Welcome to ON TRUTH A ministry of Dr. Cky J. Carrigan devoted to Apologetic Evangelism which seeks to equip the saints for the work of evangelism through a rigorous pursuit of TRUTH motivated by LOVE. HOME BACK TO INDEX
JOHN CALVIN ON GENDER EQUALITY
By Cky J. Carrigan, Ph.D. (12/1999)
What was John Calvin's view on gender equality? Was he a hierarchialist or an egalitarian? The historical record seems to indicate that he weighed in on the side of hierarchialism. Investigators of these questions have interpreted Calvin as a hierarchialist in practice and an innovator of future reform to one degree or another. In his ground breaking essay on Calvin and women, John H. Bratt boiled down Calvin's message on gender to this: "Calvin posited a qualified but definite subordination of woman and a qualified but definite supremacy of man in the structure of human relationships as ordained and established by God."1 Bratt also identified what he called "soft spots," "points of hesitation," and "indications of flexibility" in Calvin on gender.2 His view on Calvin and gender, "qualified but definite subordination," has served as the basis or foil for several other key investigations of Calvin and women. In another important essay on Calvin and the role of women, Willis P. DeBoer characterized Calvin as "very traditional" and "rigorously consistent." Women were "subject to men by virtue of their created place in this world and by virtue of the curse of sin that is on them. Women may neither rule nor teach men."3 DeBoer suggested that Calvin was an advocate of male superiority in general on the basis of an argument from nature and the order of creation from Paul.4 Calvin, however, inappropriately took Paul's argument and read it back into Genesis. Then, Calvin consistently interpreted every pertinent piece of Scripture in light of an inferior woman from creation.5 DeBoer saw in Calvin a certain limited amount of equality as well. Calvin acknowledged equality in basic humanness, equality in the image of God albeit in the spiritual sense only, equality in authority and honor in the home, and equality in the right to divorce an adulterous mate.6 However, in the service of worship or the offices of the church, "Calvin finds no warrant for any kind of equal status."7 But, DeBoer did see Calvin paving the way for future modifications in his subordinationist doctrines.8
Probably the most influential monograph on Calvin and women is by Jane Dempsey Douglass. In Women, Freedom and Calvin, Douglass characterized Calvin as a theoretical egalitarian, but a functional subordinationist.9 She argued that Calvin saw Paul's injunction to silence in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as an indifferent matter that could be eliminated in the future. Moreover, she claimed that Calvin "intentionally" argued that women's silence in the church belongs to the human order which the church is free to change.10 Douglass claimed for Calvin an intentional, theoretical egalitarianism. And she also posted three factors for harmonizing his overall testimony: the principle of adiaphora, the governance of the Institutes over the commentaries, and the influence of royal women on Calvin.11
Several other scholars have recently weighed in on the debate about the state of Calvin's testimony on women and suggested ways to account for his mixed message. Claude-Marie Baldwin concluded that Calvin proposed equality in some respects and inequality in others. He was more open to equality, on the basis of the accommodation principle, than he practiced himself.12
Mary Potter accounted for Calvin's apparent inconsistencies by forming a "two distinct perspectives" argument. Calvin held two distinct perspectives, cogito dei and cogito hominis (knowledge of God and humankind). According to the relative perspective of humankind, women are relatively subordinate. But, according to the absolute perspective of God, women are absolutely equal. Potter suggested that Calvin's two distinct perspectives resulted in a clearer affirmation of equality on the one hand, but it also led to a more severe rationale for his thoughts on inequality.13
Rita Mancha did not portray a complicated Calvin on gender. Although she did not treat the being question, she found in him the invariable, unequivocal principle that in every area of life "woman is inferior in rank to man, and must submit herself to his authority."14
And finally, Robert White accounted for the mixed message of Calvin by reading Calvin from an eschatological grid. In an article devoted primarily to the question of women teaching in church, White argued that Calvin "treads a cautious path between an entirely futuristic eschatology which promises women dignity only at the parousia, and a fully realized eschatology which sees the church as already liberated from the constraints of history."15 White also characterized Calvin's concept of woman as "ontological subordination to man."16
In the main, these authorities identified Calvin as a hierarchialist in practice and an innovator of future reform to one degree or another. Douglass, Potter and Baldwin, in particular, saw this innovation as intentional. Bratt characterized Calvin's message on gender as "qualified, but definite subordination." DeBoer depicted Calvin as a subordinationist in the non-spiritual aspect of the imago Dei and in functional relationships based on Calvin's inadequate method of reading Paul back into Genesis. White and Potter posed some form of metaphysical argument for accounting for Calvin's mixed message. White pointed to eschatology as a way to reconcile the Genevan Reformer. And Potter bifurcated Calvin's contradictory doctrines into "two distinct perspectives." But, Douglass, however, suggested the most complex and aggressive program for reconciling Calvin and depicting him as a major force for future egalitarianism. She made Calvin's Institutes superior to his exegesis, his doctrine of freedom superior to his propositional hermeneutic. And she made the cultural influence of aristocratic women on Calvin more compelling than the patriarchal influence of the culture at large.17
In my view, the most plausible programs were Bratt, followed by White and DeBoer. And the least plausible programs were Douglass, followed by Potter and Baldwin. Each of these investigators, however, raised important questions and offered important, even innovative, solutions. And several suggested some kind of program for accounting for what might fairly be called Calvin's ambiguity or mixed message on gender. But, I, however would like to add another program or approach for getting to the bottom of Calvin and gender equality on the whole. I would like to suggest that Calvin's gender doctrines might, perhaps, be best explained by analyzing his views on gender equality according to the main categories of imago Dei, redemption and roles, and then synthesizing the results into one final answer.
Calvin's idea of gender equality was heavily related to his understanding of the imago Dei. He definitely asserted that both the first man and the first woman were created in the image of God, but he qualified this assertion in a particular way that located the woman in a different, clearly inferior, category from the man. In his commentary on Genesis 2:18, Calvin wrote,
Certainly, it cannot be denied, that the woman also, though in the second degree, was created in the image of God; whence it follows, that what was said in the creation of the man belongs to the female sex.18
In his eleventh sermon on Job, Calvin again portrayed the woman as the bearer of the image of God, but to "an inferior degree."19 Later in the same sermon, he wrote, "Men are preferred to females in the human race. We know that God constituted man as the head and gave him a dignity and preeminence above that of the woman. . . . It is true that the image of God is imprinted on all; but still woman is inferior to man."20
At first blush it seems that Calvin affirmed two different propositions on the woman bearing the image of God, claiming equality (equal bearer of the image) and inequality (bearer of the image to a lesser degree) at one and the same time. What might account for this? Perhaps the answer lies in Calvin's understanding of the image of God itself. According to an innovative argument by John L. Thompson, Calvin's dual position on gender equality with reference to the imago Dei may have been a result of two factors: the two-fold way he may have defined the image of God in mankind, and the way he may have located the image of God in mankind in two realms. It may be that Calvin had one definition of the image of God in mind when referring to both men and women, and another definition of the image of God in mind when referring to men alone, or to men as the superior imager. Perhaps Calvin also saw two realms in which the image of God was applied to mankind: the invisible spiritual realm and the visible worldly realm. If these two qualifications turn out to be the actual case, then this would resolve the apparent ambiguity of Calvin on gender equality with reference to the imago Dei.21
The following evidence suggests that Calvin, indeed, may have been working with two definitions of the imago Dei when he was writing in the context of gender issues.22 On the one hand, the man alone was like God (in God's image) in reflecting superior authority or preeminence. But, on the other hand, the man and the woman were equally like God (in God's image) in their internal heart and mind.23 Commenting on 1 Corinthians 11, Calvin associated male leadership in the home with reflecting the superior glory of God. He wrote, "For in his own home the father of the family is like a king. Therefore he reflects the glory of God, because of the control which is in his hands."24 He also wrote, "The glory of God is seen in the higher standing which the man has, as it is reflected in every superior authority."25 Perhaps this is why Calvin can say that the woman was created in the image of God, but to an inferior degree. She did not reflect the authority of God to the same degree as the man.
In one sense, or definition, the woman is inferior with reference to her ability to reflect the superior authority of God. But, Calvin saw her equally bearing the image of God in a second sense or definition. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:7, he wrote,
For both sexes were created according to the image of God. . . . But when he [Paul] is speaking about image here, he is referring to the conjugal order. Accordingly, it has to do with this present life; it does not pertain to the conscience. The straightforward solution is this, that Paul is not dealing here with innocence and holiness, which women can have just as well as men, but about the preeminence which God had given to the man, so that he might be superior to the woman.26
Apparently, Calvin wrote the above passage with two definitions of image in mind, and two understandings of the duel realms in which the image is located.
In addition to defining the image of God in mankind in two ways when writing in the context of gender issues, Calvin may have also located the image of God in mankind in two realms as seen above. For him, the chief seat of the image of God in mankind might be said to correspond to the internal or spiritual realm. And the body, while not actually a direct consequence of the image of God,27 might be said to correspond to the external realm. In Genesis 1:27, Calvin located the "chief seat of the Divine image" in mankind's mind and heart. But he also added, "in the body there was a suitable correspondence with this internal order."28
Could it have been the case that Calvin saw the woman as an equal bearer of the imago Dei in her "chief seat," the internal invisible world of the mind and heart, but an inferior bearer of the image of God in the body or external realm manifested in this present life? If so, this would harmonize the "apparent" ambiguity of Calvin on gender equality with reference to the imago Dei.
It has been suggested here that Calvin saw some kind of difference between the imago Dei in the man and the imago Dei in woman, even if he did not explicitly explain the nature of the difference. Furthermore, this difference in degree of bearing the imago Dei was present both before and after the fall. It was not the case for Calvin, as it was for Luther, that the woman was equal to man in her bearing of the imago Dei before the fall but inferior to him afterwards because of her role in bringing the man to the brink of sin.29 Commenting on 1 Timothy 2:14, Calvin wrote, "There is no reason why obedience should not have been her natural condition from the beginning, while servitude was a later consequence resulting from her sin, so that the subjection became less voluntary than it had been before."30 Not only was there a definite difference between the sexes in the category of the imago Dei, which was present before and after the fall, this difference is inviolable and in effect for eternity according to Calvin.31 He wrote, "The apostle is right to remind us of the order of their creating in which God's eternal and inviolable appointment is clearly displayed."32
For Calvin, there was a gender difference with reference to the imago Dei. This difference was present on both sides of the fall. And this difference is inviolable and eternal. But, why should there be a difference here at all? Calvin's main reason for the difference in the degree to which men and women are bearers of the image of God was inextricably related to the reasonable order of nature.33 But, the ultimate reason, however, for the gender difference with reference to the imago Dei remained a necessary mystery for Calvin analogous to election.34
In sum, Calvin's position on gender equality with reference to the imago Dei was as follows: (A) The genders are not actually equal in their bearing of the imago Dei with reference to the degree to which each gender images or reflects the glory of God, and with reference to the order of this present world where the image is applied. Man was superior on these two counts both before and after the fall, and his superiority is eternal and inviolable. The reason for man's superiority is related to the essential order of nature, but the choice of the man and not the woman for superiority is ultimately a mystery known only to God.
(B) The genders are potentially equal in their bearing of the imago Dei , however, with reference to the internal mind and heart, and with reference to the order of a future or higher world where the image may be applied. Neither man or woman is necessarily superior on these counts.
If this analysis stands, then Calvin saw both equality and inequality between the genders with reference to the imago Dei. The man is both superior and equal to the woman here. Calvin located the man alone in one degree of the imago (A above), but he located both the man and the woman in the other degree (B above).
The fall, however, severely injured the imago Dei in both genders, so both genders were equally in sin and equally sinners. The first woman was "more guilty," however, than the first man.35 But this did not mean that Calvin saw a guiltless Adam. On the contrary, he wrote, "For if Adam had not believed Satan's lie, God would not have reproached him saying, 'Behold, Adam is like one of us."36
Both men and women, therefore, were sinners. Both needed redemption and enjoyed equal access to it. And God expected both to aspire to "all holiness." Calvin made this especially clear in his sermons on 1 Corinthians 11. He wrote, "To be a child of God, ruled by his Holy Spirit and a participant in inheriting the Kingdom of Heaven, to pray to God, to be baptized, to come to the Lord's Supper--in none of these things are we permitted to distinguish between males and females."37 He also wrote,
Therefore, St. Paul, when he writes to the Ephesians about the hope of salvation, does not speak exclusively to the men. He does not select one sex to the exclusion of the other. Rather he calls without distinction, the men as much as the women, to become involved in becoming like him who created them, even (to use Paul's words) in all holiness.38
The weight of the evidence, therefore, shows that Calvin was an advocate of gender equality with reference to sin, access to redemption, and the expectation of holiness.
For Calvin, function necessarily followed form. Therefore, the superiority of the man in his bearing of the imago Dei (form) was Calvin's chief logical basis for advocating the functional subordination of women to men in various roles of life.39
On gender equality with reference to marriage, Calvin left an extremely consistent witness. Husbands occupied a superior position here.40 He wrote, "So in society there are six different classes, for each of which Paul lays down its peculiar duties. He begins with wives, whom he commands to be subject to their husbands, in the same way as to Christ."41 He also left a clear message on the duration of God's decree on subordination in marriage. The husband's superiority was a set order by God "which may in no wise be broken, and must continue even to the world's end."42 Calvin did, however, present a more gentle interpretation on subordination than his cultural context might have demanded. For instance, on access to divorce on the grounds of adultery and on the obligation to yield to one's spouse for sexual intercourse, Calvin advocated a kind of equality of responsibility.43 And he certainly did not approve of any mistreatment of the wife by her husband.44
On gender equality with reference to parental authority, Calvin allowed the wife to exert authority over her offspring with her husband. He wrote, "Authority is attributed as much to one parent as to the other. . . . God does not wish the father alone to rule the child but that the mother also have a share in the honor and preeminence."45
And, on gender equality with reference to society in general, Calvin's position was very consistent with his understanding of male superiority in the bearing of the imago Dei. Since all males were bearers of the image of God to a superior degree, then all women were under the authority of all males. He wrote, "All women are born to submit to the preeminence of the male sex."46 On women ruling in government offices, Calvin wrote that women are "by nature . . . born to obey, for all wise men have always rejected gunaikokratian, the government of women, as an unnatural monstrosity."47
For Calvin, the role of husband was superior to the wife in marriage, but he was obliged to treat her well. And the role of men was superior to women in society at large and in government. Both partners in marriage roles, however, had equal access to divorce for adultery, both were obligated to yield to one another for intercourse, and both had authority over their children. Calvin also allowed for God to raise up ruling women in the home and in government as a supernatural act of judgment, but not as a natural act.48 Therefore, with only slight qualifications, Calvin affirmed inequality with reference to gender roles in marriage, family and society at large. But, what was Calvin's position with reference to women and their roles in the church?
For Calvin, women were not permitted to practice the task of teaching men in the church on the basis that teaching was an activity grounded in superiority. The teacher exercised authority over the student. On 1 Corinthians 14, he wrote,
The task of teaching is one that belongs to someone with oversight, and is for that reason inconsistent with being in subjection. For how unsuitable it would be for a woman, who is in subjection to one of the members, to be in an authoritative position over the whole body! It is therefore an argument based on incompatibilities; because, if the woman is under subjection, she is therefore debarred from having authority to teach in public. . . . But Paul's reasoning is straightforward: that authority to teach is out of keeping with the woman's role, because, if she does teach, she is set over all the men, whereas she should properly be under subjection.49
In addition to the practice of teaching in church, Calvin excluded women "from the office of teaching (a munere docendi) which God has committed exclusively to men."50 He went on to write, "The reason that women are prevented from teaching is that it is not compatible with their status, which is to be subject to men, whereas to teach implies superior authority and status."51
For Calvin, it was natural for a man both to command and obey in his various roles, but this was unnatural for the woman. It was not mixing categories for a man to serve and be served in different circumstances because there was nothing inferior with reference to the imago Dei from one man to the next. But, it was mixing categories for any inferior women with reference to the imago Dei to rule any men. He wrote, "For the woman to usurp the right to teach would be a sort of mingling of earth and heaven."52
Furthermore, while considering the qualifications for the teaching office (episkopos) from 1 Timothy 3, Calvin wrote, "Having just forbidden the teaching office to women, he [Paul] now takes the opportunity to speak of that office itself. His reason is first to make it clear that he had good reasons for excluding women from the exercise of such a demanding duty."53 And Calvin also excluded women from presiding in baptism as well.54
There are several other entries in the Calvin corpus that agree with the above citations for the woman's subordinate role in church.55 But, there are two inharmonious remarks, however, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 and there are several other inharmonious remarks in the Institutes 4.10.27-30 that compromise Calvin. He cracked open the door for mitigating the degree of female subordination in the church when he wrote, "For a situation can arise where there is a need of such a kind as calls for a woman to speak. But Paul is confining himself to what is fitting in a properly organized congregation."56 And Calvin also cracked open this door while commenting on verse 35. He wrote, "The discerning reader should come to the decision, that the things which Paul is dealing with here, are indifferent [adiaphora], neither good nor bad; and that they are forbidden only because they work against seemliness and edification."57
Also, Calvin's principle of accommodation together with his principles of propriety, order and decorum in the Institutes 4.10.27-31, may have made a tiny opening for women in the "glass ceiling" of church hierarchy. Things that are "not necessary to salvation . . . ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age."58 Calvin left a hint that "these things" may include "women teaching in the church."59
It is important to note here that while Calvin may have cracked open the door for women, potentially, to teach, there is no evidence to suggest that he ever actually permitted it. Furthermore, it would not seem plausible to suggest that Calvin would ever have permitted women, even potentially, to teach in such a way that their universal subordination to men, especially their male pastors and male husbands, would have been violated.60
Calvin's exegesis of Scripture came out overwhelmingly for the subordination of women to men in their roles in church. But, his Institutes presented something of a mixed message that is extremely difficult to harmonize satisfactorily with his views on gender equality with reference to being, and with reference to roles in marriage and society at large.
What might account for Calvin's slight, but important, ambiguity on the subordination of women in the church especially with reference to teaching? Perhaps Calvin was just mistaken about either subordination or about accommodation. Or, perhaps some aspect of his metaphysical dualism produced this unsolved mystery.61 At any rate, Calvin left a little rough spot here that must remain so as long as the record stands as it does.
I have argued here that Calvin's message on gender as a whole was a message of inequality, inferiority, and subordination mitigated by equality only in specific categories. And I have shown that some Calvin scholars have come to one version, or another, of a similar conclusion. For Calvin, the genders are not actually equal in the category of imago Dei with reference to the degree to which each gender images the glory of God in this present world. And the genders are not actually equal in the category of roles with reference to family, society, and the church. But, the genders are potentially equal, however, in the category of redemption with reference to sin, access to salvation and the expectation of holiness. And the genders are potentially equal in the category of imago Dei with reference to the internal state of the mind and heart, and with reference to the order of a future world.
Therefore, men and women are not equal bearers of the imago Dei or equal in roles, but they are equal in redemption. Particulars that are not equal in any part are properly said to be not equal in the whole. Men and women are not equal in every part. Therefore, men and women are not equal in the whole.
______________
1John H. Bratt, "The Role and Status of Women in the Writings of John Calvin," Renaissance, Reformation, Resurgence, ed. Peter De Klerk (Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary, 1976), 1; cf., Charmarie Jenkins Blaisdell, she saw Calvin as finally ambiguous on women as a result of his incoherence between medieval misogyny and Protestant social leveling, in "Response to the Role and Status of Women in the Writings of John Calvin," Renaissance, Reformation, Resurgence, 19-32; cf., Potter against Bratt, "Without qualification he [Calvin] grants women the same created dignity as men," 726 [emph. mine].
2 Regarding the Inst. 4.10.29-31, Bratt wrote, "There appears that Calvin is wavering between the position that the prohibitions in Corinth are normative for the church of all time and the position that this is a localism and an ad hoc situation. But even though that be the case, there is, so far as I know, no hesitation or vacillation in his interpretation of Genesis 2. . . . In Calvin's estimation the passages in 1 Corinthians . . . are not necessarily indicative of a timeless principle. He does set the door slightly ajar at that point but then he slams it shut when he thinks back on the "created order" of Genesis 2," p. 11.
3Willis P. DeBoer, "Calvin on the role of Women" Exploring the Heritage of John Calvin," ed. David E. Holwerda (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 236.
4DeBoer on Calvin, "In the present earthly order and its relationships they [women] do not have the man's prerogatives of being God's image bearer. . . . For the woman this image of God is only regarding the spiritual realm, whereas for the man it is something more," 253.
5Ibid., 238-250.
6Ibid., 255.
7Ibid.
8On the basis of Calvin's Sermons and Comm. on 1 Cor. 11, DeBoer asserted that "Calvin can indeed conceive of other possibilities for women than the place and role he so consistently assigned them in his day," 264.
9"Calvin himself can be held perhaps more accountable than other Reformation theologians for Protestant women's continued subordination to men in the church, because he understood the theological possibility of giving freedom to women but decided not to make any practical attempt to do so," Douglass, Women, Freedom and Calvin (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1985), 10.
10Douglass, "Christian Freedom: What Calvin Learned at the School of Women," Church History 53 (1984): 155-173.
11Ibid.
12"Calvin clearly emphasized that humankind, created male and female, is spiritually and sexually equal. . . . Furthermore, Calvin emphasized hierarchy in human governance, and he understood functionality to be tied to the needs of society at a particular historical time," Claude-Marie Baldwin, "John Calvin and the Ethics of Gender Relations," Calvin Theological Journal 26 (April 1991): 142; see also Andre Bieler, "In Calvin's view, social inequality of married people was a contingent fact, historically conditioned and politically determined, whereas their spiritual equality was inherent and unchangeable," in "Man and Woman in Calvin's Ethic," Reformed and Presbyterian World: 27 (December 1963): 359.
13Mary Potter, "Gender Equality and Gender Hierarchy in Calvin's Theology," Signs: Journal of Women and Culture and Society 11:4 (1986): 725-739.
14Rita Mancha, "The Woman's Authority: Calvin to Edwards," Journal of Christian Reconstruction (Winter 1979-80), 92.
15Robert White, "Women and the Teaching Office According to Calvin," Scottish Journal of Theology 47:4 (1994): 508; White also wrote, "On the harshest reading of the Reformer's work, a church which admitted women to the teaching office might be said to err . . . and in its premature anticipation of the eschaton . . . On the gentlest reading of Calvin, such a church might be said to follow an extra-biblical pattern whose justification lies in the equality of believers and in the superiority of convenience over convention," Ibid., 509.
16Ibid., 493.
17Against this view that Calvin was influenced toward egalitarianism by women or proto-feminists advocates, see DeBoer, 236-238.
18John Calvin, Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia, 59 vols., eds. E. Cunitsz Baum and E. Reuss (Brunswick: C. A. Schwetschke, 1863-1900), 23:26, "licet secundo gradu" (hereafter cited as CO); trans., Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, vol. 1, trans. John King, Calvin's Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), Gen. 2:18.
19Serm. on Job, 11 (CO, 33:148), cited in Potter, 727.
20Serm. on Job, 11 (CO, 33:146), cited in Potter, 727.
21John L. Thompson argues along this line in "Creata Ad Imaginem Dei, Licet Secundo Gradu: Woman as the Image of God According to John Calvin," Harvard Theological Review 81:2 (1988): 125-143; for Calvin on the imago Dei, see Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill, Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 1.15; for analyses of Calvin on the imago Dei, see Richard Prins, "The Image of God in Adam and the Restoration of Man in Jesus Christ: A Study in Calvin," Scottish Journal of Theology 25 (1972): 32-44; T. F. Torrance, Calvin's Doctrine of Man (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1957), 36-37, 56-69; and Kari Elizabeth Borrensen, ed., Image of God and Gender Models: in Judaeo-Christian Tradition (Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, 1991).
22Two prior concerns should be considered before presenting these two definitions. First, the image of God and the likeness of God were equivalent terms for Calvin (Comm. on Gen. 1:26). And so, to the extent mankind is like God, he may be said to be in God's image. And second, Calvin described the image or likeness of God as the reflection or mirroring of God. And so, to the extent mankind reflects God, he may be said to be in God's image. Calvin wrote, "Adam was at first created in the image of God, so that he might reflect, as in a mirror, the righteousness of God," The Epistles of Paul The Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, trans. T. H. L. Parker, eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, Calvin's Commentaries (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1965), Eph. 4:24; cf., Comm. on 2 Cor. 3:18.
23See Comm. on 1 Cor. 11:7, and Comm. on Gen. 1:26 for Calvin on the imago and interiority.
24The First Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians, trans. John W. Fraser, eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, Calvin's Commentaries (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1960), 11:4.
25Comm. on 1 Cor. 11:7; see Thompson's assessment , "What Calvin certainly implies . . . is that insofar as the imago is considered as a visible and external representation of the divine glory, Eve was not created in the image of God at all," p. 135.
26Comm. on 1 Cor. 11:7.
27Inst., 1.13.1.
28Comm. on Gen. 1:26; There may be additional evidence of two realm thinking by Calvin in Comm. on 1 Cor. 11:7 (cited in text above). The phrase "present life" is parallel to "conjugal order" and both phrases are a reference to the external visible world. Whereas, the word "conscience" is parallel to "innocence and holiness" and both are a reference to the internal invisible world.
29Martin Luther, Luther's Works, eds. J. Pelikan and H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1958f), Gen. 3:16, 202-3; Calvin wrote, "Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude," in Comm. on Gen. 3:16; see also, David F. Wright, "Woman Before and After the Fall: A Comparison of Luther's and Calvin's Interpretation of Genesis 1-3," Churchman 98:2 (1984): 126-135.
30The Second Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, trans. T. A. Smail, eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, Calvin's Commentaries (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1989), 1 Tim. 2:14.
31According to Thompson, Calvin opened the door for the inferiority of women with reference to being to pass away with this "present life" in Comm. on 1 Cor. 11:7, Thompson, 135f; in my view, however, the evidence does not support this position.
32Comm. on 1 Tim. 2:14; see also, "In the home there is the man who is head and the woman who must be subject to him. We know then that this established order is inviolable and that our Lord Jesus Christ did not come into the world to cause such confusion that everything with God his Father had established would be abolished " in Serm. on Gal. 3:26-29 (CO, 50:567-68), cited in De Boer, 265; see also, "He [God] forever established the man above the woman," in Serm. on 1 Cor. 11:4-10 (CO, 49:728-29), cited in DeBoer, 243.
33"Since the man preceded, and the woman came from him, is it not reasonable that she be thought of as a part and an accessory, and that she not push herself into first place?" Serm. on 1 Cor. 11:4-10 (CO, 49: 728-29), cited in DeBoer, 243.
34"Can the women here have occasion here to be resentful and complain, seeing that she sees that her Creator has made her in subjection under the power of her husband? Shall the pot complain against the potter? . . . If the woman ask, 'Why should men have such pre-eminence?' It pleased God that it should be so: and we can allege no desert, why God preferred us before women," Serm. on 1 Tim. 2:12-14, trans. from Woodcoke cited in DeBoer, 246.
35"Woman is more guilty than the man, because she was seduced by Satan, and so diverted her husband from obedience to God that she was an instrument of death leading all to perdition," Serm. on 1 Tim. 2:12-14 (CO, 53:210-11), cited in Potter, 728.
36Comm. on 1 Tim. 2:14.
37Serm. on 1 Cor. 11:2-3 (CO, 49:718-19), cited in DeBoer, 252.
38Serm. on 1 Cor. 11:4-10 (CO, 49:726), cited in DeBoer, 253.
39Calvin's discussion of role subordination was consistently accompanied by either an argument from nature, or an argument on image in Comm. on Gen. 1-3, and Commentaries and Sermons on 1 Cor. 11,14; Eph. 4-5; and 1 Tim. 2.
40"Let the woman be content in her position of subjection, and not feel indignant because she has to play second fiddle to the superior sex," Comm. on 1 Cor. 11:12; see also Comm. on Gen. 1-3, Commentaries and Sermons on 1 Cor. 11 and 14, 1 Tim. 2, and Eph. 5; see other citations in this paper.
41Comm. on Eph. 5:22.
42Serm. on 1 Tim. 2:13-15, Sermons of M. John Calvin, on the Epistles of St. Paule to Timothie and Titus, trans. L. T. (London: G. Bishop and T. Woodcoke, 1579; reprinted in Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 16th-17th Century Facsimile Editions, 1983), 227 [my translation].
43Comm. Mat. 19:9, A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the Epistles of James and Jude, vol. 3, trans. A. W. Morrison, eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, Calvin's Commentaries (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1969).
44"Let the man exercise his authority with moderation, and not ill-treat the woman, who has been given to him as his companion,"Comm. on 1 Cor. 11:12.
45Serm. on Deut. 21:18-21 (CO, 27:677), cited in DeBoer, 254.
46Comm. on 1 Cor. 11:10.
47Comm. on 1 Tim. 2:12.
48See Calvin's explanation of Sarah's moderate rebuke of Abraham concerning the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael (Comm. on Gen. 21:10); and Calvin on Deborah, "If anyone challenges this ruling by citing the case of Deborah and other women of whom we are told that God at one time appointed them to govern the people, the obvious answer is that God's extraordinary acts do not annul the ordinary rules by which He wishes us to be bound" (Comm. on 1 Tim. 2:12); cf., "God raised up Deborah, to show men their slothfulness when the church was in bondage . . . that was a miracle" (Serm. on 1 Tim. 2:13-15), [trans. mine].
49Comm. on 1 Cor. 14:34.
50Comm. on 1 Tim. 2:12.
51Ibid.
52Ibid.
53Comm. on 1 Tim. 3:1.
54"The Apostles are explicitly given this role, along with preaching the Gospel, it follows that no others are rightfully ministers of baptism than those who minister the doctrine at the same time. As for the freedom to baptize being allowed to individual men, far less women, it is so contradictory to Christ's institution, as to be nothing other than idle blasphemy," Comm. on Mat. 28:18; see also, Inst., 4.15.20-22.
55Comm. on 1 Cor. 11:1-16, Comm. on 1 Cor. 14:34-40, Comm. on 1 Tim. 2:11-18, Serm. on 1 Cor. 11:1-16, Serm. on 1 Cor. 14:34-40, Serm. on 1 Tim. 2:11-18; cf., Calvin's explanation of Phoebe (Comm. on Rom. 16:1), Priscilla (Comm. on Acts 18:6), and Phillip's four daughters (Comm. on Acts 21:9), in The Epistles of Paul The Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, trans. Ross MacKenzie, eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, Calvin's Commentaries (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991), and The Acts of the Apostles 14-28, trans. John W. Fraser, eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, Calvin's Commentaries (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991); Calvin also depicted the incidence of women teaching the apostles on the resurrection as punishment for their cowardice, he wrote, "Since they had been so long and sluggish to believe. . . . [the apostles] deserve to have as their teachers, not only women, but even oxen and asses" (Comm. on John 20:17), in The Gospel According to St. John 11-21, and the First Epistle of John, trans. T. H. L. Parker, eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, Calvin's Commentaries (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988); Calvin referred to the women of the tomb as momentary apostles in A Harmony of the Gospels, Luke 24:1-8; see also, Serm. 11 on The Deity of Christ, for additional criticism of the apostles on account of women.
56Comm. on 1 Cor. 14:34, speaking is defined as speaking "in public either by way of teaching or prophesying" in Comm. on 1 Cor. 14:33.
57Comm. on 1 Cor. 14:35.
58Inst., 4.10.30. This principle of accomodation is not to be confused with the usual use of the term in reference to God accomodating creatures.
59Ibid., 4.10.29.
60See Comm. on 1 Tim. 2:14, Serm. on Gal. 3:26-29, Serm. on 1 Cor. 11:4-10.
61Metaphysical dualism understood as a two-world theory of reality. Perhaps Calvin was prohibiting women from teaching in this present world, but permitting them to teaching in an ideal situation as a forshadow of an ideal future world.