Responsive image
Japanese Korean Romanian Malay language Norwegian Swedish Polish Swahili Chichewa Tagalog Urdu


Patristic elements


towards a theological anthropology

 of woman as a human being


as woman in her difference from man



by Dr. Constantinos Yokarinis

Warsaw December 1996 


‘Ορα ιστορίαν μεν σχήματι, θεολογίαν δε δυνάμει

Gregory of Nyssa, Εις τα της Γραφής ρήματα ποιήσωμεν... PG 44,260C.



It is remarkable that recently a special interest is showing by various international organizations for the woman as regards her rights and her social status. Values of the past, ideas, stereotypes of behavior come to close scrutiny and there is an increasing sensitivity for situations, which appear to be quite provocative today for what the man of the past considered as reasonable and natural. The woman’s inferior position in the context of society, witnessed by the history, her subordination to man and her manipulation as a human being by various social-economic factors, in today’s social context are judged as unacceptable situations and practices which underrate woman’s person. So, today, when she demands the recognition of the equality male and female to all levels of her existence and the same respect and honor to be offered to both of the sexes, she finds a positive response.

The latest developments in the Anglican and in the Old-Catholic Church in regard the issue of woman’s priesthood gained the attention of the entire Christian community. Particularly, when the issue became a factor, threatening to create a deeper division between the Christian Churches, many voices heard, calling for a serious and wider re-examination of the new situation. A conside- rable number of articles and scientific researches, referred to the woman, see the light of publicity on daily basis. They try to find out and present new elements, which could change the established image of woman through the centuries.

The feminist movement was unable to touch the root of the problem, although it has contributed positively to upgrade the woman’s position in many levels of our contemporary society. In the Christian Community, where the woman’s presence and function is understandable rather on an ontological basis, than on a biological terms, and, under the pressure of new developments, we, as theologians, have not only an academic interest on the issue, but a duty to offer our help, in order the Christian Church to overcome the problem.

Our consultation is looking for an answer, based on the witness of the Church’s Tradition and specifically from the point of view, what patristic elements can contribute towards a theological anthropology of woman as a human being and as woman in her difference from man.

Many views have been expressed for the above mentioned subject, but it was difficult to reach an agreement, commonly accepted as theologically correct. The models of biblical interpre- tation were unable so far to offer an acceptable answer by all parts involved in the debate. Fundamentalist attacks, feminist polemics and biblical apologetics still characterize many discussions of women in the Bible. However, this polemic quarrel surrounding the topic does not disqualify the topic, but indicates how much impact the Bible has on the struggle of women to establish their new position in the Kingdom of God.

It is quite difficult for a researcher to overcome the pre occupations, the acceptable religious stereotypes of an audience, their views on sensitive subjects, which have been formed under the influence of their cultural context, their political platform and their social-economic structure. All these elements usually interweave the canvas of history, where, so far, the man’s presence is dominant as a holder of the first role to any development in the history. On the other hand, the fact of the inferior social position of women and their subordination to man is witnessed extensively in history. Unfortu- nately, male chauvinists have found support in ideas expressed by some theologians, who have established the inferior role of women with references to their inferior nature. But, In the face of the feminist critique, contemporary scholars attempt to salvage for example the pauline statements with the help of the equal but different argu- ment, which is understood as the expression of orthodox anthro- pology.

Leaving aside all androcentric interpretations and any attempt to compromise expressed views, pro and con, as regards the equality of two genders, male and female, I will try to present a theological anthropology, based on patristic views with a double perspective:

1) the woman as human being and

2) the woman in her difference with man.


1) The woman as human being.


Several Greek Fathers used to refer, occasionally, to man’s creation and to the relationship of both sexes. Sometimes, their views were converging, diverging or differentiating. But the Fathers had a common starting point to interpret the mystery of man’s creation, the holistic view of the human being, which in theological terms characterized as microcosm[2]. Human nature, being more com- plicated, possesses greater potentialities than the angelic nature. Balanced as man is between the material and physical realms, participating at the same time in both worlds man is a microcosm, whose calling and task is to act as mediator, a reconciler drawing together into one, praises of all creation, that through him all might rise in harmony to the Creator[3].

In the context of the first part of my topic: patristic elements towards a theological anthropology of woman as a human being , I consider as imperative necessity, first of all to answer a fundamental question: What is the meaning of the phrase human nature in theological terms and from the patristic point of view.

The knowledge about our nature, so far, and in regard to the perspectives of our existence is not a simple spiritual conquest, is not a self knowledge, but a revelation, which has been offered by the Creator to man. Whatever has been written by the Church Fathers derived from the biblical source of the two stories in the book of Genesis: a) Gen. 1:26-31 (586 BC sacerdotal tradition) and b) Gen. 2:7-25 and 3:1-8 (900-800 BC Jahwic tradition).The author of Genesis has used a lot of icons and symbols, which must be interpreted in the context of the Church’s hermeneutic tradition under the light of New Testament and the dogmatic teaching of the One, Holy and Catholic Church.

In the patristic literature it is difficult to find a systematic approach, concerning our topic. Gregory of Nyssa responding to the wish of his brother Basil the Great, completed his work on the creation under the name: Εξαήμερος . He wrote about the [4]construction of man [5]. It is the most systematic work, based on the biblical material. Reading the comments of the Fathers on the biblical anthropology, it is more than clear, that most of them are trying to analyze in theological terms the relationship of the two sexes, male and female, because this biological characteristic appears to be as the only observable distinction among the human beings and consequently is a real and an understandable difference. That means a tendency for the connection or correlation of the human being’s particularity as a person with the biological distinctive characteristics of male and female. In another words, it was adopted an ontological perspective, but it is questionable, whether the two elements, person and sex are compatible notions and values in the approaching the topic of man’s creation.

Furthermore, we could notice that any reference to woman’s human nature takes place occasionally and particularly in cases of pastoral problems or needs and always in relation to man’s human nature. Of course, in this case we must bear in mind that Fathers are acting always in the context of their time. The Fathers in their effort to interpret the majesty and complexity of the sixth day of creation, which is not possible to be grasped by the finite human mind[6], they use a double perspective. They examine the creation of man: a) on the level of the prolapsarian situation and b) on the level of the postlapsarian conditions. Consequently, in order to obtain a clear understanding of their ideas in relation with our topic, we have to follow their way of thinking, because the above perspectives create the context of their theological interpretation towards a biblical anthropology.


a) The human nature in the prolapsarian situation.

The man’s creation according to the Greek Fathers took place in three phases: i) the creation of man’s body, ii) the breathing into his body and iii) the creation of woman. As human beings living in time, we usually apprehend the above phases in the sequence of time, although God’s actions wouldn’t be conditioned by the time. In another words a development in arithmetical order, in fact, is condition of history. The Fathers, interpreting God’s creative activity in the context of time, come to a theological conclusion, that Adam (male) became the source of Eve’s (woman’s) creation. Such an understanding promotes the idea that Adam, as first in the order of the human creation, possesses at least a precedence and conse- quently a superior and distinguished always role, while Eve, as second, has to follow. That means an inferior and subordinated role, which has been fortified in the post-lapsarian situation, particularly under the weight of the curse. The above understanding is based on the biblical story, but it appears to be differentiated[7] when some Fathers attempt to give further theological explanations.

But, if someone tries to examine the Fathers’ views on this point, would easily notice a very important difference. Firstly, they understand Adam not as a sexual human being[8], but rather as an a-sexual and secondly, they do not accept Adam as the cause of Eve’s existence, but God’s will and decision[9]. Therefore, the argument that Adam as male has the precedence, because he created first, theologically is unfounded. The phrase εποίησεν αυτους αρσεν και θηλυ is an additional creative act, which has taken place on the same time, if we are thinking in terms of time. The above phrase speaks out by itself, that male human being does not exist before the second phase of man’ creation. Some other Fathers interpreting the second story of man’s creation promote somehow the superiority of male[10].

I understand that the Fathers tried very hard to overcome the dominant ideology of a society, which was deeply influenced by the male idol. Sometimes, the Fathers appear in their texts contradicting themselves[11], when they attempt to enter to the mystery of man’s creation. And this happens because, while they try to free the Christians from a sinful world, the world of division and fight and to show them the new world of the Kingdom of God, they find themselves trapped in the conditions of fall.

Regarding with the second argument, that woman derives from the male - Adam’s rib, we can notice a differentiation between the Fathers. John of Damascus in his reference to man’s creation claims that the first human entity was male[12]. But later he moves to another line of thought. He understands man’s creation in ontological terms claiming that it took place according to the trinitarian archetype on the basis of ποιήσωμεν . He uses an analogy[13] in his effort to show the unity of the human nature and to prove the difference as the way of their existence. Of course, St. John of Damascus has in mind the reality of our post-lapsarian situation, because in this context sex has taken its biological meaning and its function has been activated, but he moves on the line of the ontological interpretation.

The concept that sex is the basis of human beings differentiation couldn’t be substantiated in theological terms, but we can see it in patristic texts as an influence of their historic reality, serving pastoral aims. Or we can comprehend it as a human weakness[14] to conceptualize the fact that man as a special creature created simultaneously in his wholeness.

According to patristic teaching the author of Genesis, in the context of this story, emphasizes God’s three actions: a) the unique personal act of God[15] in order to show the exceptional position of man in the entire creation, b) the different nature[16] of the human being[17], which is constituted of two elements, body and soul. The first element, the body, shows the relationship of man with the rest of creation[18] and the second, the soul[19], a special kinship with God. The Fathers’ views are converging as regards with the above phases of man’s creation. It depends on what perspective they try to approach this particular topic.

In the context of a theological anthropology of woman as a human being, I understand that the last[20] phase of the man’s creation, which is his division into male and female form, appears to be the most important element, because the presence and the function of women in our world’s history has been evaluated by the criterion of her sex. It is surprising a biological particularity to become the basis of a human being’s evaluation on ontological level, although it is more than clear theologically that Εις ποιητης ανδρος και γυναικος, εις χους, αμφότεροι εικων μία, νόμος εις, θάνατος εις, ανάστασις μία [21]

It is about time to change standards, ideas, criteria, which have been imposed by a sinful world and they survived till today in the most cynical way. I understand that our historic coincidence demands a re-approaching of man’s creation under the light of our patristic tradition and the dogmatic teaching of the One and undivided Christian Church.

Gregory of Nyssa in his attempt to justify theologically the division of the first man into male and female human being says:

Δια τουτο ο ειδως τα πάντα...προκατανοήσας τη προγνωστικη δυνάμει ο,τι ρέπει κατα το αυτοκρατες του και αυτεξούσιον της ανθρωπίνης προαιρέσεως η κίνησις, επειδη το εσόμενον ειδεν, επιτεχναται τη εικόνι την περι το αρρεν και θηλυ διαφοραν, ητις ουκέτι προς το θεον αρχέτυπον βλέπει, αλλα καθως ειρηται, τη αλογωτέρω προσωκείωται φύσε [22].

So, according to Gregory of Nyssa, the Creator knew in advance, what would be the final free choice of man, towards the opened options to him, to become an entity in His likeness. Consequently, God provided his creature, the man, with elements enabling him to survive in a postlapsarian situation, under the conditions of pain and tear, of wear and death. God mixed (κατέμιξε τι και του αλόγου τη ιδία εικόνι)[23] the element of sex to ONE man, who created in His image. This characteristic belongs to the creatures of the lower order, which lack the divine property of logos and the purpose of sex is the reproduction of species.

The Fathers understand the sex as επιτέχνασμα (artifice) for the purpose to αυξάνεσθε και πληθύνεσθε . It is a function for man’s survival δια της ζωωδεστέρας γενέσεως [24] (brutish genesis), but even so in the context of marriage can be seen from another perspective, as co-operation of man, as male and female, in God’s creation[25]. So, marriage became the best institution in human social structures for man’s survival in the context of fall, but with a difference. In a Christian community it is characterized by qualities of loving care, devotion to each other, sharing of life and finally by an element of personal sacrifice according to the paradigm of the incarnated Logos[26]. In another words marriage, as a union of the two sexes, aims to overcome the results of fall[27] and to restore the lost unity in the spirit of Christ[28].

The aforesaid views of the Greek Fathers on the sex differentiation can be justified by the words of our Lord, who clearly says that the characteristics of the human beings, male and female, serve certain biological needs, which have nothing to do with Kingdom of God[29]. It is more than clear that, man’s distinction into male and female, as God’s provision, is connected only with man’s fall.


b) The human nature in the post-lapsarian situation.

Coming back to the question of woman’s nature, I understand that the purpose of woman’s creation stated in Gen.2:18 has been misinterpreted by many supporters of man’s superiority. Of course, such a mentality grew up in the context of a postlapsarian situation. They wanted to believe that a male human being is a bearer of special qualities and abilities, which could make man the central entity of the entire Creation[30]. At this point I would like to remind the dominant role of male in an androcentric- patriarchal society. The words ου καλον ειναι τον ανθρωπον μόνον, ποιήσωμεν αυτω βοηθον κατ αυτον has been used as a strong weapon on behalf of men to claim the first role, to impose their dominant rights on the women, to justify their manipulation of women and to take any measures[31] to protect their insecurity in case of any attempt to be disputed by the female as holders of the principium.

At this point I have to draw your attention to some patristic views[32], which, in some way, left room to grow up ideas of man’s superiority. But, we must always remember, that the Fathers lived under certain historical conditions and they tried in many ways not to compromise Jesus’ teaching with any negative social reality of their time. Their effort was to overcome the obstacles in a pedagogic way, in order His message to be accepted in the most convincing way. St. John Chrysostom, following St. Paul’s thought, supports Adam’s distinguished position, when he writes that even Eve’s creation took place to please Adam[33] and to become his helper.

It is more than clear that the Fathers were trying to keep a balanced relationship between Jesus kerygma and their historic reality. The most difficult effort is to convince people, not simply to change their way of living, but to be transformed ontologically. St. John Chrysostom give us an idea of the Fathers’ effort to keep a very sensitive balance between Christian principles and social facts and conditions in the context of his time. He tried, for reasons of pastoral care, to support the idea that God has decided and ordered what duties[34] are appropriate for a man and for a woman in our every day life. In another words God has provided the stereotypes of human behavior on the basis of man’s division into male and female. Such a view which presents God offering roles couldn’t be supported theologically; to the opposite, it is a direct contradiction to the Christian faith for freedom and rejection of certain basic dogmatic principles.

Of course, St. John Chrysostom, in other occasions analyzing the interpersonal relationship male and female, underlines their equality, which was established already from the beginning of their creation, when God offered them a leading role (ρχέτωσαν) in the Creation[35]. The sovereignty belongs to persons, who have personal life and the possibility to activate their charisma. As according to trinitarian and christological dogma, the person is coming first and prevails, the same occurs in the case of male and female human beings[36]. If man and woman are not persons they cannot be in the image of God.

Both of them, man and woman, have the same nature, body and soul as they come from one entity, called άνθρωπος [37]. The word Adam has an inclusive meaning as source of the entire humanity (γενάρχης) or First man (πρωτάνθρωπος). The patristic interpretation[38] of this word has constantly emphasized the indivisible unity of the human nature and the inseparability of man and woman.

Of course, the Fathers’ views are not theological assumptions. They are founded on the most convincing statement. In the biblical text we have Adam’s personal assurance: This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh (Gen.2:23) and after that he prophecies: Therefore, a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh (Gen.2:24). I believe that this key expression states in the most categorical way the sameness with woman’s nature and constitutes a clear sign of the unity of male and female sexes. The unity of the human nature is the basis of a theological anthropology I, personally, believe that the sameness of the human nature is a substantial prerequisite towards a theological anthropology, because it is founded on the basic principle of man’s creation in His image and in His likeness. One image means one nature[39]. Consequently, differences can be accepted only on an ontological level, in another words on a level of person, because biological elements, according to Gregory of Nyssa, belong to the category of περιπλάσματος or παραπετάσματος [40].

Basil of Seleukeia interpreting the expression a deep sleep , the miraculous creative activity, underlines the limits of man’s understanding. The human being cannot perceive God in His creative act, cannot observe His miracles in his genesis; he can revere God’s creativity only as an actually accomplished act[41].

Finally, I would like to express my own personal view, that the sameness of the human nature, male and female, is a substantial presupposition towards a theological anthropology, which is based on the principle that man created in the image and likeness of God[42]. One image means one nature. So, differences can be accepted on the particularity of person.



In the image and Likeness of God.


The fact that a theological doctrine based upon the revelation of a living and personal God, who created man according to his own image and likeness introduces the meaning of person. The Greek Fathers preferred the term υπόστασις to πρόσωπον for designating the divine persons. The line of thought which distinguishes ουσία and υπόστασις in God uses metaphysical terminology; it expresses itself in terms of an ontology, in order to point out both absolute identity and absolute difference. It was a great terminology discovery to introduce a distinction between two synonyms in order to express the irreducibility of the υπόστασις to the ουσία and of the person to the essence, without, however, opposing them as two different realities. This will enable St. Gregory of Nazianzus to say, The son is not the Father, because there is only one father, but He is what the Father is; the Holy Spirit, although he proceeds from God, is not the Son, because there is only Begotten Son, but He is what the Son is [43].

Therefore, according to the doctrine of the Fathers, there is between ουσία and υπόστασις the same difference as between the common and the particular, but in ontological terms. The last term gradually was replaced by the term πρόσωπον and was introduced to the Orthodox theology by Gregory of Nazianzus[44].

I will try to approach, briefly, the notion ουσία and πρόσωπον or φύσις and υπόστασις , because man’s creation took place on the basis of two archetypes: a) the triune and b) the christological one. The Fathers recognize as first meaning of the phrase in the image the type of man’s creation, which in the Orthodox theology is called αρχέτυπον of the human entity and it is only one[45]. It is very important to examine the relation between the meaning of person or hypostasis and the notion of sex, because in Christian anthropology this biological[46] characteristic played such a decisive role, not only in the human relations, but in the developments of the man’s history and civilization.

It is obvious that any correlation of the first archetype (triune) with the notion of sex will be a blaspheme[47]. But a lot can be said in the second case of the christological archetype, because of the incarnation of Logos. So, the dogma of Chalkedon comes to the center of our topic.

The creation of man in the image and likeness of God reveals an archetype of relations of the human beings, independently of their sex. It is a common place of our patristic tradition that the image of God is only one and the image of God is His Begotten Son, our christological archetype. The notion of the Son as Image of the Father implies personal relationship; but what is manifested by the Image is not the person of the Father but His nature, identical in the Son. It is identity of essence which is shown in the difference of persons; the Son, in his function of icon, bears witness to the divinity of the Father. According to St. John of Damascus, Son is an εικών φυσική complete, in everything like the Father, excepting the characteristics of unbegottenness and fatherhood [48].

Personage belongs to every human being by virtue of a singular and unique relation to God who created him in His image .This personal element in anthropology discovered by Christian thought, does not indicate, in itself, a relationship of participation, much less a kinship with God, but rather an analogy like the personal God, in whose image he is created. What is important to notice, in speaking of the theology of the image applied to man, is how the human person manifests God. This is a possibility expressed through the notion in likeness and depends on the man’s free will and choice[49], which is a substantial characteristic and function of the person. Of course, the Fathers, in their writings, try to locate the image of God in the higher faculties of man, identifying it with the νους as Gregory of Nyssa[50], but he seems to make human spirit the seat of grace by reason of a certain proximity which it has with the divine nature: this is an attempt of survival of the idea of συγγένεια ( relationship) inherited from Origen.

This idea is not the only one which has been expressed by the Fathers. Tatianos understands that image and likeness of God in the human being is the life giving Spirit, which makes the man to participate in God’s immortality not as an inherited possibility, but as a result of his personal spiritual effort[51]. Basil the great considers the human nature as μονότροπον, in another words man’s nature was facing to the direction of union with God. Theophilus of Antioch sees something additional to what St. Basil understands. He elucidates a character of spiritual infancy[52] existing in the first man, which had to be overcome in the context of an interpersonal dialogue, because man’s charismatic factors could be activated only (εν κοινωνία). So, a further step towards a spiritual maturity was possible, which is meant a progress in man’s effort to move from in the image to image of God .


2)The woman in her difference from man


Patristic views on a very sensitive topic, the notion of the difference male and female, appear to be differentiated. First of all, I will try to define: a) the nature of such a difference, b) its function and c) the results, which are expected to be seen.

A theological anthropology must be constructed from the top down, beginning from the Trinitarian and Christological dogma, in order to discover in human reality the unity of nature and the multiplicity of created hypostases, the will which is a function of the common nature, the possession of divine grace by created persons, etc. Then, one will understand the extent to which the anthropological realities of our everyday experience are deformed by sin and correspond little to the pure norms of the new creation which is being realized in Church. Actually, the individual who possesses a part of nature and reserves it for himself, the subject who defines himself by opposition to all that which is not I , is not the person or hypostasis, who shares the nature in common with others and who exists as person in a positive relationship to other person.

This brief introduction will suffice to establish that the anthropologies of the old and new Adam, which are entangled within the complex reality of the Church, cannot be equated. We shall pause at one only anthropological notion, that of consciousness of our existence as σωμα Χριστου και μέλη εκ μέρους (1 Cor.12:27).

Examining the relative references of the Fathers, as regards with the difference of forms (σχημάτων) of man’s existence, male and female, we noticed the following:

1) a special terminology is used in order to interpret the meaning of the words male and female, and

2) the hermeneutical approach of man’s distinction into male and female, is examining on the same time all dimensions and parameters of a such a differentiation in the context of fall and salvation.

In regard with the first point someone can observe that the sex itself has been understood by the Fathers as an external element of the human nature and for this reason it was characterized as περίπλασμα, παραπέτασμα, σχημα. Finally, It could be said the human nature or substance is constituted by only two elements flesh and spirit or body and soul.


In reference to the second point the patristic views are:

a) Sex is a distinctive characteristic added as the last touch[53] to human nature, which belongs to the creatures of the lower order.

b) The sexes, male and female, are not elements or characteri- stics, which belong to the Image of God[54].

c) The sex is God’s provision in his capacity to foresee the man’s fall[55] which, under the new conditions, will be activated as reproductive[56] ability to secure the survival of the human race.

d) In the prolapsarian situation the existence of sex distinction was unnoticed. Adam and Eve had no consciousness of their difference as we understand that, because they were living as angels[57].

e) The sex as division, as a sign of the opposite, creates condi- tions of conflict and irreconcilable war[58],

It is obvious that the Fathers’ views on the nature of sex are converging. They understand it as biological element with a unique purpose the survival of the human race. Consequently, any attempt to consider it as basic component and substantial part of the human nature, common to all human beings can be criticized as theologically unfounded, because the human nature has been defined throughout the patristic literature as a union of body and soul. We can convince ourselves that this is the Fathers’ faith, if we focus our attention on the dogma of Chalkedon[59]. And specifically, the patristic understanding as regards with the human nature of the incarnated Logos has been expressed in the most distinct and clear way by John of Damascus: ...whatever Adam the first had (without only the sin), which are body and logical soul and mind... [60]. This statement opens the way of a theological understanding of the sex’s nature and consequently of its existence and role in our life.

Speaking about a theological anthropology of woman in her difference from man, we must always bear in mind the words of Maximos the Confessor that the mystery of the incarnated Logos has (includes) the power for understanding all enigmas and types of the Holy Scripture and also has (offers the knowledge) the science (to understand) the phenomena and the intellectual things [61].

Another patristic element, which supports the above view that the sex is not a substantial component of the human nature, but a characteristic, added by the Creator as a potentiality and provision, in order to be activated under a situation, which according to the Fathers is not κατά φύσιν , appears to be the fact, that the first Adam, the one and undivided human being and nature has been torn [62] into forms of existence called male and female.

This perspective of sexes’ comprehension can be seen expressed by St. John Chrysostom, when he states: This is the Church’s axiom and angelic situation. No one was there torn, neither male, nor female. Such I want to be the Churches and now [63]. In another words, he evaluates the division of man into male and female as a negative element, which must be abolished. It is more than obvious, that this distinction couldn’t be used in a theological anthropology as an ontological criterion, particularly, when this specific difference belongs to non logic nature[64]

The Church is the existential environment of her members. In Church’s liturgical life and, particularly, in the context of Eucharist the believers can experience the sotiriological results of His sacrifice. It is a basic theological inconsistency for one to believe in Christ, Who recapitulated the divided man and the Creation in His God-man hypostasis[65] and, at the same time, to be confined in his weakness to conceptualise the restoration of man’s unity in God-man’s person. And the worst of that is, the distinction of the human beings, into male and female, still remains as a criterion of difference i the new era of Kingdom of God. At this point we could approach our topic on a christological and sotiriological basis.

Lately, we have experienced a strong shock coming from the most serious problem of the wider Christian community, the question of women’s ordination . A conflict and a further division is threatening to destroy all efforts for a closer co-operation and a better understanding between the Christian Churches. The split of man is the heart of the above problem. The fact that a human being, who happened to be female, because of her sex must be excluded from the priesthood. Unfortunately, the maleness, a form of division connected with the man’s fall and sin, became a divine property (!).

The incarnated Logos opens a new page in man’s history. He becomes the second Adam. So, our topic: the woman in her difference from man must be approached on a new basis, which is the dogma of Chalkedon. We have to ask ourselves: What means for all human beings, male or female, the humanisation of God? I will try to touch this chapter from the point of view of the consequences for the human nature in theological terms.

The Fathers unanimously accept that the incarnated Logos has assumed in His perfect human nature[66] both, male and female. If we do not accept this fact, then according to Gregory of Nazianzus a non assumed (element) is incurable [67]. In another words, the woman must be excluded from the sotiriological results of the incarnated God-Logos and consequently the dogma of Chalkedon must be change (!)

When the Fathers refer to the human nature of God-Logos, they use the terms άνθρωπος (man) or ανθρωπότητα (humanity), which declares the nature. I could not find any reference to his maleness in order to be underlined the importance or the role of such biological characteristic in the story of the divine Economy. To the contrary, I noticed a tendency on their behave to ignore this element, when they speak about the recapitulation of the entire Creation in Himself. Of course, they do not ignore the fact of the male character of His human nature and they offer a very important explanation. They comprehend His male form in terms of a relationship: in order to remain the property (υιότης) immovable (unchanged) [68], even on the level of His humanity, proving and convincing in that way, how genuine He is and co-essential (,oɳior) to our human nature. Therefore His maleness as bearer of the meaning (u tgr), declares a relationship in the same way, as does His hypostasis as Son of God . Further more, His male character offers to us that we were given by grace and what Jesus Christ has by nature: (u tgta).

Also, another argument could possibly brought up in order to support this fact. If we recall to our memory the Fathers’ common understanding of the complementary role of the sexes from one hand and our practice to emphasize His maleness from the other hand, then we have to admit that Christ assumed an inferior human nature and not a perfect one, because the female sex is the complement. But, in this case, we deny the dogma of the Ecumenical Council of Chalkedon, which refers to His perfect human nature.

The male character of his incarnation has nothing to do with any conception of the human sexuality for the following reasons:

a) He has taken unto Himself the prolapsarian nature of the first man[69].

b) The human nature of Jesus Christ is of no previous existence. The assumed human nature by God-Logos in the womb of the holy Virgin wasn’t a complement of the humanity of His mother as it happened in the case of the first Eve, who took unto herself the nature of Adam to be his complement. Christ’s human nature was unique, because it came to existence from the pure blood of the Holy Virgin, her holy flesh and from the Holy Spirit. So, the incarnated Logos became η απαρχη του φυράματος [70] (the beginning of a new essence), the second Adam or the new Adam [71], Who means the one and undivided man.

c) In the context of hypostatic union certain results were produced for the human nature[72]. According to patristic teaching the incarnation of Logos had had an implication for the man of salvation, called λόγωσιν [73], in another words the baptised man had assumed divine properties[74] as opened options to his choice.

d) The first Adam created in the image and likeness of God, but in the case of humanization the aforesaid elements are not dynamic properties any more in God-man; they are fulfilled reality[75], since the Lord Himself was made man in order to make man God[76]. The Lord did not rise the previously fallen image in His God-man hypostasis, but He united it to His own by grace. This is a new element in the Christian anthropology, which changed dramatically the prospects of our eschaton , the end of our history. This element did not exist in the first Adam’s human nature, because in the context of Incarnation we have a substantial difference, we move from in the Image to the Image , which is the Son of God.

e) The Son of God is the archetype of man and woman. Consequently, there is an imperative need to have a clear understanding of the Christological archetype’s nature, which the man of Grace and Salvation is invited and challenged to imitate in order to become son of Kingdom of God.

The Fathers speak categorically for a new humanity, which is being realized in the Church. Christ, the Head of His Body contains in Himself this renewed nature, but human persons also enter into this whole because they belong to this whole[77]. This new reality should be understood in the sense that each human person, either male or female, can be considered an hypostasis of the common nature, an hypostasis of the whole of the created cosmos or, more accurately, of earthly creation. If we are one in Christ, then our unity in Him, while suppressing the partition of individual natures, in no way affects personal plurality.

Maximos the Confessor makes his theological remarks on this fact. He stressed the point that Christ united the man taking away through His grace the difference between male and female, restoring in both of them free the one reason of their nature[78]. I have the impression that as theologians we have the tendency, sometimes, to oversee certain sotiriological consequences in the new era of Kingdom of God. It has been given a little attention to the fact that the salvation is already history and the Kingdom of God established. Nobody can deny the truth that the division belongs to the past. It depends on us to accept it. The only possible way is to transfigure ourselves to sons of God[79] in our every day life. And the opportunity is given first of all in our Eucharistic gathering.

Our way of life is a testimony and expression of our consciousness as members of His Body. The Church serves the Kingdom of God. We pray to come the Kingdom of God on earth, while we permit to revive conditions of division or at least we contribute to their survival in many forms. Klemes of Rome recalls from the tradition of the ancient Church the following conversation between Jesus Christ and His audience:

Επερωτηθεις γαρ αυτος ο Κύριος πότε ηξει η Βασιλεία, ειπεν: οταν εσται τα δύο εν, και το εξω ως το εσω και το αρσεν μετα θηλείας, ουτε αρσεν, ουτε θηλυ...τουτο λέγει, ινα ο αδελφος ιδων αδελφην ουδεν φρονη περι αυτης θηλυκον, μηδε αδελφη ιδουσα αδελφον φρονη τι περι αυτου αρσενικον..Ταυτα υμων ποιούντων, φησιν, ελεύσεται η Βασιλεία του Πατρος μου [80]

We have to answer ourselves a double question: First, Do we believe that through the Baptism we entered to another reality? If yes, how do we live it? Second, Do we believe to the recapitulation of the divided man in God-man’s person? If yes, in what way can be expressed such a conviction and faith, when we use the criterion of sex distinction and division in all levels of our life and particularly in the liturgical life of our Church. Of course, up to a point it is understandable to have some doubts or reservations, because the sin survives and our weakness is obvious, but at the same time God’s grace and Holy Spirit are present. This situation is confirmed by Maximos the Confessor, who says that: ...(Christ) by many people is seen and he is understood as flesh and not as Logos, although he is Logos [81]

The Church as Christ’s Body is a new creation, because the Incarnated God-Logos καινοτομε φύσεις . It is not simply a restoration of the fallen human nature, but a rebirth and ανακαίνισις [82]. From this point of view, as regard with woman’s difference from man must be said that: woman is not any more the bearer of the curse and consequently her subordination to man could not be supported as continuing neither her second role.

Therefore, in terms of theological anthropology none of the well known arguments, which were established by an androcentric society in the span of two millennia can be accepted as a criterion of difference other than that of the particularity of the human person.

Therefore, taking a fresh look through: a) the eschatological character and mission of our Church, b) the restoration of unity in God-man’s person and c) the expression of His will to overcome our division in the limits of our earthly reality, which is His Church, then priesthood could not be understood as male or female, but as a priesthood of the incarnated God-Logos, Who assumed the perfect human nature, without the sin.

I would like to finish reminding the words of Gregory the theologian: One is the Creator of man and woman, both of them one soil, one icon, law one, one death, one resurrection [83].














































[2] Ιωάννου Δαμασκηνου, Περί των εν Χριστω δύο θελημάτων,15, PG 95, 144B. " Ο ανθρωπος τοίνυν μικρόκοσμος εστιν, εχει γάρ και ψυχην και σωμα και μέσον εστηκεν νου και υλης. Σύνδεσμος γαρ ορατης και άοράτου, ητοι αισθητης και νοητης φύσεως .

[3] Μαξίμου Ομολογητου, Περι διαφόρων αποριων, 41 PG 91, 1305BC. Τούτου δη χάριν (της εις Θεον ενώσεως) εσχατος επεισάγεται τος ουσιν ο ανθρωπος, οιονει σύνδεσμος τις φυσικος της καθόλου δια των οικείων μερων μεσιτεύων ακροις, και εις εν αγων εν εαυ- τω τα πολλω κατα την φύσιν αλλήλων διεστηκότα τω διαστήματι, ινα της προς Θεον, ως αιτιον, τα πάντα συναγούσης ενώσεως εκ της ιδίας αρξάμενος διαιρεσεως, καθεξης δια των μέσων ειρμω και τάξει προβαίνων εις τον Θεον λάβη πέρας της δια πάντων κατα την ενωσιν γενομένης υψηλης αναβασεως εν ω ουκ εστι διαιρεσις, την μηδαμως ηρτημένην δηλαδη κατα τον προηγούμενον λόγον της περι την γένεσιν του ανθρώπου θειας προθέσεως κατα το θηλυ και αρσεν ιδιότητα τη περι την θείαν αρετην απαθε- στάτη σχέσει πάντη της φύσεως εκτιναξαμενος, ωστε δειχθηναι τε και γενέσθαι κατα την πρόθεσιν ανθρωπον μόνον, τη κατα το αρσεν και θηλυ προσηγορία μη διαιρούμενον, καθ ον και προηγουμένως γεγένηται λόγον, τος νυν περι αυτον ουσι τμήμασι μη μεριζόμενον, δια την τελείαν προς τον ιδιον, ως εφην, λόγον καθ ον εστι γνωσιν .


[5] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι κατασκευης του άνθρώπου, 16, PG 44, 124-256

[6] Θεοφίλου Αντιοχείας, Προς Αυτόλυκον, B, 12, PG 6, 1069. Της μέν ουν εξαημέρου ουδεις ανθρώπων δυνατος κατ αξίαν την εξήγησιν και την οικονομίαν πασαν ειπεν... .

[7] Ι. Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως, Περι προγνώσεως και προορισμου, B’ 44 PG 94, 976AB / ll 30. Τουτον τοίνυν τον ανθρωπον ο Δημιουργος αρρενα κατεσκεύσε, μεταδους αυτω της εαυτου χαριτος... .

John of Damascus presents the male as the first sex. But one can be surprised by the fact that in the very first chapter about man’s creation says nothing about the sex of the first man. He writes 22 chapters concerning the characteristics and man’s properties and finally makes a reference to woman’s creation and he underlines that the only purpose of such a creative activity was to be a helper to Adam’s life from the point of view of man’s reproduction.

...προς την δια γεννησεως μετα την παράβασιν του γένους εκ διαδοχης σύστασιν...γέννησις δε η εκ της καταδίκης του θανατου δια την παράβασιν εξ αλλήλων διαδοχη . But Gregory of Nyssa has the opposite view, that first man, called Adam was a non sexual human entity. His theological interpretation appears in the following footnote.

[8] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι κατασκευης του ανθρώπου, 16, PG 44,181. Πρωτον μέν γάρ φησίν, οτι εποίησεν ο Θεός κατ εικονα του Θεου τόν ανθρωπον, δεικνύς διά των ειρημένων, καθώς φησίν ο Απόστολος, οτι εν τω τοιούτω αρρεν καί θηλυ ουκ εστιν .

[9] Ι. Δαμασκηνου, 1,8 PG 94,817A. ..ο Αδαμ αγέννητος ων- πλασμα γαρ εστι του Θεου...και η Ευα εκ της του Αδάμ πλευρας εκπορευθεσα - ου γαρ εγεννήθη αυτη, ου φύσει διαφέρουσιν αλλήλων, ανθρωποι γαρ εισι, αλλα τω της υπάρξεως τροπω .

[10] Μ.Βασιλείου (Βασιλείου Αγκύρας), Περι παρθενίας, PG 30,740A. Γυνη δε ανδρος πολλω ελάττω λαχουσα την φύσιν, εξουσίαν εχέτω επι της κεφαλης.. .

Ι.Χρυσοστόμου, Ομιλία 16, PG 127. ...το απλαστον και ασθενέστερον σκευος, την γυνακα λέγω... ...υποσκελίσαι πρότερον την αεί εύκολώτερον δυναμένην απατηθη- ναι επειτα δε δι αυτης και τον πρωτόπλαστονι. α) η..τουτον ολον της κτίσεως δι αυτον παρήγαγεν, ινα απολαύση πάντων των ορωμένων..ι. β) η...πάντων αυτω την εξουσίαν δεδωκως, καθαπερ δεσπότην τινα δούλοις και υπηκόοις τα ονόματα θεναι πασιν επέταξεν .

God created the entire world for Adam’s (male) satisfaction, gave him power to become the king of the creation and, finally, God handled to Adam the woman as his helper. So, Adam was freed from any need of his body and he was living as a earthy angel.

[11] Ι.Χρυσοστόμου, Ομιλία 15, PG 53, 124.. Επειδη μόνος ων εδετο τινος αυτου κοινωνουντος ουσίας βοηθου, ...την γυνακα παραγαγων..ένεχείρισεν αυτω ταύτην .

[12] Ι.Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως, B’ 44 PG 94, 976A / ll 30.

[13] Ι.Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της 'Ορθοδόξου πίστεως, Περι Αγίας Τριάδος, 1,8, PG 94, 817A. ... Οσα εχει ο Πατηρ, αυτου είσιν πλην της αγεννησίας, ητις ου σημαίνει ουσίας διαφοραν, ουδε αξίωμα, αλλα τρόπον υπάρξεως .

[14] Ι.Χρυσοστόμου, Εις την Γένεσιν, Ομιλία 15, PG 53, 121. Μη ανθρωπίνως δέχου τα λεγόμενα, αλλα τη παχύτητι των λέξεων, τη ασθενεία λογίζου τη ανθρωπίνη Ει γαρ μη τούτοις τος ρήμασιν εχρήσατο, πως αν μαθεν ηδυνήθημεν ταυτα τα απόρρητα μυστήρια; Μη τος ρήμασιν ουν μόνοις εναπομείνωμεν, αλλα θεοπρεπως απαντα νοωμεν ως επι Θεου .

[15] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι κατασκευης του ανθρώπου, PG 44, 136. Μόνη δε τη του άνθρώπου κατασκευη περιεσκεμμένως πρόσεισιν ο του παντος ποιητης, ως και υλην αυτω της συστάσεως προετοιμάσαι, και αρχετύπω τινι κάλλει την μορφην ομοιωσαι, και προθέντα τον σκοπον, ου χάριν γενήσεται, κατάλληλον αυτω και οικείαν τας ενεργείαις δημιουργησαι την φύσιν, επιτηδείως το προκείμενον εχουσαν .

[16] 'Ι.Χρυσοστόμου, Εις την Γένεσιν, Ομιλία 13, PG 53, 107. Και σκόπει και εν αυτω τούτω την διαφοραν του θαυμαστου τούτου ζώου του λογικου, και της των αλόγων δημιουργίας... Επει δε τούτου του ανθρώπου ουσία τις εστιν ασώματος και αθάνατος πολλην την υπεροχην κεκτημένη, και τοσαύτην, οσην εικος το ασωματον του σώματος . Fathers underline the distinction between animal and human body.

[17] The earthly human nature is fashioned by the Creator’s special divine activity. (Ζωτικην φησιν ενέργειαν το εμφύσημα εχαρίσατο τω εκ της γης πλασθέντι...), in order to receive in the sequel the inspiration of the breath of God and for the body to be living soul. (ενεργουσαν, εχουσαν υπηρετούμενα τα μέλη σώματος τας αυτης ενεργείαις, και τω βουλήματι αυτης επόμενα..) Ι. Χρυσοστόμου, Εις την Γένεσιν, *fn17p# PG 53, 107.

[18] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι κατασκευης του ανθρώπου, PG 44, 204. Λέγεται Αδαμ, καθώς φασιν οι των Εβραίων επιιστορες. Διο και ο Απόστολος Παυλος διαφερόντος την πάτριον των 'Ισραηλιτων πεπαιδευμένος φωνην , τον εκ γης χοϊκον ονομάζει .

The name Adam which denotes the human body, is revealing the relationship with earth.

[19] Μ.Βασιλείου, Ομιλίαι εις τους Ψαλμους, *fn19p# 48, PG 29, 449. Ενεφύσησεν μοραν τινα της ιδίας χάριτος εις το πρόσωπον του ανθρώπου, ουχι ομως και μέρος της ιδίας φύσεως, ετερον μοραν χάριτος και ετερον μοραν ουσίας .

[20] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι κατασκευης του ανθρώπου, PG 44, 185 Η δε προς το αρρεν και θηλυ του γένους διαφορα προσκατεσκευάσθη τελευταον τω πλάσματι .

[21] Γρηγορίου Ναζιανζηνου, Λόγος, 37, PG 36, 289B.

[22] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι κατασκευης του ανθρώπου, KB, 4f. PG 44, 204D-205C.

[23] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι κατασκευης του ανθρώπου, KB PG 44, 205A. Επει δε κατενόησεν εν τω πλάσματι ημων την προς το χερον ροπην, και οτι της προς τους αγγελους ομοτιμιας εκουσιως απορρυέν την προς το ταπεινον κοινωνίαν προσωκείωται, δια ταυτα κατέμιξε τι και του αλόγου τη ιδία εικόνιι

[24] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι κατασκευης του ανθρώπου, PG 44, 205B.

[25] Κλήμεντος Αλεξανδρέως, Παιδαγωγος, B, X, PG 8, 497B. ...και κατα τουτο εικων του Θεου, καθ ο εις γένεσιν ανθρώπου ανθρωπος συνεργε .

[26] Εφεσ. 5:25.

[27] Ι.Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως, Περι παρθενίας, 4, 24, PG 94, 1208A. Ωστε δια το μη εκτριβηναι και αναλωθηναι το γένος υπο του θανάτου ο γάμος επινενόηται, ως δια της παιδοποιιας το γένος των ανθρώπων .

[28] Γαλ. 3:28 ουκ ενι αρσεν και θηλυ, πάντες γαρ υμες εν εστε εν Χριστω Ιησου .

[29] Ματθ. 22:30. ...εν τη αναστάσει ουτε γαμουσιν ουτε γαμίζονται .

[30] Ι.Χρυσοστόμου, Ομιλία IE, PG 53, 122. Δια γαρ την τούτου (Αδαμ-ανδρα) παράκλησιν τουτο το ζωον (η Ευα-γυνακα) εδημιουργήθη. Διο και Παυλος ελεγε ου γαρ δια την γυνακα, αλλ η γυνη δια τον ανδρα. Ορας πως απαντα δι αυτον (τον ανδρα) γίνεται;ι Και σκοπός της δημιουργίας της είναι η...εν τος καιρίοις και τος αναγκαίοις...και τος συνέχουσι την ζωην τα της βοηθείας εισφέρειν

[31] Γρηγορίου Ναζιανζηνου, 37 PG 36, 289B. Ου δέχομαι ταύτην την νομοθεσίαν, ούκ επαινω την συνήθειαν. Ανδρες ησαν οι νομοθετουντες, δια τουτο κατα γυναικων η νομοθεσία .

[32] Επιφανίου, Κατα αιρέσεων, 79, 1, 6 PG 42, 740D. Γυναικων το γένος ευόλισθον, σφαλερον και ταπεινον τω φρονήματι.. .

[33] Ι.Χρυσοστόμου, Ομιλία IE PG 53,122.

[34] *fn34b#, *fn34i#, PG 51, 230-231. Γυναικος εν εστι μόνον τα συλλεγόμενα διαφυλάττειν, τας προσόδους διατηρεν, της οικίας επιμελεσθαι. Και γαρ δια τουτο εδωκεν ο Θεος, ινα εν τούτοις ημν βοηθη μετα των αλλων απάντων. Επειδη γαρ τον βίον τον ημέτερον δια ταυτα συγκροτεν ειωθε, τα πολιτικα και ιδιωτικα πράγματα διελών αμφότερα ταυτα ο Θεος, ταύτη μεν την της οικίας προστασίαν απένειμε, τος δε ανδρασι τα της πολιτείας απαντα τα πράγματα, τα της αγορας. δικαστήρια, στρατηγίας, τα αλλα πάντα

See a reference to man’s and woman’s duties, in detail, which, according to the author, have been specified and ordered by the Creator, Ι Χρυσοστόμου, Εγκώμιον εις Μάξιμον, PG 51,231.

[35] Ι.Χρυσοστόμου, Ομιλία KA PG 53, 177. Τουτο γαρ εστι το κατ εικόνα, κατα τε τον της αρχης λόγον και κατα τον της δεσποτείας .

[36] Θεοδώρου Στουδίτου, Αντιρρητικος, 3, 34 PG 99, 405A. Παντος εικονιζομένου ουχ η φύσις, αλλ η υπόστασις εικονίζεται .

[37] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Ομιλία Α Περι γεννήσεως του ανθρώπου, PG 44, 276A. Αλλ ινα μη αμαθως τις τη του ανθρώπου προσηγορία επι του ανδρός η μόνον κεχρημένοςπροσέθηκεν αρσεν και θηλυ εποίησεν αυτους .

[38] Διδύμου του Τυφλου S.C. 233,158. Και απόδειξις αυτη του ομούσιον ειναι την γυνακα τω ανδρι απο εν ειδος αυτων ταττομένων και δια τουτο ειρημένου του ποιήσωμεν ανθρωπον .

[39] Γρηγορίου Ναζιανζηνου, Λόγος 37 PG 36, 289B. Εις ποιητης ανδρος και γυναικος, εις χους αμφοτεροι, εικων μία.... .

[40] *fn40b#, Ομιλία Α *fn40i1, PG 44, 128. Ομότιμαι αι φύσεις, ισαι αι αρεται αθλα ισα, η καταδίκη ομοία. Μη πρόσεχε τω εξω ανθρώπω, περίπλασμα εστι τουτο. Η ψυχή καθέζεται ενδον υπο παραπετάσματι και απαλω τω σώματι. Ψυχη μέντοι και ψυχη ομότιμος, εν τος παραπετάσμασιν η διαφορα .

[41] Βασιλείου Σελευκείας, PG 85, 45B. Πως ουν μάθη (Αδαμ) ποιητην, ον ουκ ειδε ποιουντα, πως επιγνω κτίστην, ον ουκ εθεάσατο κτίζοντα.Δια τουτο επ οψεσιν αυτου κατασκευάζει το θηλυ και θεατην της ομοίας αυτου απεργάζεται φύσεως, ιν εν εκείνη τα καθ εαυτον ενοπτριζόμενος, εξ ων εβλεπεν, οπερ ειδε διδάσκηται .

[42] Γρηγορίου Ναζιανζηνου, Λόγος 37 PG 36, 289B. Εις ποιητης ανδρος και γυναικος, εις χους, αμφότεροι, εικων μία, .

[43] Γρηγορίου Ναζιανζηνου, Λόγος 39, 12, PG 36, 348C.

[44] Γρηγορίου Ναζιανζηνου, Λόγος 39, PG36, 345. Θεου δε οταν ειπω, ενι φωτι περιστραφθητε και τρισι, τρισι μεν κατα τας ιδιότητας, ειτουν υποστάσεις, ει τινι φίλον καλεν πρόσωπα... ενι δε κατα της ουσίας λόγον, ειτον θεότητος .

[45] Ι.Χρυσοστόμου, Εις Γένεσιν, Λόγος 2,2, PG 54, 589. Γυναικος και ανδρος εις τύπος και ο χαρακτηρ, και ομοίωσις μία .

[46] Διαταγαι των Αποστόλων, ΣΤ',ΧΙ, PG 1, 937A. ...επ αυξήσει γαρ του γένους των ανθρώπων διαφοραν σχημάτων διεπλάσθη έν τω Αδάμ και τη Ευα .

[47] Γρηγορίου Ναζιανζηνου, Λόγος 31 PG 36, 144B Λίαν αισχρον, και ου αισχρον μόνον, αλλα και μάταιον επιεικως, εκ των κάτω την εικασίαν λαμβάνειν και των ακινήτων εκ της ρευστης φύσεως . Οι αιρετικοί Μαρκίων και Βαλεντίνος υπεστήριζαν ότι ο Θεός είχε διπλό φύλο. Τον φαντάζονταν ως αρρενόθηλυν . Heretics Markion and Walentine believed that God was as a double sex entity.

[48] Ι.Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως, 3, 18 PG 94, 1340AB.

[49] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι γενέσεως του άνθρώπου, Λόγος A PG 44, 273A. Ποιήσω- μεν ανθρωπον κατ εικόνα ημετέραν και καθ ομοίωσιν. Το μεν τη κτίσει εχομεν, το δε εκ προαιρέσεως κατορθουμεν .

[50] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι κατασκευης του ανθρώπου, 5, 2 PG 44, 137BC. Νους και λόγος η θειότης εστίν. Εν αρχη γαρ ην ο λόγος και οι προφηται κατα Παυλον, νουν Χριστου εχουσι, τον εν αυτος λαλουντα.Ου πόρρω τούτων και το ανθρώπινον. Ορας εν σεαυτω και τον λόγον και την διάνοιαν, μίμημα του οντος νου τε και λόγου .

[51] Τατιανου, Προς Ελληνας, PG 6, 820B. Λόγος γαρ ο επουράνιος γεγονως απο του πνεύματος και λόγος εκ λογικης δυνάμεως, κατα την του γεννήσαντος αυτου πατρος μίμησιν εικόνα αθανασίας τον ανθρωπον εποίησεν, ιν ωσπερ η αφθαρσία παρα τω Θεω, τον αυτον τρόπον μοίρας ανθρωπος μεταλαβών, εχη το αθάνατον .

[52] Θεοφίλου Αντιοχείας, Προς Αυτόλυκον, 2, 25 PG 6,1092A. Τη δε ουση ηλικία οδε ο Αδαμ ετι νηπιος ην, διο ουπω ηδύνατο την γνωσιν κατ αξίαν χωρεν... .

[53] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι κατασκευης του ανθρώπου, 16 PG 44, 185D. ...η δε προς το αρρεν και θηλυ διαφορα προσκατεσκυάσθη τελευταον τω πλάσματι .

[54] Κυρίλλου Αλεξανδρείας, Κατα ανθρωπομορφιτων, PG 76, 1068A. Εστι...ομολογουμένως κατ εικόνα Θεου ο ανθρωπος, η δε ομοιότης ου σωματικη, ο γαρ Θεος ασώματος.

Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι γενέσεως του ανθρωπου, PG 44, 161. Πως το κατ εικόνα Θεου νοητέον ουδεν τι σωματικον και γήϊνον εννοήσασθαι χρη .

[55] Ι.Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως, 2, 30, PG 94, 976.

Ειδως ο προγνώστης Θεος, ως εν παραβάσει γενήσεται ( ανθρωπος) και τη φθορα υποκείσεται, εποίησεν εξ αυτου το θηλυ, βοηθον κατ αυτον βοηθον δε προς την δια γεννήσεως μετα την παράβασιν του γένους εκ διαδοχης .

[56] Ι.Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως, 4, 24, PG 94, 1208A. ...ωστε δια το μη εκτριβηναι και αναλωθηναι το γένος υπο του θανάτου ο γάμος επινενόηται, ως δια της παιδοποιιας το γένος των αννθρώπων διασώζεται .

[57] Ι.Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως, ll, IA PG 94, 913B-916AB. Προ δε της γεύσεως γυμνοι ην αμφότεροι, ο τε Αδαμ και η Ευα, και ουκ ησχύνοντο. Τοιούτους δε απαθες εβούλετο ειναι ημας ο Θεος (απαθείας γαρ ακρας τουτο εστιν). Ετι και αμερίμνους, εν εργον εχοντες, το των αγγέλων .

[58] Ι.Χρυσοστόμου, Περι παρθενίας, PG 48, 595. ...η ανθρώπινη καθ εαυτης εσχιστο φύσις, και πόλεμος ην ασπονδος .

[59] Το δόγμα της Χαλκηδόνος λέγει: ητέλειον τον αυτον εν θεότητι και

τέλειον τον αυτον εν ανθρωπότητι,

Θεον αληθως και ανθρωπον αληθως τον αυτον εκ ψυχης λογικης και σώματος,

ομούσιον τω Πατρι κατα την θεότητα και ομούσιον ημν κατα την ανθρωπότητα κατα πάντα ομοιον ημν χωρις αμαρτίας .

MANSI VII, 116, ACO II,1,2,129

[60] Ι.Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως, Περι ιδιωμάτων των δύο φύσεων, 3, 13, PG 94, 1033A.

[61] Μαξίμου ομολογητου, Κεφάλαια περι θεολογίας, Εκατοντας Α, 66, PG 90, 1108. Το της ενσωματώσεως του Λόγου μυστήριον, πάντων εχειτων τε κατα την Γραφην αινιγμάτων και τύπων την δύναμιν, και των φαινομένων και νοουμένων κτισμάτων την επιστήμην .

[62] Ι.Χρυσοστόμου, 74, 2, PG 48, 595

[63] Ι.Χρυσοστόμου, Εις τας Πράξεις, Ομιλία Γ, PG 60, 34. Ιδου Εκκλησίας αξίωμα, και αγγελική κατάστασις. Ουδεις ην εκε διερρηγμένος, ουκ ενι αρσεν ουδε θηλυ Τοιαύτας βούλομαι τας Εκκλησίας και νυν .

[64] Γρηγορίου Νύσσης, Περι κατασκευης του ανθρώπου, KB, PG 44, 205A. Ου γαρ εστιν εν τη θεία τε και μακαρία φύσει η κατα το αρρεν και θηλυ διαφορα, αλλα της αλόγου εστι .

[65] Μαξίμου Ομολογητου, PG 91, 1249C. ...και πρωτον ενώσας ο Χριστος ημν εαυτος εν εαυτω δια της αφαιρέσεως της κατα το αρρεν και θηλυ διαφορας, οις ο της διαιρέσεως ενθεωρεται μάλιστα τρόπος, ανθρώπους μόνον και κυρίως τε και αληθως αποδείξας, κατ αυτόν δι ολου μεμορφωμένους και σωαν αυτου και παντελως ακίβδηλον την εικόνα φέροντας, ης κατ ούδένα τρόπον ουδεν των φθορας γνωρισμάτων απτεται .

[66] Γρηγορίου Ναζιανζηνου, Λόγος ΛΗ PG ...η απαράλλακτος εικων, ο του Θεου ορος και Λογος, επι την ιδίαν εικόνα χωρε, και σάρκα φορε δια την σάρκα, και ψυχην νοερα δια την εμην ψυχην μίγνυται, τω ομοίω το ομοιον ανακαθαίρων. Και κατα τα πάντα γίνεται, πλην της αμαρτίας, ανθρωπος .

[67] Γρηγορίου Ναζιανζηνου, Επιστολη προς Κληδόνιον πρεσβύτερον κατα Απολλινα ρίου, PG 37, 181C.

[68] Ι.Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως, 4, 4, PG 94, 1108A ο Υιος του Θεου Υιος του ανθρώπου γίνεται, ινα μείνη η ιδιότης ακίνητος, Υιος ων γαρ του Θεου Υιος ανθρωπου γέγονεν σαρκωθεις εκ της αειπαρθένου και ουκ εξεστι της οικείας ιδιότητος .

[69] Ι.Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως,Περι των ιδιωμάτων των δύο φύσεων, 3, 13, PG 94, 1033A.

[70] Γρηγορίου Παλαμά, Ομιλία 57, PG 150, 806. ορατε γενεαν Χριστου και συγγένειαν...Πάντες γαρ οι κατα Χριστον ένδυσάμενοι...ετέρων οντες παίδες κατα την φύσιν, υπερ φύσιν γίνονται παρά Χριστου, του νικωντος την φύσιν, ως αυτος μεν σπέρματος ανευ, εκ Πνευματος Αγίου και της αειπρθάνου Μαρί

[71] Νικολάου Καβάσιλα, Περι της εν Χριστω ζωης, PG 151, 680A. Και γαρ δια τον καινον ανθρωπον ανθρώπου φύσις συνέστηκε το εξ αρχης...επι και δημιουργημένοις αυτος αρχέτυπον ην

[72] Ι.Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως, 3, 17 PG 94, 1072B. ...εκ δύο των εναντιων, σαρκος και πνεύματος, ων το μεν εθέωσε το δε εθεώθη

[73] Ι.Δαμασκηνου, Εκδοσις ακριβης της Ορθοδόξου πίστεως, 4, 18 PG 94, 1184B. Οτε μεν γαρ εκ του κρείττονος λόγωσιν και υπερυψωσιν λέγομεν και τα τοιαυτα, τον προσγενόμενον τη σαρκι πλουτον εκ της προς τον υψιστον Θεον Λόγον ενώσεως τε και συμφυιας εμφαίνοντες

[74] Μ. Αθανασίου, Κατα Αρειανων, 3, 33 PG .. λογοθεσα της σαρκός δια του θείου Λόγου, ος δι ημας σάρξ εγένετο

[75] Γρηγορίου Ναζιανζηνου, Λόγος ΛΗ, PG 36, 348D. Και τι το μέγα μυστηριον; Καινοτομουνται φύσεις και Θεος ανθρωπος γίνεται

[76] Μ. Αθανασίου, Περι ένανθρωπήσεως του Λόγου, 54 PG 25, 192B. Αυτος γαρ ενηνθρωπησεν,ινα ημες θεοποιηθωμεν .

[77] 1 Κορ.12:27. ..υμες δε εστε σωμα Χριστου και μελη εκ μέρους.

[78] Μαξίμου Ομολογητου, Προς Θαλάσσιον, PG 90, 436A. Ηνωσε γαρ τον ανθρωπον (ο Χριστος) την κατα το αρρεν και θηλυ διαφοραν τω πνεύματι μυστικως αφελόμενος των εν τος πάθεσιν ιδιωμάτων (απο) καταστήσας επ αμφον (και στον άνδρα και τη γυναίκα) ελεύθερον τον λόγον της φύσεως (εναον) .

[79] Γρηγορίου Παλαμα, Ομιλία ΣΤ Περι της κατα σάρκα του Κυρίου ημων Ιησου Χριστου οικονομίας, PG 151, 204A. ...Υιος ανθρώπου γενόμενος και της θνητότητος μεταλαβων, υιους Θεου απεργάσηται κοινωνους ποιήσας της θείας αθανασιας, ινα δειχθη η του ανθρωπου φύσις παρα πάντα τα κτίσματα κατ εικόνα εκτίσθη Θεου, ως και δύνασθαι συνελθεν προς μίαν υπόστασιν, ινα τιμήση την σάρκα και αυτην την θνητην... .

[80] Κλήμεντος Ρώμης, Προς Κορινθίους Β, PG 1, 345B.

[81] Μαξίμου Ομολογητου, Κεφάλαια θεολογικά, Εκατοντάς Β PG 90, 1152A. ...οι πολλοι σάρκα και ου Λόγον οραν δοκεν και ει κατ αλήθειαν εστι Λόγος .

[82] Ι. Χρυσοστόμου, Εγκώμιον εις Μάξιμον, 2, PG 51, 230. μετέβαλε, μετέπλασε, μετερρύθμισεν, αναγεννησεν...

[83] Ιδε παραπομπή 19.

Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!

Encoding of Greek characters by courtesy of Ben Clackson.





Visitors to our website since January 2014.
Pop-up names are online now.


Please, support our campaign
for women priests
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.