow, that she was doomed to servitude before she sinned. I reply, there is nothing to hinder that the condition of obeying should be natural from the beginning, and that afterwards the accidental condition of serving should come into existence; so that the subjection was now less voluntary and agreeable than it had formerly been.

Again, this passage has given to some people an occasion for affirming that Adam did not fall by means of error, but that he was only overcome by the allurements of his wife. Accordingly, they think that the woman only was deceived by the wiles of the devil, to believe that she and her husband would be like the gods; But that Adam was not at all persuaded of this, but tasted the fruit in order to please his wife. But it is easy to refute this opinion; for, if Adam had not given credit to the falsehood of Satan, God would not have reproached him:

“Behold, Adam is become like one of us.” (Genesis 3:22.)

There are other reasons of which I say nothing; for there needs not a long refutation of an error which does not rest on any probable conjecture. By these words Paul does not mean that Adam was not entangled by the same deceitfulness of the devil, [44] but that the cause or source of the transgression proceeded from Eve.

15 But she shall be saved The weakness of the sex renders women more suspicious and timid, and the preceding statement might greatly terrify and alarm the strongest minds. For these reasons he modifies what he had said by adding a consolation; for the Spirit of God does not accuse or reproach us, in order to triumph over us, when we are covered with shame, but, when we have been cast down, immediately raises us up. It might have the effect (as I have already said) of striking terror into the minds of women, [45] when they were informed that the destruction of the whole human race was attributed to them; for what will be this condemnation? Especially when their subjection, as a testimony of the wrath of God, is constantly placed before their eyes. Accordingly, Paul, in order to comfort them and render their condition tolerable, informs them that they continue to enjoy the hope of salvation, though they suffer a temporal punishment. It is proper to observe that the good effect of this consolation is twofold. First, by the hope of salvation held out to them, they are prevented from falling into despair through alarm at the mention of their guilt. Secondly, they become accustomed to endure calmly and patiently the necessity of servitude, so as to submit willingly to their husbands, when they are informed that this kind of obedience is both profitable to themselves and acceptable to God.

John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 11:

The simple solution is this — that he does not treat here of innocence and holiness, which are equally becoming in men and women, but of the distinction, which God has conferred upon the man, so as to have superiority over the woman. In this superior order of dignity the glory of God is seen, as it shines forth in every kind of superiority.
The woman is the glory of the man There is no doubt that the woman is a distinguished ornament of the man; for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him, [626] and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head. For what Solomon affirms as to a careful wife — that she is a crown to her husband, (Proverbs 12:4,) is true of the whole sex, if we look to the appointment of God, which Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose — that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man.

8. For the man is not from the woman. He establishes by two arguments the pre-eminence, which he had assigned to men above women. The first is, that as the woman derives her origin from the man, she is therefore inferior in rank. The second is, that as the woman was created for the sake of the man, she is therefore subject to him, as the work ultimately produced is to its cause. [627] That the man is the beginning of the woman and the end for which she was made, is evident from the law. (Genesis 2:18.)

10. For this cause ought the woman to have power [628] From that authority he draws an argument [629] in favor of outward decorum. “She is subject,” says he, “let her then wear a token of subjection.” In the term power, there is an instance of metonymy, [630] for he means a token by which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband; and it is a covering, whether it be a robe, or a veil, [631] or any other kind of covering. [632]
It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul here teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this — to God’s eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex. Otherwise it were an inconclusive argument that Paul has drawn from nature, in saying that it were not one whit more seemly for a woman to have her head uncovered than to be shaven — this being applicable to virgins also.

Because of the angels This passage is explained in various ways. As the Prophet Malachi 2:7 calls priests angels of God, some are of opinion that Paul speaks of them; but the ministers of the word have nowhere that term applied to them by itself — that is, without something being added; and the meaning would be too forced. I understand it, therefore, in its proper signification. But it is asked, why it is that he would have women have their heads covered because of the angels — for what has this to do with them? Some answer: “Because they are present on occasion of the prayers of believers, and on this account are spectators of unseemliness, should there be any on such occasions.” But what need is there for philosophizing with such refinement? We know that angels are in attendance, also, upon Christ as their head, and minister to him. [633] When, therefore, women venture upon such liberties, as to usurp for themselves the token of authority, they make their baseness manifest to the angels. This, therefore, was said by way of amplifying, as if he had said, “If women uncover their heads, not only Christ, but all the angels too, will be witnesses of the outrage.” And this interpretation suits well with the Apostle’s design. He is treating here of different ranks. Now he says that, when women assume a higher place than becomes them, they gain this by it — that they discover their impudence in the view of the angels of heaven.
11. But neither is the man without the woman This is added partly as a check upon men, that they may not insult over women; [634] and partly as a consolation to women, that they may not feel dissatisfied with being under subjection. “The male sex (says he) has a distinction over the female sex, with this understanding, that they ought to be connected together by mutual benevolence, for the one cannot do without the other. If they be separated, they are like the mutilated members of a mangled body. Let them, therefore, be connected with each other by the bond of mutual duty.” [635]
When he says, in the Lord, he by this expression calls the attention of believers to the appointment of the Lord, while the wicked look to nothing beyond pressing necessity. [636] For profane men, if they can conveniently live unmarried, despise the whole sex, and do not consider that they are under obligations to it by the appointment and decree of God. The pious, on the other hand, acknowledge that the male sex is but the half of the human race. They ponder the meaning of that statement — God created man: male and female created he them (Genesis 1:27, and Genesis 5:2.) Thus they, of their own accord, acknowledge themselves to be debtors to the weaker sex. Pious women, in like manner, reflect upon their obligation. [637] Thus the man has no standing without the woman, for that would be the head severed from the body; nor has the woman without the man, for that were a body without a head. “Let, therefore, the man perform to the woman the office of the head in respect of ruling her, and let the woman perform to the man the office of the body in respect of assisting him, and that not merely in the married state, but also in celibacy; for I do not speak of cohabitation merely, but also of civil offices, for which there is occasion even in the unmarried state.” If you are inclined rather to refer this to the whole sex in general, I do not object to this, though, as Paul directs his discourse to individuals, he appears to point out the particular duty of each.
12. As the woman is of the man If this is one of the reasons, why the man has superiority — that the woman was taken out of him, there will be, in like manner, this motive to friendly connection — that the male sex cannot maintain and preserve itself without the aid of women. For this remains a settled point — that it is not good for man to be alone (Genesis 2:18.) This statement of Paul may, it is true, be viewed as referring to propagation, because human beings are propagated not by men alone, but by men and women; but I understand it as meaning this also — that the woman is a needful help to the man, inasmuch as a solitary life is not expedient for man. This decree of God exhorts us to cultivate mutual intercourse.
But all things of God God is the Source of both sexes, and hence both of them ought with humility to accept and maintain the condition which the Lord has assigned to them. Let the man exercise his authority with moderation, and not insult over the woman who has been given him as his partner. Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex. Otherwise they will both of them throw off the yoke of God, who has not without good reason appointed this distinction of ranks. Farther, when it is said that the man and the woman, when they are wanting in their duty to each other, are rebels against the authority of God, the statement is a more serious one than if Paul had said, that they do injury to one another.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 became the underpinning text of the church fathers’ views that women were not made in the image of God (Sawyer 1996:149-150). The phrases ‘becoming male’ and ‘women turned into man’ became important themes and were frequently used in early Christian literature as well as in non-Christian texts such as those of the Koine culture (Vogt 2003:49). Femininity and masculinity stood in contrast and the phrase ‘becoming male’ refers to the development from a lower to a higher state of moral perfection (Vogt 2003:49).
Origen’s anthropology distinguished between male and female as so created by God. God created male and God created female, and he maintained that there is a sharply defined contrast between male and female (Vogt 2003:52). Origen, however, does not connect the female with the image of God. For Origen, human beings were created of spirit and soul and the spirit is described as masculine and the soul as feminine; therefore, the masculine is higher and in quality better than the feminine (Vogt 2003:53). Origen postulates that when God created man in his image, as male and female, the female is connected with ‘fecundity’ and not directly with the imago Dei, whereas for males, being in the image of God is ‘constitutive’ (Vogt 2003:52).
Tertullian, as cited in Ide (1984:75-78), stated in his Prescription Against Heretics that only men are created in the image of God and that they were innocent victims of the ‘wiles and evils of women’. He forbade women to teach, baptise, become priests, and/or speak in. Furthermore, he demanded that women’s heads to be covered.
Augustine, as cited in Børresen (1995), explains the nature of woman in the image of God as follows:

 the wife with her husband is the image of God, so that the totality of this human substance forms a single image; but when woman is considered as man’s helpmate, a state which belongs to her alone, is not the image of God. By contrast, man is the image of God by being solely what he is, an image so perfect, so whole, that when woman is joined with him it makes only one image. (p. 170)
Miles (1991:96) observes that, for Augustine, women were not created in the image of God but only in his likeness. This view of Augustine supported the idea that women were weak and have a greater tendency to sin, and even before they sin, women must be submissive and must, therefore, be ruled by their husbands.


The church fathers’ perceptions of women
The Latin and the Greek church fathers’ writings reflect the times and conditions within which they lived. It finds expression in their dualistic view of the soul and body: God and nature, and male and female. During the period 1-590 AD, Christianity became firmly rooted in the Graeco-Roman culture and this period marked a concerted effort to restrict the role of women in the church and society. This is reflected in the above discussion on Plato and Aristotle. Women were allowed to engage in charitable works, but were forbidden to undertake religious instruction or to administer the sacraments. Women were not considered equal to men (Isherwood & McEwan 2001:57-58).
Views of the church fathers, such as the Latin church fathers – Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome and Augustine – and the Greek church fathers – Clement of Alexander, Origen and Chrysostom – were not only built upon the anthropology of Plato (428/427-348/347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) but also on Scripture and especially those of Paul. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was often cited and used as a justification for gender inequality. They based their views of women on texts such as Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:20-23 and Genesis 3:1-24 in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, gender inequality supporting texts included 1 Timothy 2:8-15, 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and Ephesians 5:22-23. Lerner points out that these texts were interpreted in different ways, either literally or allegorically. Literally, they pointed to the innate inferiority of women and, allegorically, they referred to the human mind whereby the higher intellect belongs to men and the lower intellect belongs to women (Lerner 1993:141). Lerner (1993:140-143) states that according to the church fathers, women were responsible for sin as the root of all evil. Knight (1974:117) contends that the creation story implies women’s subordination and the myth of the virgin birth contributed to sex being viewed as unclean and displeasing to God.
The fusion of all women with Eve came with the apostolic sanction, and Eve become the scapegoat for the limiting of women’s activities and authority and to generally justify women’s submission to men (Clark 1994:168). Sawyer (1996:149) offers three arguments whereby the church fathers identified women with Eve. Firstly, women were viewed as the second sex. Genesis 2 states that Eve was created after Adam, and Genesis 2:18 became the proven text to maintain the sexual hierarchy in Christianity. Paul’s epistles were applied to define the position of women in the family as well as in the church. Eve became the second sex for two reasons: she was created after Adam and, because she was disobedient, she does not represent the image of God (Sawyer 1996:149). The second argument is the blaming of Eve for introducing sin into the world. Passages such as 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:14 became the argument for the subordination of women and their inferior status within the church (Sawyer 1996:153). As the first sinner, Eve was the embodiment of all women and therefore women fell outside the redemptive power of Christ (Sawyer 1996:154). Women could only be redeemed through childbearing and their very existence was only for the sake of procreation. A third argument offered by Sawyer is that Christianity produced two kinds of women: Eve and Mary. Irenaeus saw both similarities and contrasts between Eve and Mary, the mother of Jesus. Sawyer (1996) cites a leading apologist Irenaeus’ (c. 120-200) Against Heresies, as an example:
Eve, having become disobedient, was made the cause of death both for herself and for all the human race. Thus also Mary had a husband selected for her and nonetheless was a virgin, yet by her obedience she was made the cause of salvation both for herself and for all the human race. For this reason the law calls a woman engaged to a man his wife, while conceding that she is still a virgin. This indicates a link that goes from Mary back to Eve. (p. 156)
and

 Moreover, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosened through the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve bound through unbelief, this the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. (p. 156)
In his De Culta Feminarum, cited in Ruether (1974:157), Tertullian, a North African theologian and montanist, claimed that Eve was the originator of sin and therefore all women carried the curse of Eve:
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 do you bear (children), woman; and toward your husband (is) your inclination, and he lords it over you. 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. (Tertullian in Lerner 1993:141)
Jerome, a Christian apologist, shared the views of his contemporaries about women. Women’s wombs were the soil that received the male seed and for Jesus Christ to become human. He had to endure the revolting conditions of the womb. He claimed that for women to become men, they would have to abstain from sex, although through childbearing, women can escape the punishment they receive because of the sin of Eve (Knight 1974:120). Jerome held Eve and, as a consequence, every woman responsible for all heresy. He claimed that men such as Nicholas of Antioch, the seducer of all impurity, was followed by crowds of women; Simon Magnus founded his sect with the help of Helene the prostitute; Marcion used women to prepare the minds of men to join his sect (Keane 1987:3). Jerome viewed women as the root of all evil and said:
Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: but she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety. (cited in Phelips 1931:203)
Sawyer (1996:150) observes that in his interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, stated that women lost their divine image because of the fall and are, therefore, subservient to men. Chrysostom in his Homily IX (1843) contended that because Eve sinned, all women were punished with subjection. He writes:
The woman [Eve] 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. (p. 71)
Although Clement of Alexandria accepted the reality of sex, he advocated that it is only to fulfil God’s will for procreation. He denounced and condemned physical pleasure as well as the femaleness of women (Ide 1984:66). Clement of Alexandria’s sexism was carried over in his writings and he contended that the only strong person was a man. In his Stromata he writes:

 His beard then is the badge of a man and shows him unmistakably to be a man. It is older than Eve and is the symbol of the stronger nature. By God’s decree, hairiness is one of man’s conspicuous qualities, and at that, it is distributed over his whole body. Whatever smoothness or softness there was in him God took from him when he fashioned the delicate Eve from his side to be the receptacle of his seed, his helpmate both in procreation and in the management of the home. What he left (remember he lost all traces of hairlessness) was manhood and reveals that manhood. His characteristic is action; hers, passivity. For what is hairy by nature is drier and warmer than what is bare; therefore, the male is hairier and more warm-blooded than the female; the uncastrated, than the castrated; the mature, than the immature. Thus it is a sacrilege to trifle with the symbol of manhood. (Clement of Alexandria, in Ide 1984:66)
In Augustine’s interpretation of Paul’s theology, he concluded that humans had become alienated from their own best potential and had to get it back in a gift – the gift being the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. As a result, Eve became the origin of sin and the cause of Adam’s fall. All women became Eve’s daughters, and therefore, became the bearers of sin (Ruether 1983:167). Augustine believed that there was sex in Eden and that it was good and without lust. Lust became the product of sin after Eve ate the forbidden apple (Ide 1984:92). He blamed women for the fall and for the eviction of Adam and Eve from paradise on Eve (Ranke-Heinemann 1991:185).
Women were not only regarded as the cause of all sin, they were also seen as inferior and weak in both mind and character and also as not having been created in the ‘image of God’. Keane (1987:2) said that women, in the history of the church, represented the imago Dei in a secondary sense. 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 became the underpinning text of the church fathers’ views that women were not made in the image of God (Sawyer 1996:149-150). The phrases ‘becoming male’ and ‘women turned into man’ became important themes and were frequently used in early Christian literature as well as in non-Christian texts such as those of the Koine culture (Vogt 2003:49). Femininity and masculinity stood in contrast and the phrase ‘becoming male’ refers to the development from a lower to a higher state of moral perfection (Vogt 2003:49).
Origen’s anthropology distinguished between male and female as so created by God. God created male and God created female, and he maintained that there is a sharply defined contrast between male and female (Vogt 2003:52). Origen, however, does not connect the female with the image of God. For Origen, human beings were created of spirit and soul and the spirit is described as masculine and the soul as feminine; therefore, the masculine is higher and in quality better than the feminine (Vogt 2003:53). Origen postulates that when God created man in his image, as male and female, the female is connected with ‘fecundity’ and not directly with the imago Dei, whereas for males, being in the image of God is ‘constitutive’ (Vogt 2003:52).
Tertullian, as cited in Ide (1984:75-78), stated in his Prescription Against Heretics that only men are created in the image of God and that they were innocent victims of the ‘wiles and evils of women’. He forbade women to teach, baptise, become priests, and/or speak in. Furthermore, he demanded that women’s heads to be covered.
Augustine, as cited in Børresen (1995), explains the nature of woman in the image of God as follows:

 the wife with her husband is the image of God, so that the totality of this human substance forms a single image; but when woman is considered as man’s helpmate, a state which belongs to her alone, is not the image of God. By contrast, man is the image of God by being solely what he is, an image so perfect, so whole, that when woman is joined with him it makes only one image. (p. 170)
Miles (1991:96) observes that, for Augustine, women were not created in the image of God but only in his likeness. This view of Augustine supported the idea that women were weak and have a greater tendency to sin, and even before they sin, women must be submissive and must, therefore, be ruled by their husbands. Augustine, as cited in (Lerner 1993), says:
I have said, when I was treating the nature of the human mind, that the woman together with her husband is in the image of God 

 but when she is referred to separately to her quality of ‘help-meet’, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God, but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one. (p. 141)
Chrysostom did not include women in the natural image of God, because this image is one of power and dominion, both of which woman has been deprived of by God and society (Tavard 1973:48ff.).
Feminists argue that the church fathers defined the status of women and sought to restrict and limit women’s influence in society. Women were not only blamed for sin but also viewed by the church fathers as the weaker sex, inferior and creatures of lust.
The central themes of Clement of Alexandria’s anthropology are based on human nature against that of sexually determined nature, as well as on the salvation of believers and their journey to salvation (Vogt 2003:49). God created different sexes and, as such, sexual desire becomes the root of all evil (Vogt 2003:50-51). Women are inferior to men, and he believed that his contempt for women was a universal point of view (Ranke-Heinemann 1991:127). He maintained in The Stromata that a woman could only achieve perfection in this life if she frees herself from the cravings of the flesh (cited in Ranke-Heinemann 1991:130). Because virtue only belongs to the men and because women are ‘licentious and unjust’, they have to ‘practice self-restraint and righteousness’ and only then can they become more male-like by renouncing cravings of the flesh. He further writes on virtue, stating that:
it belongs to the male alone to be virtuous, and to the woman to be licentious and unjust. Accordingly woman is to practice self restraint and righteousness, and every other virtue. 

 We do not say that woman’s nature is the same as man’s, as she is woman. 

 Pregnancy and parturition, accordingly, we say belong to woman, as she is woman, and not as she is a human being. (Clement of Alexandria in Ide 1984:66)
Origen disapproved of the sexual act even within marriage (Phelips 1931:203). Weinrich (1991:258) states that Origen described women as ‘worse than animals’ because of their constant state of lust. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 on women speaking in public, Origen argued that women are not permitted to do so as female prophets never spoke publicly. In Origen’s teachings, he refers to the ‘interior man’ and the ‘soul or anima’. Whilst the interior man refers to the men, the soul or anima refers to women. The male part is higher and more moral than that of women who are inclined to lean towards the senses and are, therefore, unfaithful, weak, lazy and dependent on men. However, when the woman is ruled by her spirit, she is male and when she is ruled by her soul she is female. Origen believed God favoured the male (Keane 1987:12; Vogt 2003:59). Women, according to Origen, can do nothing manly, but do have the potential to change into perfect men. The soul of a woman can change to become a ‘perfect man’. He uses the metaphor of a ‘perfect man’ for humans who have not reached ‘a state of perfection’ and these are the girls who accompany the bride of the church. The angels are those who have attained perfection and are ‘represented by young men with the Bridegroom’. The souls (female) can evolve from a sexual female stage to the highest masculine stage when they are freed from their femaleness and they can then become perfect men. On the ordination of women as priests and prophetesses, Origen relied upon 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 to prevent women from these ministries. He claimed that although women such as Marian and Deborah are mentioned in the Gospel, however, they did not speak in church (Vogt 2003:54-55).
On the ordination of women and women being prophetesses, Tertullian acknowledges in the Prescription Against Heretics that although women were active in the church, it was at the cost of men’s dignity. Women performed exorcisms, where physicians performed sacraments and were ministers of faith – tasks he believed were reserved for men only (McGuire 1999:264). For Tertullian, women were the source of all evil, and he believed that there was nothing good about women, in general or, any woman in particular. In his view, women were responsible for pain, suffering, sin and corruption in both the private and public spheres (Tavard 1973:58-59). Tertullian despised women so much that he warned men against gazing upon them, because it would mean that they would have their immortal souls consigned to hell and would be doomed to never enjoy the security of heaven after death (Tavard 1973:59).
Jerome viewed women as the root of all evil. He declared that a clean body signifies a dirty mind because he found all aspects of sexuality repugnant (Strachan & Strachan 1985:6). It is often stated that he had a ‘love affair with virginity’ because he saw virginity as better than marriage (Ide 1984:85). Ide (1984) states:
Unfortunately, many male theologians and other men believed that sexual thoughts, interest, and expression were initiated, generated, and completed when a woman was present, being sexually evil – and yet at the same time not being capable of experiencing the same fullness of sexuality as did man. (p. 88)
Jerome claimed that although marriage is good, virginity is better because men are corrupted through sexual intercourse. It is thus better for men not to get married and to therefore escape the burden of having a wife (Ide 1984:72). In his Letter, to Marcella, he writes:
The women who ought to scandalize Christians are those who paint their eyes and lips with rouge and cosmetics; whose chalked faces, unnaturally white, are like those of idols; upon whose cheeks every chance tear leaves a furrow; who fail to realize that years make them old 

 A Christian women should blush to do violence to nature, or to stimulate desire by bestowing care upon the flesh. ‘They that are in the flesh’, the apostle tells us, ‘cannot please God’. (Jerome cited in Phelips 1931:203)
Jerome, (cited in Ide 1984) in his letter to Pammachius, Letter, has this to say about marriage:
For it is better that a woman should know one man (though he should be a second husband or a third) than that she should know several. In other words, it is preferable that she should prostitute herself to one rather than to many. (p. 84)
Augustine, in his views on the natural order, states in the Heptateuch, that women were created lesser than man and therefore, they have to serve men as being the greater. Men are superior to women because women were created with a weaker brain. Therefore, the weaker has to serve the stronger. In his Concupiscence, Augustine wrote:
Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’; and, ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands’. (Augustine in Ide 1984:97)
According to Phelips (1931:203), Augustine believed that it was an incontestable social and religious truth that women were subordinate to men. He was of the opinion that it is according to the natural order for men to rule over women and for women to both serve and be subservient to their husbands. For Augustine, nothing was worse than a house where the woman commands and the man obeys; therefore, the husband must always rule over his wife.
Chrysostom described women as weak and flighty, a fault of nature, evil, as temptresses and as mischievous (Knight 1974:121). Chrysostom believed that it was God who maintained the order of each sex. God gave men supremacy as leaders of business of the state, the marketplace, the administration of justice, the government and the military (Lampe 1981:124). Women, on the other hand, were assigned the presidency of the household and other so-called inferior matters (Keane 1987:5). Chrysostom wrote:
Among all the savage beasts none is found to be so harmful as woman. 

 The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, phlegm and the fluid of digested food. 

 If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulcher. (cited in Cooper-White 2012:72)
Chrysostom, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, said that the female sex is weak and fickle, and in his Homily on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 he stated:
To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed to speak not only about worldly matters, but not even about spiritual things, in the church. This is order, this is modesty, this will adorn her more than any garments. Thus clothed, she will be able to offer her prayers in the manner most becoming. (Chrysostom in Keane 1987:5)
 
The classic medical theory and its influence on the church fathers’ views about women
The church fathers’ perceptions of women are central to this article. The Hippocrates Corpus offers critical insight into how women were perceived in classical medical theory and can be directly linked to how the church fathers perceived women as being the weaker, inferior and incomplete males. The Hippocratic Corpus and its authors were of Greek origin. The classic medical theory according to Gleason (1995:352) illustrates the inferiority of the female body to that of the male body, that men’s bodies were more solid and robust because of the embryonic process, that women’s bodies were more imperfect because of their heat deficiency and that women were viewed as incomplete males.
Whilst physicians could physically examine men, they were not allowed to view female anatomy. Hippocratics received their medical knowledge from the traditional practices of whole-body studies (Nutton 2004:57). They believed that to study all psychological, physical and superstitious symptoms, equipped them to diagnose and treat problems. Doctors treated women without the knowledge of how a woman’s internal and external anatomy looked like or how it functioned (Nutton 2004:57). This compelled them to rely on verbal descriptions made by men’s observations and theoretical ideas concerning women’s anatomy as being incapable males (Martin 1995:32). Women were thought of as being more emotional than men and more susceptible to madness. Madness in a woman was caused by a thick vein in her breasts, an indication that a big portion of women’s intelligence is confined to their breasts. The sign of a woman who is about to go mad is the excessive blood that collects in her breasts (Hippocratic Corpus, Epidemics II., Vi 19 and 32).
The following are a few examples of the thoughts on the inferiority of women’s bodies in the Hippocratic Corpus.
Before conception women were already inferior
The Hippocratic Corpus contains medical treatises which are associated with the physician Hippocrates (Stewart 1995:584) and is based on perceptions that the human body consists of fire, water, air and earth, and an imbalanced human temperature was the proof of the absence of one of these elements (Martin 1995:148).
According to the theory of the uterus having two chambers, men come from the hot right chamber (considered to be more superior to the left side), whereas women come from the cooler left chamber (Harlow 1998:159). According to the embryonic process theory, the male embryo comes from the right side of the testicle because the blood coming from the right side of the testicle is thicker and hotter than that of the left testicle. For men to produce male embryos, they were advised to bind their left testicle (Rousselle 1988:48). Women also have two testicles, but they remained internal and were less perfect (Harlow 1998:159; Rousselle 1988:48).
Whilst the female foetus takes 42 days to form, the male foetus only takes 32 days to form. This is because of the female foetus being weaker than that of the male (Martin 1995:32). As a result, a female foetus being formed in the uterus’s cooler part is weaker and fluid and it only starts moving at 4 months, whereas the stronger male foetus starts to move at 3 months (Martin 1995:32).
Women’s wombs predetermined the sex of a child
Because of the wandering womb theory, a woman’s womb was thought of as being an oven wherein seeds are baked and as a raging animal roaming in the female body (King 1998:33, 222). Women with wondering wombs display erratic behaviour, and if the womb becomes dry it is attracted to other organs such as the heart, liver and brain to ease its thirst. Suffering from a dry womb will result in women to become voiceless and to lose consciousness (Fantham et al. 1994:188). To avoid this to happen, women are encouraged to have sex. Sex was regarded as a cure for most women’s unhealthy conditions (Hippocratic Corpus, On Diseases of Women, II, 125).
Women were advised to watch their diets. Hot and dry diets will produce males, whereas a cool and moist diet will produce females (Martin 1995:32). The scent theory claimed that a wandering womb could be lured back into place by either unpleasant or pleasing odours (King 1998:36). When a woman complained about a blocked nose and sore eyes, she was advised to wash herself with hot water and, if this did not work, she had to pour laurel over her head and fumigate her vagina with sweet smells. By washing themselves with hot water, or by pouring hot oils over their heads, and even wraping bandages around their wombs, women could bring their wondering wombs under control (King 1998:36).
Women have no control over their bodies
Because women are more porous and draw moisture faster from her belly to her body, they are more inclined to draw blood to their breasts, which prone them to go mad; thus, they are more irrational than men in behaviour (Hippocratic Corpus, Deceases of Women, 1.1). King contest that the wandering womb theory implied control by men over female bodies because they do not have control over their own bodies and that this situation inspired some women to turn out to be masters of their own bodies by choosing celibacy and becoming ascetics (King 1998:36). King, however, also points out that it was often said that the penis was ‘self-willed’ which painted a picture of men not being in control of their own bodies. Because the gods bestowed sexual desire onto humans, those humans who proved themselves as unjust became female (King 1998:223).
Menstruation was a result of women’s bodies being soft and porous and therefore their bodies’ need to drain off the excessive blood causing their bodies to become painful and overheated. Men’s bodies did not suffer this condition (Dean-Jones 2003:201). It was argued that when a woman’s womb dried up, it means that the womb was in need of moisture and therefore intercourse was prescribed as a solution to treat a dry womb, and this was believed to contribute to a more healthy body (Martin 1995:223).
Barker (2014:16) states that the Hippocratic Corpus clearly viewed the female as being physically and emotionally weaker than men and, therefore, women needed men to overcome their weaknesses.
The church fathers’ perceptions of the carnal (sexual) and the spiritual
Joyce Salisbury, in her book Church Fathers, Independent Virgins (1991), made an in-depth study of the church fathers’ perceptions about sexuality. In this section, I will mainly focus on her work because it offers a thorough account of the church fathers’ views and fears on sexuality.
After the birth of Christ and with the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire, Christians started to reconsider the world and, more specifically, the place of sex in the bigger scheme of creation. We have to ask why? Laeuchili (1972:102-113) states that in ancient times, there was a crisis regarding human identity that caused Christians in the Roman world to wrestle with the position humans have in the world. This caused Christians to grapple with questions such as whether sexuality was good or bad, the nature of celibacy, what was sexuality evil and what the nature and character of Christian sexuality is.
Reflecting on these questions and building upon each other’s works, the church fathers created a body of thought, which they used in constructing Christian thought on many issues such as human sexuality and celibacy. The church fathers’ perception of the carnal (sexual theory) and the spiritual world shaped their views on women (Salisbury 1991:12). Another important issue one has to take into account is the church fathers’ theoretical position on their ideal of virginity.
The church fathers understood men to be primarily spiritual and women as carnal (Salisbury 1991:26). Salisbury (1991) says:
The Fathers did not necessarily equate flesh with the visible body. Spirit and flesh were opposite abstract principles that could be understood by their expression in concrete action 

 the terms flesh and spirit represented potential states that the body could actualize. The body itself was neutral and could be drawn to either the flesh or the spirit, depending on which urges the individual followed. (p. 12)
For example, Cyprian reminded virgins in the Dress of Virgins that their bodies are spiritual and by the renunciation of the flesh, they dedicated themselves to God (Cyprian 1958:34), and in similar vein, Jerome in To Eustochium (1893:23) and Ambrose in De Virginitate (1895:279-318) referred to virgins’ bodies as the temples of God.
The church fathers connected the fall to sexuality. They regarded Adam and Eve originally to be virgins and after they sinned, they were banned from paradise and were immediately married. Original sin was perceived to be sexual in nature (Salisbury 1991:13). Marriage brought forth sexual consequences. The church fathers contended that in marriage one does not have control over one’s own body and one has to satisfy the other’s sexual desire and warned against the burdens thereof for women (Salisbury 1991:13). Jerome, in The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Against Helvidius, says that women in marriage have to care for children, organising their household and have to please their husbands. In his Against Jovinian (1893:386), he says of marriage that ‘there is no greater calamity connected with the captivity that to be the victim of another’s lust’ (Salisbury 1991:13).
Understanding sexuality in strong physical terms, the church fathers warned against giving in to the senses. They used metaphors such as touch, taste, tongue, sight, smell and hearing as metaphors that lure one into lust (Salisbury 1991:18-21). For example, Jerome in his Against Jovinian (1893:350) warned against touching a woman because it can ignite instant fire, and any man striving for spiritual things has to avoid contact with women. Taste was another sense that could cause lust, and Jerome, in his To Eustochium (1893:25), warned against a full belly that could provoke inflamed lust in his To Furia (1893:105-106). In his On the Veiling of Virgins, Tertullian (1951:37) argued that lust is caused by visual stimulation and both men and women who engage in visual stimulation share in the carnal visual experience, but women are to be veiled to avoid sexual pleasure. Smell represented and defined the carnal for Ambrose (1980:17), and he urged women and men to rather breathe the fragrance of the Lord’s resurrection. Virgins, who chose a spiritual life over that of the carnal, will benefit in the odour of spirituality, whereas those who choose the carnal shall bore the odour of death. Ambrose and Jerome referred to virgin’s bodies as the temple of God, and, in this perception (Salisbury 1991) that:
Just as the incarnation had made Christ’s body and blood worthy of veneration, so a spiritual life could convert the individual’s body into a vehicle of sanctity. For the Fathers a spiritual life would convert individual bodies into a vehicle of sanctity 

 and a spiritual life could bring about a resurrection of the body while on earth, in imitation of the bodily resurrection to come. (p. 13)
The church fathers identified sexual characteristics to help people in their struggles for the spiritual. In this context, Salisbury (1991:19) continues to say that the fear of woman’s sexuality and the related fear of what this would do to man’s spirituality also extend to a more concrete fear of women’s bodies (Salisbury 1991:24).
Salisbury (1991:19) identifies four characteristics of sexuality that were articulated to make people aware of the difficulties in their struggles against the carnal. These are sexuality is natural, it is pleasurable, it is irresistible and it is disgusting and degrading.
The church fathers often warned against the natural state of sexuality as a sign of the fallen humanity and that sexuality was only for the purpose of procreation. For example, Jerome, in To Demetrias (1893:267), warns that for someone to live a chaste and spiritual life, he or she must ‘act against nature’. According to Salisbury (1991:19), the church fathers acknowledged that sex was pleasurable, but they also believed it caused the body to be in the carnal realm and it also prevents people to renounce the carnal once sensual pleasures were experienced. As soon as one experienced the carnal, it may become irresistible, habit forming and hard to stop. Therefore, the church fathers encouraged women to become virgins. Once a woman becomes a widow, it will be harder for her to remain chaste (Salisbury 1991:19). Writing on virginity and chastity, and from the spiritual realm, the church fathers believed that sex was disgusting and degrading. Although all these characteristics applied to both sexes, they made a distinction between men (general) and women (specific) living an ascetic life (Salisbury 1991:21).
Salisbury (1991:21) contends that the goals of the church fathers were to urge people to have a disregard for all carnal things and that the ‘most pleasurable act was considered “foul” and “corruption”‘. She also goes on to say that the characteristics of sex, in general, applied to men and women. Sex was the carnal enemy which both male and female ascetics had to fight against.
The division of humanity into male and female was viewed to be parallel to the world, divided into the spiritual (represented by men) and the physical (represented by women). What it is to be a man was determined by the natural place men had in society and because it was thought that men are guided by the spiritual (rational), they had to govern over the carnal (sexual) women. These rational qualities bestowed upon men the power to be the head of the woman and to govern over women. The power of men was perceived to be more visible in his physicality and his manliness in his activities as well as in his relationships with women; men had rugged voices, used rough speech and had shaggy eyebrows (Salisbury 1991:21).
Women belonging to the carnal world were primarily characterised by lust and defined by their sexuality and were often viewed to be more libidinous than men. The church fathers, therefore warned men against temptresses who continuously reproduced Eve’s initial temptation of Adam. It is important to note here that women were not viewed to be temptresses out of desire, but that they were viewed as temptresses as part of their carnal nature (Salisbury 1991:23). Ambrose in the De Virginitate (1895:326) stated, for example, that women cannot be blamed for being temptresses because they cannot be blamed for being born as a women.
In conclusion, the church fathers left the carnal women in an ontological state as lustful temptresses and, for example, Tertullian in his Apparel of Women (1951:117) could refer to women as the ‘devils gateway’.