Diverse bodies in the early Christian period

12. Jan, 2022

INTRODUCTION

What does the spirit have to do with the body? This is my first and almost always only question that I ask myself when I have to encounter people, places, and events that prevent some particular group of people from fully performing a certain religious function. And not only from performing it, but even simply from participating. 

The justification for prohibitions or limits in the church still rests on the texts of the New and Old Testaments, the letters of Paul, the polemics of the Church Fathers, and the writings of pastors and theologians accumulated over the centuries. Nowadays these arguments are simply copied, paraphrased, and repeated in order to reinforce authority. I, in turn, would like to offer a different interpretation or different ideas connected with the theology of the New Testament.

In this work I will examine what the body has to do with the spirit – answering for myself the question with which I began the introduction. The work will be viewed from the side of gender constructions, and the question will be discussed of the intent of the text’s writers in relation to the information/story included in the text about sex, gender, and relations with various groups of society that represent various sexes and genders. This may perhaps give rise to new ideas about community in the modern church, as well as gain a new interpretation of early Christianity. In the work I will examine 1) views on gender and sex in the early Christian period; 2) the scene of Jesus’s suffering and the transformation of the body; 3) Paul’s rhetoric in his First Letter to the Corinthians. 

1. GENDER AND SEX

At the outset it is important to define the terms gender and sex, so that these terms can later be operated with accordingly. Sex (Eng. sex) is biologically determined, innate, determined by a person’s reproductive organs and functions, thus: man or woman.[1] Gender (Eng. gender) is the totality of certain features, character traits, outward appearance, behavior, and many other socially determined  categories that determine that a particular group of people belongs to a particular gender – the feminine or the masculine.[2] For example, there can be a feminine woman and a masculine woman. The sex – woman, in this case, does not change, because it is determined by her reproductive organs. But whether she is feminine or masculine is determined by how she behaves or by her outward appearance, or by how she presents herself, or simply by how the particular society in which she finds herself sees her. If this woman, for example in an average European city, wears a short dress, uses cosmetics, and goes for a walk alone in the park, she is regarded as a classically feminine woman. If a woman in the same city wears trousers and a t-shirt and gets around on a skateboard, she will still be regarded by some group of people as a feminine woman; others might call such a person a boyish/masculine woman. However, in most European countries the set of features for regarding a woman as feminine has developed and is broad, because gender is an active process – views on how a person should look and what they should do are changing all the time together with all the other processes of society. One could say that in such an open society a woman’s femininity is not static and a woman is not deprived of femininity even if she does not express the traditional sets of behavior and views prescribed for a woman. Now let us take this same woman with the short dress and place her in some Islamic country, also – alone on the street. By the standards of Islamic society, if a woman wears revealing clothing and is like this alone on the street, this indicates that she is not feminine but a dissolute woman, frivolous, and therefore – punishable. In such a society there are certainly other sets of features that indicate that a woman is feminine. Again, the sex remains the same, but the view of what a woman, a feminine woman, must be like is different. In this way I have tried to show that sex is static, but gender is active and changeable, not only in time but also in place, or in a political system, social order, and religion. One and the same woman can express her gender differently within one and the same country, city, and society. For example, an Orthodox Christian woman dresses in the secular world exactly like any other woman, but, on entering the church, she has to put a covering on her head. Thus, such a woman has to change her model of behavior/outward appearance based on her sex, and this model of behavior is demanded by the church so that she can function within it. Without this change, the woman is not accepted.

  1. THE THEORY OF GENDER AND SEX

In the introduction to this chapter I showed that gender and sex are two different states that a person adopts as part of themselves. Sex is physiologically determined; gender has formed in a person gradually, and could be called the “physiology of the spirit”, or how “I myself” define myself with emotions and mind, character, the way “I” understand the world, or how my “self” is seen and perceived by the society around me.

Nevertheless, fundamentally these properties of gender formed from the division of the sexes. The male sex has always appeared as the reference point in society, and the male body has served as the representation of the norm. It follows from this that fundamentally everything that does not look like a man is evaluated differently, as a deviation from the norm. It is possible that in the 21st century such a division has already begun to change, but the division of the sexes was even very pronounced still in the 20th century, where, for example, in Liechtenstein women could participate in state voting starting from 1 July 1984. The idea of man as the norm and woman as the other is put forward by Simone de Beauvoir in her work The Second Sex, where she describes how a woman and her body already in themselves determine that she is not like a man.[3] If a man is the norm and sees himself as normality, then a woman, as one who is different, is the other, or something that is foreign and therefore to be evaluated differently. A woman, in such a male-centered society, does not have her own “self”, but rather a subordinate definition, where the physical/physiological differences, even character traits, are evaluated as lower. And they are evaluated as lower because they are different, and difference is not evaluated as equality in diversity, but hierarchically, thus – subordinately. Simone de Beauvoir writes that a woman has also never been able to attain her own “self”, independent and autonomous from man, because a woman has always been in a society where a woman has not had the opportunity to express herself as the norm – neither religiously, nor politically, nor socially. All these categories have been constructed around the fact that the norm or the highest authority belongs to man, and the role of woman has always been limited. And to limit the hierarchy of sex has always been problematic, because there has never been a historical point in time at which one can find a precedent for the first process of dividing women and men, or – we have no proof of it. Therefore it seems that such a division has always existed and is hard to change, because one cannot find a cause, and, in not finding a cause, it may even seem that this is because the division is natural, eternal.[4] Nevertheless, the division has long since ceased to be only about physiology, but rather it has become social, political, religious, legal. And these categories represent the problem of gender, not of sex.

The question of how gender differs from sex can be well understood once one does not count only the feminine or masculine category as belonging to gender. Gender represents very many categories, or sets of properties, that define a person. Charlotte Witt, in her work The Metaphysics of Gender, describes that, although it is impossible to separate gender from sex, because the fact that women and men embody different functions is undeniable, nevertheless a person as such does not represent only the functions and properties that follow from sex and physiology.[5] Charlotte Witt writes that a person occupies several positions as an individual. One position is the human body and its functions, which it demands of the person; the second is the awareness of oneself as an individual, which represents the idea that a person is aware of themselves, their “self”, and is able to distinguish it from other beings; the third position represents the social individual, where a person fulfills a certain role in society, being aware of what the particular position demands of the individual. And although a person often is not aware of their “self”, or a person’s character is often autonomous (for example, the things a person likes/dislikes are most often not conscious; they simply are, without a specific cause – for example, someone likes to swim and someone does not), nevertheless the social individual is aware of their role and reacts accordingly in order to achieve the necessary results.[6] Thus gender has acquired a broader aspect than the feminine–masculine category, because what is feminine and masculine is no longer determined by sex, but by how a person fulfills a socially determined role. For example, in the work environment a person occupies a certain position, and the position demands a certain way of behaving, of speaking, of looking, demands a certain range of knowledge and skills. At the same time this same person in the family environment occupies another role – mother, father, child, uncle, or grandmother. This same person can acquire various roles and realize them differently, express themselves differently, based on where the person is. This can be called social gender, because a person occupies a particular social role based on various sets of duties and properties.  Gender as an active process is always changeable, and one and the same category can be different in different countries, societies, or times. These social categories/units: family, religion, work, society are the ones that regulate or determine the properties of an individual and characterize the individual by the determined properties. Often an individual, being aware of themselves as a unique person, is unable to fit into the norms of some group, does not conform to them. The individual can make the choice to change themselves in order to fit in, or to remain with their “self” and receive the condemnation of the group. An individual who has to make a choice – to be themselves or to change – has to choose between inclusion or being the “stranger”.

  1. ANCIENT ANATOMY

It is interesting to examine how, in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, at the scientific level of that time, the female and male body and how a child forms during pregnancy were explained. This will give insight into how, in purely physical terms, people are depicted and what properties are assigned to these human bodies. In ancient medicine/science, many views about the body and its functions were based not only on proven facts but also on ideas, because the study of the body was not developed, and therefore many medical ideas and facts were subordinated to or influenced by the habits of the social structure and order.

Aristotle (4th c. BCE) considered that a child, during pregnancy, is formed only from the man’s seed, while the woman gives nothing more than matter. This matter is then formed by the man’s seed and gives the child form and activity, strength, because these are the properties that characterize the man’s seed: form, superiority, heat, activity, soul. By contrast, the woman gives nourishment, matter, because the woman is characterized by weakness, passivity, coldness, and inability.[7] In Aristotle’s time, and also at the beginning of our era, there existed the view that the greatest driving force in the creation of a child is heat, as well as activity and form; since these properties are represented by the man, then the male body in its very essence is regarded as superior, but the woman’s as lower – in quality. It follows from this that a woman does not have an active role in creation, because she is not capable of creating with her body, but simply, the woman’s body gives matter. 

Hippocrates (5th–4th c. BCE) considered that both the woman and the man have seed, which determines that both the man and the woman participate in the process of forming the child. Hippocrates supplements this idea with the idea that there are two different seeds: feminine and masculine, and both of these types of seed can be possessed by both the woman and the man. Like Aristotle, Hippocrates considered that the feminine seed is weaker and the masculine is stronger. And various combinations of these seeds lead to the sex of the child: if the weak seed dominates (there is more of it), then a girl is born; if the strong seed dominates, then a boy is born.[8] Hippocrates also writes that not only the sex, but the person’s character depends on how the feminine and masculine seed combine. For example, if the masculine seed combines from the man and the woman, then a boy will form who will grow into a person strong in soul and body, but if the man gives the masculine seed and the woman the feminine, then a boy will be born who will not be as strong as the aforementioned, yet will be a courageous man. And in the extreme variant, if the man gives the feminine seed and the woman the masculine, then a child will form with a male-sexed body, but the character will be feminine-masculine.[9] Likewise, if a woman is born from two feminine seeds, then this woman will be feminine, well-formed, graceful. Whereas if a woman is born from a combination of the feminine and masculine seed, then this woman has a tendency to be boyish and/or bold, daring.[10] Hippocrates connects nature, the physical with the spiritual and the personality. Not only is the man hotter, but also faster, more active, and more intelligent, because the man represents dryness and heat, which give activity to the mind and intelligence. The woman is weaker because she is passive on account of the moisture in the body; the woman’s body is naturally watery, moist by nature, and therefore the woman’s intelligence is lower. Hippocrates also gives instructions on what diet and regimen to maintain in order to get rid of the body’s moisture, so that a person’s/man’s intelligence does not become slower or lower in ability.[11]

Galen (2nd–3rd c. CE) was a Greek physician, surgeon, and philosopher in the Roman Empire, who nowadays is not as popular or well known as Hippocrates, but Galen’s influence in medicine has been fundamental and very highly esteemed. Galen’s ideas about the human body, medicine, and nature flowed through Western culture and medicine right up until the 16th century.[12] Galen developed Hippocrates’s idea of the two seeds – the feminine and the masculine – and proved that a woman has ovaries, in this way laying fundamental foundations for the theory of the two seeds. He too writes, like Hippocrates, that the feminine seed is weaker, colder, and therefore more imperfect, and polarizes man and woman even more, concluding that the woman and the feminine are therefore imperfect, of lower quality, where the man and the masculine are perfect and of higher worth.[13] Armelle Debru concludes that the two-seed theory helped Galen solve the question of why there are two sexes and why they are different.[14]

  1. MASCULINE VIRTUE AND SOCIAL HIERARCHY

The ways in which people evaluated themselves and classified others in society around the beginning of our era were strictly determined. Belonging to one group of society, it was almost impossible to change it or to progress within it. A person’s status and how others treated them was given to the person almost from the moment of birth, because a person’s sex, social class, occupation, or gender was defined by certain features. Thinking practically – a person, such as they were, was confronted with the fact that their place in society would be one particular and almost unchangeable place, because, for example, this person is a woman or a slave, or a widow. Although in ancient society the social hierarchy was strictly stipulated, there was nevertheless a group of people who had the opportunity, or were given the freedom, to develop more than others, in this way enjoying the privilege of being free and of choosing; this group was the free (as opposed to the slave) men. However, the opportunity to choose one’s status was also not simple, and these free men likewise had to go through various disciplines and prove themselves in order to attain the role in society that they wanted. 

In this chapter I will discuss what could be called the “hierarchy of power and strength”, which will reflect how a person’s sex, gender, social status, or occupation gave a person a certain place in society and how this changed or influenced the person.

In the 4th c. BCE, Aristotle addressed what is perhaps the most fundamental problem of social hierarchy. Marguerite Deslauriers notes in her article that the problem touched on the question: what gives the free man the strength and power to be superior to women, slaves, and children?[15] Purely anatomically/physiologically, as I wrote in the previous subsection, the man had already been “proven” as superior. But in this question that Aristotle examined, it was a matter of a person as a social individual with mind, power, strength, and soul. Aristotle accepted as a norm that all people have virtue and mind.[16] Here a problem arises, because the free man was accepted as superior, as the one who rules with his authority over the woman, the slave, and the child. Aristotle solves this problem with a virtue that he assigns only to men – practical wisdom, which is able to apply rational thinking and practice in order to judge the best outcome. Women, slaves, and children do not have this virtue, and therefore their actions will not be the best, with the best intent; their desires will be filled with the satisfaction of lust and appetite. However, for example, desire/lust in slaves is defined as one of the virtues, and the free man is the one who, as ruler, is able to form and rationalize the desire of the slave, the woman, the child toward something good, virtuous.[17]  Therefore the man is also a natural ruler, because he is the only one whose power of judgment can help and guide women, slaves, and children to redirect their desires toward better reasons. Whereas, for example, this is why women are natural subjects of governance, because they themselves are unable to guide themselves rationally; nevertheless, their desire to know and understand includes submission to man, because he can give the tools for the woman to be able to judge; he is the one toward whom the woman strives as a source of the “moral compass”. In this way the woman’s mind and virtue is subordinated to and connected with the mind of her immediate man, because she “borrowed” rationality and the power of judgment through the man.

It would be worth examining more closely the virtues and character traits/behavior of men, which classified men into various groups of virtue and, consequently, social groups, which were not always in harmony with one another, but rather in opposition, and embodied the political/social “power play” among men. Andreia (Gr. ἀνδρεία) the term is translated as manliness, masculine spirit.[18] Andreia as a virtue is explained by classically masculine character traits: this man is courageous, strives for glory, is physically masculine, and overall the term was originally associated with military service or martial spirit.[19] Aristotle too assigned this term as the highest virtue for a man who goes into battle – to die a courageous death, to die for the sake of the fact that death on the battlefield is a conscious striving toward the very greatest of fears, the fear of dying. This gave men in military service the greatest honor and courage, and these were andreia men.[20] In the Greek language, virtue in general is denoted by the word ἀρετή.[21] In Latin (in the Roman Empire and also before that in the republic), ἀρετή and ἀνδρεία were translated as virtus, which denotes jointly both virtue and manliness, where the masculine is equated with virtue, or masculinity and masculine properties are the model of virtue.[22]  As can be concluded, in Roman culture masculinity is a general designation of virtue (virtus), a model for a person, but in Greek culture, although andreia is the highest masculine model, it nevertheless does not embody the virtues as a whole, and the diversity of what is good or ideal can vary.

One more term must be inserted into this equation, which shows even more precisely how entangled and complicated the hierarchy of society (of men) was. The term paideia (Gr. Παιδεία) denotes discipline, education, training[23] Like the others, this too is a term for a virtue or set of properties. During the Roman Empire in the 1st–2nd c. CE, this designation, this virtue, became especially popular and became central in denoting the character and physical properties that the ideal man has. Paideia denoted a man who was learned in language, literature, oratory, philosophy, and physically these men were well-mannered, well-dressed, groomed. Although on the one hand paideia as a social class represented the elite of society – that which distinguishes the educated man from the “ordinary” man, the slave, or the woman – nevertheless such men were seen as very feminine, soft, and weak. At the same time andreia men, as the masculine and the strong, were often depicted as not very intelligent, physically unpleasant, and brutal.[24] What must be paid attention to is the fact that both masculinity and intelligence (andreia and paideia) can be attained by a man, because such is the naturally determined ability of a man, yet a man is not born with these properties; they are learned. And this is the point that characterizes the ideal man at the beginning of our era in the Roman Empire: andreia as purely physical masculinity has grown into a definitely learned set of properties; it is no longer brutal strength, it is courage, strength, dominance, intelligence; such a man is then called virtuous. From an early age children began to be taught knowledge of philosophy, science, language (which was done by paideia men, the scientists, orators, and philosophers of that time – pedagogues) and physically prepared, so that the body too conformed to the masculine model.[25] The most important insight is that, merely by being a physical man, he was not simply immediately accepted in society as masculine. Although a man is given the naturally highest properties of human virtue, the man is the ideal, yet being an ideal man is not a natural process; it is learned and formed. This indicates that society could evaluate a certain man as a masculine man or, for example, a feminine man. Masculine men were the social elite; the feminine ones were rejected or ridiculed. The man was under massive social pressure to prove and retain his place in society. And those men who were feminine, ill-bred, slaves, or physically imperfect (because of physical congenital deformities or, for example, castration) would never be regarded as virtuous, masculine men, because their body or mind did not reach into the socially determined category of perfection. 

I have discussed this chapter extensively, because I consider it very important to know what the social environment was like in the time of Jesus and Paul. The social environment is formed by people, and the way in which people behave and represent themselves, intentionally or unintentionally, can greatly influence society as a whole. The gender perspective looks at society as groups of people that are gendered (to paraphrase in Latvian – with the features and properties of gender), which are categorized into these groups because they represent a certain opinion, properties, appearance, occupation, etc. Why is this important? Because it must be remembered that theology and the activity/stance of congregations/churches is directly influenced by the people who represent them. We cannot say that the early theologians or the first Christians were objective in their teaching, even if they tried, because they all came from some particular tradition, be it religious, social, or political, and these fundamental views of theirs were also transferred or helped to shape the first congregations and the first theology. And it must also be remembered that for the first centuries Christianity was not the official religion in the Roman Empire; Christianity had not really formed, there was no established order, no laws stipulated. However, when Christianity became official as a religion, then the question arises whether the Roman Empire made Christianity “Roman” or whether Christianity made Rome Christian? Most likely, there is no single answer, because Christianity was created by a multicultural environment. 

2. JESUS AND ALTERED MASCULINITY

The depiction of Jesus’s life in the Gospels, almost right up to the moment of his death, is filled with potency, strength, and rule. Jesus was depicted as a typical masculine man; he had the strength to object to authorities, to gather people, to work miracles. This gives the impression of an authoritative person, and as such, Jesus fit very well into the typical Roman-Greek model of a man. Of course, Jesus also had an atypical masculinity – he spoke with women, defended them, healed the sick and touched them; one could even say he was soft and feminine, but all of this was accompanied by the idea of Jesus’s strength as God-given and his actions as divinely determined or necessary. At the same time this showed Jesus’s humanity, his emotional and soft side, because Jesus was the son not only of God but also of man. Up to a certain moment Jesus was the ideal man, yet at one moment a breaking point occurred.

Colleen M. Conway, in her work Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity, describes that this breaking point or change in Jesus’s personality sets in at the moment when Jesus was on the way to Jerusalem (Mk. 8-10), where Jesus himself proclaims his suffering and death.[26] The author of the work also explains that Jesus’s activity corresponded to the typical Roman-Greek male model up to the breaking point, but after the breaking point Jesus’s suffering and death are described in the context of a typical hero’s death, where the hero dies for the sake of a higher good.[27] Such a manner of death is a typical model of a man (the previously described  andreia), where the man chooses death and goes into it in order to defend others, thus showing his masculinity and potency in the highest way – in a noble death. And here the question does not arise of why Jesus’s masculinity has changed, because from the account it seems that Jesus was truly masculine both in life and in death. However, as the author notes, Jesus’s death, by the andreia model of that time, was not masculine and willed; Jesus’s suffering and death were passive and unwilled.[28] He did not want to suffer and did not want to die, he did not fight back and was emotional and died like a criminal. Jesus’s inactivity, or passivity, was feminine, the torturing of his body was feminine and weak (because he allowed his body to be used, to be governed by others), and his unwillingness to die showed Jesus’s fear and doubt. And it is precisely this that is the breaking point in Jesus’s personality. From a masculine and strong man, Jesus became a passive, feminine man precisely in that he allowed himself to be used for torture, he allowed his body to be broken, mocked, and he did not resist. The woman gives matter, she allows the man to form and govern this matter; the woman’s passivity is characterized by the fact that she does not decide and does not lead, but submits to authorities without objection; obedience characterizes the woman’s passivity. And it must also be remembered that such a characterization of woman is not only ideological or a character trait of woman. As I showed in the previous chapter, the woman’s passivity is physical; it is determined through her formation at the embryonic stage; a child is born with the female sex because it was formed by passivity, or a lack of strength, and strength is physically “innate” in men. Passivity as a woman’s character trait, or rather – her assigned place in society, where she governs neither her body nor her mind, is such because it is physically/physiologically determined. This means that if a man allowed himself to be governed by someone else, then this was not only a character trait; it also meant that this man was not a real man. And such men lost respect, power, strength, and status, because people believed that such was the natural order that formed the classes of society. And it was such a feminine nature that Jesus embodied during his suffering.

The question remains – why is it important that Jesus did not have a masculine, hero’s death? Why is it important that in his suffering and death he became feminine and weak? Because it is not a matter of the division of power between woman and man, or of power and categories in society, but rather of how, by “stepping” out of society’s norms and breaking himself, the old society was broken, which was oppressive and, for a large part of people – unfree. Jesus broke his body in order to show that even in the greatest shame, pain, and death, something new arises, a new person arises – free from condemnation, from restriction, and from shame. 

I see this breaking point more in the first Last Supper, when Jesus breaks bread and shares wine. Jesus himself gives over his flesh in the bread as a representing material, which he breaks, gives to the disciples, gives away his flesh to others so that they may break it, give it onward. Likewise he also pours out the wine, or pours out his own blood, a reference to a violent act that is commemorated in the drinking of it. In that moment the first change of Jesus’s flesh takes place; he exchanges his essence as Jesus the Son of God for simply flesh and blood and allows it to be broken. In the article “Bodies: The Displaced Body of Jesus Christ”, Graham Ward describes Jesus’s suffering and crucifixion in a rather existential way. He writes that during the suffering and crucifixion Jesus loses any control over his body and his will, and also loses his masculinity, or the fact that he is perceived physically as a man. Jesus became simply a body without sex or gender, without power or status. Jesus’s breaking and killing works on people at a level that transcends the flesh; it works with human empathy, sorrow, and the emptiness that Jesus created when he died.[29] We, when we read the story of the suffering, no longer think in the category of power and strength; we do not think of Jesus as a man and what good that gives. But we feel for the suffering and experience a person’s terrible, humanly painful death, which separates us from God (purely psychologically, such a feeling is also created when a close person dies, when parents or children are “separated” from their parents), because Jesus acted as God’s agent. This feeling of the emptiness of death completely changes how Jesus is perceived, because he is no longer endowed with masculine strength and the ability to do, to govern. He rather transgresses and breaks down boundaries, because he makes himself completely neutral and universal in the face of suffering and death. And at the Last Supper, Christians share in this experience, not only in the sorrow and the completely transparent realization that the one who had power and strength and courage was broken and killed, but also in the fact that Jesus broke down the boundaries between bodies and statuses, made everyone equal and of equal worth. He did this by emptying himself, because if a person is nothing, then they have the potential to be anything else and everything. And after the resurrection the disciples did not recognize Jesus – the same body, but different. The symbolism of this and also of the empty tomb, as well as of the ascension, according to Graham Ward lies in the fact that Jesus showed during his lifetime his countless sides, natures, personalities, or his various states of being, then divided himself and gave himself away to the disciples; being empty, he was killed, yet, nevertheless, was reborn complete. And then – he left his followers. The empty tomb and Jesus’s ascension left this emptiness that Jesus himself experienced, by emptying himself.[30] And emptiness leaves room for potential, diversity, and something new. Jesus left his followers, the congregation, as his body on earth, which again anew has to fill the potential of these empty places with the diversity that makes up completeness.

However, Jesus’s death over time was placed in the context of a hero’s death, as, for example, Colleen M. Conway notes. She writes how Paul has made Jesus’s suffering and death into a masculine act. In its essence this is a change from the usual andreia masculinity, because Jesus’s weakness is redefined as strength and endurance; passivity in the face of suffering has become the new measure of virtue for Christians. At the same time Paul very rarely mentions the death on the cross itself, because death on the cross was humiliating. But suffering became the new masculinity and strength, and Paul shows his own weakness, humility, and powerlessness, just as with Jesus, as the new strength.[31] It is no wonder that Jesus’s death and suffering over time acquired a mythic courage and glory, because society demanded a certain model, an ideal to strive toward and that would attract people at all. And in the Roman Empire, strength was power, and therefore Jesus’s death too was transformed into a heroic death. At the same time, among the first Christians, a change took place in masculinity itself, where a good and courageous man was acknowledged to be one who was able to endure rather than to wage war. This point also attracted not only men, but also women, slaves, widows, and people who had no power in society, because the human ideal at last included suffering, and it was shown as good and acceptable for a person to be complete. For example, merely because a slave became a Christian did not free him purely socially or physically from the slave status, but because of his suffering his status was such as Jesus too bore and endured, and this suffering was no longer shameful and weak or feminine, but rather attested to courage and freedom, or people became free in suffering, became free and transformed inwardly rather than outwardly. However, the more Christianity gained popularity, the more it acquired the face of the Roman Empire. At the moment when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it had already acquired and adopted the views of Roman-Greek society, because, in resisting them, Christianity would not become influential in the society as a whole. And Jesus’s story acquired the form of the Roman Empire, which is still used today. We still consider that humility and patience in the church are a very Christian value. In many churches today the woman’s “cross to bear” is still her being a woman, and this must be suffered, inwardly, even though outwardly the woman is not freed and is unable, for example, to take a position in the church (as well as in society). Behold, this model of suffering and patience for women is offered as the model of Jesus’s suffering. Jesus suffered under power, and that is a virtue, and therefore those who suffer because of the social/religious order must do so, because Jesus showed this. This I would like to call the Roman Empire model, not the model of Christianity, because Jesus broke boundaries in society so that others would not have to do so, but Christianity fell back onto the old models of society in favor of power and influence. 

But it must be remembered that, if one casts off as much as possible the interpretations and theologies accumulated over the centuries about Jesus’s activity, then we nevertheless see a very simple fact. In his life and death Jesus was not only a man, but also the one who resists the established masculinity, the one who was strong as a man and soft as a woman; he was a ruler and one who is ruled. His death was wretched and completely humiliating, and he allowed it (but did not want it) and gave himself over to complete power and hatred. By giving himself over, he became a scapegoat and a sacrifice, embodying the very lowest strata of society’s people; Jesus embodied their everyday life, in pain and death. By dissolving the boundaries between power and submission, between masculinity and femininity, he lost himself, but attained the ideal form. And this is what I see in the Last Supper – the eternal transformation, sharing, separation, dissolution, and transmutation that Jesus showed with his body and with his essence. An idea that has perhaps never been mentioned or practiced in congregations up to the present day – to accept anyone, because anyone in any state imitates Jesus, because he was both God and slave, both man and human being. 

3. THE WOMEN OF CORINTH AND PAUL’S RHETORIC

Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, in one part, tells of problems that arose in the congregation among Christians. The classic interpretation is as follows: women in the congregation refused to wear head coverings, because they felt freed from the conditions of society, yet Paul, together with other men, pointed out that a woman in the congregation without a head covering is a disgrace. A woman in this way disgraces herself, the man, and God, and therefore Paul reminds them that head coverings must be worn. 

However, another theory has also been put forward. Lucy Peppiatt, in her work Women and Worship at Corinth, writes about how the text of 1 Cor. 11:2-16 has always created interpretation problems, because it seems – to include two different thoughts or views on one and the same theme. Lucy Peppiatt argues that this pericope from the letter contains a Corinthian slogan that contains the idea or views of members of the Corinthian congregation (not all, of some part), which Paul quotes in his letter in order to discuss these views. [32] Thus 1 Cor. 11:2-10 is a Corinthian slogan that Paul “quotes” and that expresses the view of some group of the Corinthian congregation. In this interpretation, 1 Cor. 11:11-16 represents Paul’s view, or his counterargument to the Corinthian slogan. In the Corinthian congregation, some part of the people (most likely – men) considered that a woman’s uncovered head attests to dishonor and shame, because the woman is authoritatively and naturally subordinate beneath the man. The man is the head of the woman, which nowadays theologians explain more with an indication/translation pointing not to authority, but to origin, where “head” denotes the source, the beginning of origin.[33] It must be remembered that Corinth was a Greek city in the Roman Empire, and the woman’s origin in the man is not a reference only to the creation story in the Old Testament, but also to the Greek view that, naturally, a woman’s activity, ideas, and who she is, are formed by the man’s mind and views. The man’s authority in this way is what makes the woman who she is, because she herself does not have the ability or the virtue to be and to want the perfect or to strive toward the best. In this way the man is the source of the woman’s virtue/morality, and the head covering is, in a figurative sense, a sign that the particular woman is under the man’s submission, that she herself is not autonomous or independent. And then let us imagine a scene in which a woman removes this symbolic sign of being subordinate and shows that she is autonomous in her actions and is not lower. This would disgrace her man – father, brother, husband – because it would show that the man is no longer the woman’s agent of control. Thus the head covering is like a seal that shows that the woman is being controlled, but its removal shows liberation from control, which disgraces the particular man, because in Greek-Roman society such a man, who does not control his possessions (the woman was a possession), is weak and feminine, he does not know how to rule, thus in the eyes of others he loses his power. And this creates shame for the man – the woman’s direct action disgraces the man and the naturally established order, in this case not only philosophically, but also God’s order, because in the Corinthian congregation it was a God-established order, where the man was responsible for the order determined by God and for its preservation. Thus, one can see that the head covering was not simply a habit of social order that dictated fashion, but rather a deeply rooted Greek-Roman idea about the natural hierarchy of people, which, of course, was hard for many to cast off and transgress, because the world outside the church was such, where people were strictly controlled by sex, gender, class. 

Margaret Y. Macdonald, in her work on the activity of the first Christians among the pagans in the Roman Empire, gives a very interesting idea about the location of the congregation, which made Christians unique and also therefore created problems among the Christians themselves. She notes that the first congregations gathered in homes, which is very different from the Greek-Roman and Jewish tradition, where religious rituals were practiced publicly, available for viewing, and people’s participation (as priests or sponsors) pointed to that person’s high social status.[34] The Christian congregations gathered together in someone’s home, and the home environment was regarded as the inner world of society, or a place that is not a public “arena”. The home environment was intimate and hidden, and therefore women could feel better and freer in them, for example, not wearing head coverings; as opposed to the outer world, the public environment, which was the field of the man’s dominance. This made the home a place governed by the woman, and, perhaps that is also why so very many women were active in the first congregations, because this social understanding that the home is a safe environment for the woman gave them the opportunity to express themselves more. However, this created a paradox, because the home congregations were at the same time public events attended by many people, thus bringing public life into the private.[35] Thus here we see a situation where a new environment, a new model of society, is created, which was hard to simply accept. Women felt better at home, because they were able to be freer and to act more on their own, yet, when strangers came into the home, they were deprived of the right to be free, because the home environment too became public. Perhaps, even if the women themselves felt safe enough not to wear head coverings, for the men this was not such an unambiguous situation. Public or not, as soon as a woman represented herself without a head covering, she publicly showed that she no longer represented the control of her man. The shame-honor model was created in order to publicly show power and dominance; likewise, shame was constructed as a way that constantly reminded that the woman was not the one in charge and in control. Shame was constantly recalled, because the feeling of shame in women was honor in men – if a woman obeyed her husband through the consciousness of guilt that she is naturally lower, then she did honor to her husband publicly, showing that the husband is in the role of ruler. Therefore perhaps this problem with women without head coverings began as a purely practical question of where the congregation meets and what that changes socially, yet the question involved too fundamental an idea about the natural order to simply allow women to be free in the only place allotted to them. The taking away of the “last straw” from women perhaps created a social need to resist, which Paul also supported theologically.

Returning to the congregation in Corinth, 1 Cor. 2:11-16 is then the part in which Paul corrects the congregation’s views. First, he shows that woman and man are interdependent, neither is superior to the other, because all are equal before God. Paul also mentions the natural order; it is possible that the congregation’s view about the established superiority of man over woman is a reference to the natural/physical order that was accepted in society, and in mentioning it, Paul notes that for a woman the hair is honor, not shame – naturally. Lucy Peppiatt proposes translating 1 Cor. 11:15 as “And if a wife grows long hair, it is an honor to her. Because the hair is given to her in place of a covering” rather than as the Latvian translation: “And if a wife grows long hair, it is an honor to her. Because the hair is given to her for a covering,”[36] which indicates that a head covering is not needed at all, because a woman has a natural honor, just like men, given by God.[37] However, the most important thing that Paul shows, not only in the letter to the Corinthians but also in other letters, is that Jesus’s sacrifice, his life and deeds, showed what society ought to be like. Jesus changed the society around him, himself transgressing the established stereotypes, doing what was not fitting for a real man to do, allowing himself to be soft and feminine, as well as strong and masculine, defending the weaker in society and allowing himself to be humiliated. Jesus’s example and death were meant to be what freed society from division and unnecessary stratification, where people would see one another as equals: naturally and divinely. Philip Barton Payne, in his work Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters, describes how Paul shows that such social divisions as barriers are broken and no longer existent. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female – you are all one in Jesus Christ,” Paul points to three markedly tense social groups whose division ought to disappear among those who are Christians. These are ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and sex. Philip B. Payne notes that these categories disappear because Christ is the new body that unites all into one, merging the boundaries and the social privileges or powers that were in the hands of some group and the humiliation and restriction felt by other groups. This merging of boundaries did not mean that people lost ethnicity or sex, or their identity, but rather that this is not the guiding motif in Christ. The guiding one is openness toward the diverse and the equal status of all before God, because all who are baptized are born anew as a new person, such as Jesus Christ was.[38] Philip B. Payne also writes that being one in Christ is not only an idea; for Paul it has been a practical theology, where people in the congregations are not only spiritually of equal worth, but also socially and in sex. People in the first congregations had to perceive as of equal worth also those who were usually not given equality or the ability to lead: slaves, women, the others who did not conform to the majority. This means supporting, lifting up, and allowing the other to fulfill that role in the congregation which suits the person, and not discriminating by physical appearance, social status, or nationality.[39]

And how can a man be a savior to a woman, how can a free man be a savior to a slave? If all are imitators of Christ, then in what way can those who have been different from him be him? This can be found in Jesus’s own life and his various personalities and expressions. As we saw in the previous chapter, Jesus with his life showed what it means to be feminine and masculine; he also became a slave and a criminal, submitted to shame and power. He emptied himself of the socially determined categories so that he could be completely everything, and he also passed through and descended from the highest power to the lowest point at which a person in Jesus’s time could be. Therefore Paul too preached one theology for all, in which all could be contained, because it was universal: friendship and love surpassed the law; equality and peace overcame hatred toward the other. But as we can see, just like the “polishing up” of Jesus’s masculinity in the death on the cross, also in the first congregations people often chose to hold to the divisions and views already known in society, because human nature determines that the known is safety, but the unknown – danger. However, if one honestly looks at Jesus’s activity and at Paul himself, then one can see that neither one nor the other ever acted in a way that discriminated against anyone; rather the opposite – they were engaged in the reconciliation and conciliation of people.

CONCLUSION

In the end the question should be posed – how do these ideas and interpretations about Jesus, about the Corinthian congregation, and about the ancient view of the human being concern us today? And also my first question in the introduction – what does the spirit have to do with the body? This I wish to answer with examples from modern-day Christians.

In the book This Is My Body: Hearing the Theology of Transgender Christians there are collected stories from transgender (Eng. transgender) Christians about how they see Christianity, the Bible, the church, and their place in it. In these stories several common points are expressed. 1) Absolutely all the individuals see both Jesus and God as one who accepts them as they are, and that there is nothing in theology (directly from the Bible) that would discriminate against them; the emphasis is on love, acceptance, love of neighbor, new life in Christ, and forgiveness/reconciliation with the world, oneself, and fellow human beings. 2) The majority have experienced discrimination in the church, which church representatives justify with theology and biblical passages; the arguments are usually that these individuals are sick or have fallen under the influence of evil, and that such individuals must be healed with prayers, God’s word, or the laying on of hands; often a consciousness of guilt is imposed by the church and other Christians. 3) Many have experienced rejection from the congregation and the church – some were not allowed to come to church in those moments when their gender did not conform to their sex; in other cases the individual was no longer welcome in the congregation at all, or was not allowed to take an active role in the congregation. 4) Absolutely all chose to be who they are and found Christian communities that accepted them as they are, which completely improved their lives, but in the moments when these people submitted to criticism, to the shame imposed by others, and to the hiding of their identity, the majority developed mental disturbances, depression, a broken-down family life, thoughts of suicide.[40]

I wanted to show the common denominators of these stories, because this happens in churches today. And not only with transgender people, but with various groups in various churches; it can be because of sex, gender, social or economic status, as well as nationality, age, etc. Most often such discrimination is created based on quotations from the Bible or its interpreters. Over the centuries, in various churches, very fundamental interpretations have arisen that have not changed as the times and society change. Strangely, if Christianity began with the fact that it was, or tried to be, more progressive and more benevolent toward people than society, then now it is often the churches that have conservatively come to a halt at thousand-year-old views, while society, in turn, has progressed. This has arisen because interpretations of the Bible have been perceived as more important than the Bible itself, and the interpretation of Jesus has become more significant than what the Gospels say. Nowadays the humanities and the exact sciences are very developed, people and society have progressed and know, and are capable of, more than people 20 centuries ago. Likewise theology and biblical research have developed to archaeological precision, and we can examine what the first congregations were like. And not only that, but also what in these congregations came from the influence of society, how politics and power influenced the formation of the church, and what was assimilated into Christianity in order to establish it as the official religion. These views are also the ones that can then be tried to be seen as secondary in theology today, because they were the views of the respective time and place. For example, that man is the ideal human model – biologically, divinely, and socially. We now know that neither biologically, nor socially, nor theologically does anything make a man into a more complete human being with greater power in society, nor in the church. And yet this view still prevails in many denominations in which women are not ordained, in which women are segregated and are given a particular physical outward appearance in which alone they may go to church. Such theologies are inessential, because they tell nothing about Christianity, first, because they are ancient customs that came before Christianity and have no universal, eternal value. Second, theologically the church/congregation is the body of Christ, and in the Gospels Jesus Christ does not appear as one who discriminates against and segregates groups of people, but rather the opposite; Jesus fought against the injustices of that time and showed that this is the true path for his followers. Perhaps the problems in society have changed, yet the idea remains – a Christian ought to look around, to be able to find those places in society that stand against human welfare, and to lift up those who are being oppressed. At its core, this is the purest teaching of Jesus. Then why is a very large part of people still unable to  fit into the church and fulfill their potential there, if Christianity ought to be what ensures it? How can churches, congregations, and individual Christians regard themselves as followers of Jesus, if their direct actions make those closest to them suffer and even go to such an extreme as to think about suicide? This is not only a theological but also a social dilemma, because active Christians carry their spiritual convictions with them also into their families, into the raising of children, and into the common opinion of society. 

Therefore it is sometimes worth, even if only for the sake of an experiment, clearing away the theology that has accumulated over the centuries and examining the Bible anew, with a different approach that perhaps is not traditional and even seems unacceptable, but nevertheless creates new ideas and interpretations. And in answer to the first question posed in the introduction – what does the spirit have to do with the body? The answer would be – absolutely everything is connected with the body. We are not detached from physical reality, and our identity includes not only our character but also the body as part of identity. We cannot make people change their perception of who they are by gender or sex, because a person is aware of themselves as one whole, whatever combination that may be. God, Jesus, and the church enter into this human combination on a very fundamental level, because theology tells of existential questions, of who I am as a person, where I have come from, and, most importantly – whether I am accepted. And without the body, there is no idea of oneself; without the expression of oneself there is also no idea of oneself, and therefore if we understand that, for example, the New Testament tells not of a certain order, of a set of laws – of how a person should be, but rather of the fact that what you are is enough, then, perhaps, modern-day Christians would be able to find unity in diversity. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  1. Beardsley, Christina and Michelle O’Brien, eds. This is My Body: Hearing the Theology of Transgender Christians. London: Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd, 2016.
  2. Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. Transl. and ed. H. M. Parshley. London: Jonathan Cape, 1956.
  3. The Bible. Latvian Bible Society, 2013. 
  4. Charlotte Witt. The Metaphysics of Gender. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
  5. Cilliers, L. „Vindicianus’ Gynaecia and Theories on Generation and Embryology From the Babylonians Up to Greco-Roman Times”. In H. F. J. Horstmanshoff and M. Stol, eds. Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
  6. Connolly, Joy. „Like the Labors of Heracles: Andreia and Paideia in Greek Culture under Rome”. In Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter, eds. Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
  7. Conway, Colleen M. Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
  8. Debru, Armelle. “Physiology”. In R. J. Hankinson, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Galen. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2008.
  9. Deslauriers, Marguerite. “Aristotle on Andreia, Divine and Sub-human Virtues”. In Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter, eds. Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
  10. Hankinson, R. J., ed. The Cambridge Companion to Galen. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2008.
  11. Hippocrates. “Regimen I”. In W. H. S. Jones, transl. Hippocrates, Heracleitus. Nature of Man. Regimen in Health. Humours. Aphorisms. Regimen 1-3. Dreams. Heracleitus: On the Universe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931.
  12. Hippocrates. “The Seed and The Nature of the Child”. Transl. I. M. Lonie.  In G. E. R. Lloyd, ed.  Hippocratic Writings. London: Penguin Books, 1984.
  13. Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
  14. Macdonald, Margaret Y. Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 1996.
  15. McDonnell, Myles. „Roman Men and Greek Virtue”. In Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter, eds. Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
  16. Payne, Philip Barton. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2015.
  17. Peppiatt, Lucy. Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2015.
  18. Pilcher, Jane and Imelda Whelehan. Fifty Key Concepts in Gender Studies. London: SAGE Publications, 2004.
  19. Rosen, Ralph M. and Manfred Horstmanshoff. „The Andreia of the Hippocratic Physician and the Promblem of Incurables”. In Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter, eds. Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
  20. Smith, Richard. „Sex Education in Gnostic Schools”. In Karen L. King, ed. Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000.
  21. Ward, Graham. “Bodies: The Displaced Body of Jesus Christ”. In Bjorn Krondorfer, ed. Men and Masculinities in Christianity and Judaism. London: SCM Press, 2009.

[1]          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex (accessed 10.07.2021)

[2]          Jane Pilcher and Imelda Whelehan, Fifty Key Concepts in Gender Studies (London: SAGE Publications, 2004), 56-61.

[3]          Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, transl. and ed. H. M. Parshley (London: Jonathan Cape, 1956), 14-16.

[4]          Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 17-19.

[5]          Charlotte Witt, The Metaphysics of Gender (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 35-36.

[6]          Charlotte Witt, The Metaphysics of Gender, 54-64.

[7]          L. Cilliers, „Vindicianus’ Gynaecia and Theories on Generation and Embryology From the Babylonians Up to Greco-Roman Times” in Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine, ed. H. F. J. Horstmanshoff and M. Stol (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 347-348. 

[8]           Hippocrates, “The Seed and The Nature of the Child,” transl. I. M. Lonie, in Hippocratic Writings, ed. G. E. R. Lloyd (London: Penguin Books, 1984), 320-321.

[9]          Hippocrates, “Regimen I” in  Hippocrates, Heracleitus. Nature of Man. Regimen in Health. Humours. Aphorisms. Regimen 1-3. Dreams. Heracleitus: On the Universe, transl. W. H. S. Jones (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931), 267-269.

[10] Hippocrates, “Regimen I”, 269 – 271.

[11] Hippocrates, “Regimen I”, 281-285.

[12]         R. J. Hankinson, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Galen (Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2008), XV-XVIII.

[13]         Richard Smith, „Sex Education in Gnostic Schools” in Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism, ed. Karen L. King (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000), 348-351.

[14]         Armelle Debru, “Physiology” in The Cambridge Companion to Galen, ed. R. J. Hankinson (Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2008), 278.

[15] Marguerite Deslauriers, “Aristotle on Andreia, Divine and Sub-human Virtues” in Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, ed. Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 192.

[16] Marguerite Deslauriers, “Aristotle on Andreia, Divine and Sub-human Virtues”, 192-193.

[17] Marguerite Deslauriers, “Aristotle on Andreia, Divine and Sub-human Virtues”, 197-200.

[18]         Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 128.

[19]         Ralph M. Rosen and Manfred Horstmanshoff, „The Andreia of the Hippocratic Physician and the Promblem of Incurables” in Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, ed. Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 95.

[20]         Marguerite Deslauriers, “Aristotle on Andreia, Divine and Sub-human Virtues”, 188-190.

[21]         Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 238.

[22]         Myles McDonnell, „Roman Men and Greek Virtue” in Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, ed. Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 235.

[23]         Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 1286.

[24]         Joy Connolly, „Like the Labors of Heracles: Andreia and Paideia in Greek Culture under Rome” in Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity, ed. Ralph M. Rosen and Ineke Sluiter (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 294-296.

[25] Joy Connolly, „Like the Labors of Heracles: Andreia and Paideia in Greek Culture under Rome”, 296-298.

[26] Colleen M. Conway,  Behold the Man: Jesus and Greco-Roman Masculinity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 96.

[27] Colleen M. Conway,  Behold the Man, 90-96.

[28] Colleen M. Conway,  Behold the Man, 100-102.

[29] Graham Ward, “Bodies: The Displaced Body of Jesus Christ” in Men and Masculinities in Christianity and Judaism, ed. Bjorn Krondorfer (London: SCM Press, 2009), 103-106.

[30] Graham Ward, “Bodies: The Displaced Body of Jesus Christ”, 107-109.

[31] Colleen M. Conway,  Behold the Man, 70-78.

[32] Lucy Peppiatt, Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2015), 77-85.

[33] Philip Barton Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2015), 94-108.

[34] Margaret Y. Macdonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion: The Power of the Hysterical Woman (Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 1996), 32-35.

[35] Margaret Y. Macdonald, Early Christian Women and Pagan Opinion, 35-41.

[36] The new Bible translation issued in 2013 by the Latvian Bible Society is used.

[37] Lucy Peppiatt, Women and Worship at Corinth, 106-107.

[38] Philip Barton Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 70-77.

[39] Philip Barton Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 81-83.

[40] Christina Beardsley and Michelle O’Brien, eds., This is My Body: Hearing the Theology of Transgender Christians (London: Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd, 2016), 123-189.

Author: Theol. mag. Enija Pohomova, 2021 (the essay was created within the framework of the LLSTA competition)

Photo: https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/bodies-in-space