Maleness, Femaleness and the Image of God

[Jereth]

I knew I would eventually have to defend myself about this. Thanks Hannah (and Jenny, on the W.O. thread) for holding me accountable!

First, some key Bible texts:

Genesis 1:27
So God created man (Hebrew: Adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Genesis 5:1-2
When God created man (Heb. Adam), he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man (Heb. Adam) when they were created.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9
For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Ephesians 3:14, 15
For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, 15from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named

Romans 5:14-17
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.... For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:45-49
Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit...  The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

Now, a series of assertions:
1. God is neither male nor female; nevertheless-
2. Humanity is made in the image of God, and-
3. Humanity consists of male and female, hence-
4. Maleness and femaleness reflect aspects of God, hence-
5. Within God, there is that-aspect-of-God-to-which-human-maleness-corresponds, and likewise-
6. Within God, there is that-aspect-of-God-to-which-human-femaleness-corresponds.

Scripture proves that 5 & 6 are true because there are places where God is described in masculine or Fatherly terms (eg. Isaiah 64:8), and other places where God is described in feminine or motherly terms (eg. Isaiah 66:13).

Similarly, it is clear that, where humanity as a whole is concerned, both genders are required to fully image God. Otherwise Genesis 2 would stop at verse 17.

However,
- Scripture reveals God as “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (not as “Mother, Daughter and Holy Spirit” or “Parent, Child and Holy Spirit”)
- Ephesians 3:14, 15 says that all fatherhood is derived from the Father
- Jesus came as second Adam, not second Eve
- Jesus is called the Son of God (and all the key messianic prototypes are “sons” – Israel, Moses, Joshua, Melchizedek, David, the suffering servant, etc.)

This tells me that while both 5 and 6 still hold true, 5 and 6 are not symmetrically true. I can only conclude that within God, that-aspect-of-God-to-which-human-maleness-corresponds comes first, and that-aspect-of-God-to-which-human-femaleness-corresponds comes second. (NB. I have thought for days about how I can phrase this better; I’m pretty sure this is the best way to put it.)

This is backed up when we see that the same is true of the Image. i.e. in Genesis 2 we see that Adam is first and Eve second, and in Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:1-2 we see that while humanity is male and female, male and female are summed up in “Adam”. Also, Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 11:3 and so on.

None of this is to say that females image God to a lesser extent than males, or females image God in an inferior way, or anything of the sort. I think it can be said (and must be said, if we are to take Scripture seriously) that two sexes can image God equally, while at the same time there is a non-equivalence, an asymmetry, an order in the way that the two sexes image God.

To summarise:
- God is imaged by both human genders, and
- Both human genders are in the likeness God (and the likeness of Christ), but
- God is imaged by the human genders asymmetrically, where
- "the head of woman is man" (cf. 1 Cor 11:3)

I have to stop there and go do the dishes, but I’ll probably have more to say later.

[edited 19 July - added Romans and 1 Corinthians texts]

[Andrew Bowles]

I'm concerned about how you get from assertion 3 to assertion 4. Masculinity and femininity are abstract concepts, and it would help if you showed what their content is that differentiates them from male and female. What does masculinity mean?

[Andrew Moody]

I think I might be with Andrew B on this.
Is masculinity a category that the Bible is interested in?
I think femininity is. And I think fatherhood and sonship are; these all pertain to relational (and ontological) paradigms that have relevance for both God and humanity.
But masculinity? Not so sure about that.

[Jereth]

Thanks chaps,

I can see that there may be a problem of terminology here.

Would it help if I replaced the terms "masculinity" and "femininity" with "maleness" and "femaleness"?

Jereth

Edit: okay, done that

[Andrew Moody]

Well it might in the case of femine.
As far as I can see it - feminine means things like "made for", "taken from", "part of", "made to complete..." with the implied recipient/source/beneficiary man (ie human/Adam) and the archetype Christ.

But my point is that "masculine" doesn't seem to be a theological category - Adam is just the human and his maleness as such is irrelevant* until Eve is taken from him and for him - whereafter he is still "the human" though "male" serves to mark that he is the original human as opposed to the woman who now subsists in/from/with his humanity.

But of course this is different for the woman. Her very coming into being is from the start is about her relationship to the man. Feminine describes the mode or way in which she participates in human nature.

* unless unless - masculine carries some sense of incompleteness? there might be something there.

[Jereth]

Andrew Moody wrote:

But my point is that "masculine" doesn't seem to be a theological category - Adam is just the human and his maleness as such is irrelevant* until Eve is taken from him and for him

* unless unless - masculine carries some sense of incompleteness? there might be something there.

Isn't that the point of Genesis 2:18? "It is not good for the man to be alone". That makes it fairly clear to me that maleness or masculinity alone is incomplete. I would also understand "maleness" to carry a sense of leadership, primary responsibility, initiator, progenitor.

In any case, the overall point I'm trying to make here is that when God images himself, there comes a male first and a female second. This order is not arbritrary, and reflects something about the being of God himself.

More later.

Jereth

[Danny Saunders]

Maybe I'm missing the point but I'm not sure what the Andrews are getting at here. I think the Bible has lots to say about what it means to be a man and the concept of masculinity (maybe not the "theology" [if there is such a thing] of being a man if that's what you're getting at). I've been quite encouraged recently to reflect on the curse on men (work sphere), the advice in Proverbs (lots!), Song of Songs, Timothy, Titus, 1 John and hold these together with the general NT exhortations to Christ-like humility, etc to form a clear picture of what it means to be a godly man - things our church has failed to teach us, hence the confusion perhaps?

[Jereth]

From the women only thread:

I'm reflecting on this partly because I've been reading a book on Women in the Episcopate, put out by Forward in Faith in the UK (so it's anti on the question). There the maleness of the priest is seen as very important because the priest is taken to be representing Christ when celebrating the eucharist. And of course, Jesus was male. Now I think their theology of the sacraments is a bit screwed up if they think that the gender of the celebrant is that big a deal (Forward in Faith is generally Anglo-Catholic in theology). And actually it all gets a lot wackier than that. I might quote some stuff if I have the time later. But it was interesting to read the argument and then interesting to read the comment quoted above.

Very interesting. Not being a Catholic, I would not make the same argument that FIF does. I have never really thought of the presiding minister at eucharist* as being a representation of Christ, and I'm not exactly sure how you would get to that conclusion biblically.

All I would say is that the order of human creation as complementarians understand it (where man is the head of woman) reflects something of the order within God himself (as I've outlined at the beginning of this thread), and in light of Scriptural commands should be lived out in marriage and the church. 1 Tim 2 makes it quite clear to me that males should exercise teaching authority over mixed congregations; as to whether 1 Tim 2 also applies to the person presiding at eucharist, well I don't really have an answer to this, but I suspect it depends on whether you are a high church or low church advocate! If the eucharist is a really big deal in someone's theology, and is thought to involve an exercise of spiritual authority, then I can understand why someone who believes in male headship would insist on a male presiding. On the other hand if you have a Baptist view of the sacraments it wouldn't matter as much.

Someone did tell me (or perhaps I read it somewhere) that J.I. Packer wrote an article for Christianity Today about 20 years ago titled "Let's stop making women presbyters", where he supposedly argued for male priests/presbyters directly from Christ's maleness. But I have not read this article and so I don't know exactly how he got there. This is interesting because Packer (AFAIK) is not a Catholic. Can anyone enlighten me?

cheers
Jereth

* just for the record, I'm not an advocate of lay presidency!!!

** additional note: all references to "Catholic" in this post refer to Anglo-Catholicism (thank you Jenny)

[Jenny George]

A couple of responses:

First just a quick one to Jereth - you might find it useful not to use the word "Catholic" all by itself in a post. While most contributors so far would understand you to mean "High church Anglican" it's incredibly confusing to the person wandering into the forum who would immediately think you meant "Roman Catholic" - and of course their theology and issues are completely different.

Secondly - I'll post some bits of the book I mentioned in the quote that Jereth put up. I think you'll be interested. 1 Tim, 1 Cor and headship don't really rate a mention at all throughout.

Finally, and most pertinantly to the OP - there have been a lot of assertions that maleness has to do with leadership or taking initiative (with no evidence cited from Genesis to back this up). In general I think there's a lot of sloppiness in the arguments so far and I'll write another post a bit later tonight to point out where I think there needs to be more work done. By far the most disturbing part of this discussion was the argument that the man is the real "human" - that the humanness of Adam has continued throughout and that Eve is a sort of adjunct to that. Here's the quote:

Andrew Moody wrote:

But my point is that "masculine" doesn't seem to be a theological category - Adam is just the human and his maleness as such is irrelevant* until Eve is taken from him and for him - whereafter he is still "the human" though "male" serves to mark that he is the original human as opposed to the woman who now subsists in/from/with his humanity.

 
 
I think this is very problematic since it seems to suggest that Eve subsists from Adam's original and true humanity. This is very dangerous territory and needs to be extremely carefully delineated to avoid sounding like Eve is subhuman.

[Andrew Moody]

 Andrew Moody wrote:
    But my point is that "masculine" doesn't seem to be a theological category - Adam is just the human and his maleness as such is irrelevant* until Eve is taken from him and for him - whereafter he is still "the human" though "male" serves to mark that he is the original human as opposed to the woman who now subsists in/from/with his humanity.

I think this is very problematic since it seems to suggest that Eve subsists from Adam's original and true humanity. This is very dangerous territory and needs to be extremely carefully delineated to avoid sounding like Eve is subhuman.


Thanks Jenny. Sharp observations. I agree it does have to be clearly delineated!
I hasten to add the point I made to Hannah on the other thread that this does not simply apply to Eve; I am arguing that there is no other kind of humanity except that which subsists in Adam.
Otherwise each generation would be a new species and there would be no reason why the promises made to the patriarchs would apply to their offspring.
Sons subsist in Adam's humanity one way; Eve in another.

Does this derivation imply inequality? Yes and no.
Adam as the source of our humanity stands in an asymmetric relation to us - he affects me in a way I can't affect him. But if I didn't fully share in his humanity I wouldn't be a real human nor a son of Adam.
And if Eve didn't truly participate in Adam's nature she would not be a suitable partner for him.

Of course we are hard up against major Trinitarian and Christological concepts now. The eternal Son is fully God (and true Son) because he fully shares the Father's nature. Jesus and his bride fully share the same humanity such that we can be one.

Its allllll coming together as Jonathan Edwards would have said.

[Andrew Bowles]

Jereth, I don't think the problem is the terminology, it is what it refers to. Maleness and femaleness are defined in biological terms. You can know whether someone is a male, to put it simply, by looking between their legs. You obviously can't apply that to God! So if we want to talk about gender in God, we have to abstract qualities that we associate with males and females and attempt to see how they might relate to the Trinity. That is when we start talking about concepts like source, originator, receptor, nurturer, etc. The problem is that those categories are only masculine and feminine in a typological sense. In actual men and women, they are present in varying degrees in both sexes. Many men have strongly nurturing and receptive characters without ceasing to be males (look between the legs!). So gender is actually a different category of thought than biological sex. And God, who is full and complete in all things, will express perfectly all of the qualities associated with different genders. So to complete the conceptual circle, when we speak of the roles of gender, we are not speaking of the actions of a particular sex, but the action of the 'male and female', men and women together expressing the fulness of God's image and his 'gendered' qualities. So then it becomes unimportant what the sex is of the person who expresses the action of a particular 'gender', as long as all the fulness of God is being expressed.

I don't know if that made sense, but it's the kind of thing I'm looking for.

[Jereth]

Andrew,

I think I can basically agree with you. When we are talking about Adam and Eve, and submission in marriage (Eph 5) and male leadership in churches (1 cor 11, 1 Tim 2), this is essentially a question of maleness and femaleness (in the look between the legs kind of way), not of masculinity and femininity (abstract qualities). I have adjusted the opening post accordingly. At the same time, it is fairly obvious that there is a connection between masculinity and maleness, and between femininity and femaleness. We can't drive a wedge between biological sex and gender -- if that's what you're suggesting. I'm not sure what kind of twisted anthropology would emerge from that.

Hence, I disagree with you that "it becomes unimportant what the sex is of the person who expresses the action of a particular 'gender', as long as all the fulness of God is being expressed." You can't put 5 blokey men in a room with 5 effeminate men and think "they're fully expressing God's image". You'd be fooling yourself. (Perhaps this isn't what you are saying, and I've misunderstood you?) Both men and women (biologically speaking, and gender speaking) are required to fully image God -- I don't see how we can read Genesis 1:27 in any other way.

In all this we need to be careful we're still thinking in the right direction. It's easy to start thinking about male-like (masculine) and female-like (feminine) attributes of God, as if God is to be thought of in human terms. But we must keep in mind that we are made in God's image -- not vice versa. God the Father is archetypal Parent, and God the Son is archetypal Child. Whatever we are is a mere shadow of the divine original. this is why I had to use clumsy phrases like "that-aspect-of-God-to-which-maleness/femaleness-corresponds" rather than talking about "masculine bits of God" and "feminine bits of God".

What I've been trying very hard to communicate through this thread is: when God (Father, Son, Spirit) images himself in humanity, what emerges is 2 sexes: sex A and sex B. Sex A bears the same titles as the Trinity ("father", "son") while sex B bears titles that are clearly similar but not the same ("mother", "daughter"). And when it comes time for God to become Incarnate, he enters the body of sex A forever. What does this imply? Not that sex B is less like God than sex A, for this would contradict Genesis 1:27 which tells us that both sexes image God, and texts like Isaiah 66:13 and Luke 13:34 where feminine metaphors are used of the divine. What it does imply is that sex A has a certain kind of priority, something the Bible spells out as "headship"... and this "priority" or "headship" is a reflection or pattern of something within God himself. Within God himself there exists an assymmetry or differential between those qualities and attributes which are imaged in the male and those qualities and attributes which are imaged in the female.

The alternative reasoning, which I have seen worked out in several evangelical egalitarian books (which are promoted by the organisation Christians for Biblical Equality), is unpalatable. Perhaps I'll get to this later on in the discussion.

Jereth

[Jereth]

I think I had better finish what I started here.

For the benefit of MASGers following this thread, I would like to outline the way that prominent evangelical egalitarian authors deal with God’s “Father”-hood, “Son”-ship and Jesus’ manhood. I am drawing together several sources here which include Discovering Biblical Equality (a 2004 compendium of evangelical egalitarian thought), the IVP Women’s Bible Commentary (2002), Stanley Grenz, Rebecca Groothuis, Mary Evans and Paul King Jewett. I also have access to quotes from Catherine Kroeger and Ruth Tucker via Wayne Grudem.

Sin and Patriarchy
An almost universal egalitarian position is that “Patriarchy” (meaning male headship in the family, church and society) is a consequence of sin and was absent prior to the Fall. Every instance of “patriarchy” in scripture, from the male-only Levitical priesthood to the non-gender inclusive language of the biblical authors (eg. “man” for  “humankind”, “brothers” for  “brothers and sisters”)  results from the post-Fall degeneration. This is important for what follows.

“Father” and “Son” are metaphors only
In ancient patriarchal cultures, the man ruled the family, provided for it and protected it. Therefore, when the biblical writers – existing as they did in a patriarchal culture – reflected on God as a ruler, provider and protector, it was natural for them to liken him to a father. “Father”, then, is not a name which defines who God is, but a metaphor describing what God is like -- in the understanding of a patriarchal culture. A similar argument is used for “Son”.

Groothuis wrote:

In biblical times, “Father” was a more apt description for God than “Mother” … primarily because fatherhood presented a picture of God as a person with power and authority—which, in ancient patriarchal societies, was possessed almost exclusively by men…
…
“Father” is a divinely inspired description of God, a central term used by God in revealing his character to his people. It cannot be dismissed as merely an androcentric invention of men who have sought to make God in their own masculine image. Neither, however, can we disregard the metaphorical element in this designation. “Father” is an important biblical metaphor for God, because fatherhood in many ways describes God’s relationship to his people… God is called our Father because God is like a father to us in the limited, metaphorical sense of filling many of the cultural roles of a father.

Grenz wrote:

 Repeatedly the biblical authors use male images and concepts to describe God. The most vital of these is the New Testament designation of God as Father… the word is merely the best image available for conveying a dimension of the divine reality that God wants us to understand… In a similar manner Son is also a metaphor.

Jewett wrote:

In the strongly patriarchal society of Israel, where the father was the head of the family and the son the heir of the family, it was only fitting that God should have disclosed himself primarily under the name of Father (Jer 31:9; Mal. 1:6); and should have said to him who came in his name, “Thou art my Son”

Jesus’ manhood for cultural reasons only
Again, the patriarchal culture of the ancient world is responsible for the Son’s incarnation as a man. Jesus became a man because he entered a patriarchal culture that would not have recognised a female lord and messiah. As such, his manhood is theologically meaningless – only his human-ness matters to theology.

Groothuis wrote:

For historical and cultural reasons, it was necessary that God be incarnated as a male human. But because God is neither male nor female and is imaged in woman and man equally, it was not theologically necessary for God Incarnate to be male.
…
There is no biblical warrant to impute theologically weighty implications to Jesus’ maleness… As Erickson points out, “Jesus’ maleness is accidental to his meaning as Christ…”
…
Scripture has much to say about Jesus, but of his maleness there is no commentary. It simply is not significant.

Discovering Biblical Equality wrote:

What was theologically significant in Jesus’ birth and life was not that God became male but that God became flesh (Jn 1:14)… In order to be a representative human being (albeit without sin), Jesus had to be either male or female. The choice could not have been based on God’s gender, for God is neither male nor female. Nor could the choice have been based on God’s preference, for God does not favor men over women. What, then, determined Jesus’ gender? The culture into which Jesus was born is the most likely possibility… The Messiah simply had to be a man. Although it probably was theologically possible to be otherwise, it was not culturally possible.

Jewett wrote:

The conclusion that God is equally like man and woman is simply the correlate of the truth we have already espoused that men and women are equally like God, since he created humankind in his image as male and female. When one perceives the truth of these complementary affirmations, it becomes difficult to accept the position that there is some mysterious reason “in the nature of things” that requires that the Incarnation should take the form that it did. …God’s Incarnation in the form of male humanity is theologically indifferent.

We are not suggesting, however, that it was historically and culturally indifferent. Though God himself transcends all distinction between male and female… it is not difficult, given the character of Jewish culture, to perceive why God chose to enter our world as a first century Jew rather than a first-century Jewess.
…
But all of this is simply to admit, in the last analysis, that there is no ultimate reason, either
in the nature of the divine Creator or the human creature, but only in the nature of the
historical situation, that both men and women should commit themselves to a man for their
salvation.

Implications…
What this all means is that God’s “Father”-hood and Jesus’ man-hood are actually by-products of ancient patriarchal culture. This is because “Father” is a metaphor, just like Judge, Shepherd and Redeemer, and it is a metaphor that emerged from and made sense in a patriarchal era. Similarly, Jesus’ incarnation as a man was for the sake of a patriarchal Jewish society.

But patriarchy was a fallen human institution that the church has (in the 20th century anyway) overcome through our greater understanding of Scripture and Paul’s ‘all one in Christ Jesus’ theology. We now realise that “Father” is only a culture-bound metaphor, not a statement or definition of who God is in him(?)self. This true, divine self is as much feminine as it is masculine, for males and females image God equally, and there is no such thing in egalitarian society as “male headship”.

As biblical egalitarians, we can therefore reconfigure the very way we speak and think about God:

IVP Women’s Bible Commentary wrote:

With its masculine analogies dominating church life, the Bible’s witness to the divine feminine… lay dormant until awakened by feminist scholars. Their gender consciousness activated, faith communities debate how to regard the Bible’s privileging of the divine masculine and whether feminine and masculine analogies may be used in an equivalent way.
…
Those who view the Bible’s privileging of the divine masculine as nonnormative advocate using feminine and masculine in equivalent ways. For them, the biblical pattern reflects God’s accommodation to ancient patriarchal culture, in which the masculine was used to dignify and elevate… This approach transcends patriarchal constructions of gender.
…
Despite disagreement over form and frequency, those who seek to include the divine feminine in the church’s discourse acknowledge one or more of three benefits. Feminine analogies clarify who God is by enriching the church’s vocabulary, as well as clarifying who God is not by countering idolatry that results from literalizing masculine analogies. These analogies help equalize gender relationships and validate the public ministry of women by challenging patriarchal gender constructions…

IVP Women’s Bible Commentary wrote:

The deeply personal nature of the triune God reinforces the use of the biblically warranted names of Father, Son and Spirit, and challenges the exclusive use of impersonal terms… that fail to convey the relational glory of the Trinity. However, the self-accommodation of God to the names Father, Son and Spirit must be informed by God’s self-revelation and thus not reduced to human notions of individuation or sexuality. For a redeemed understanding of these terms they must be filled and transformed through the revelatory reconfiguring of them in Christ…

Footnote: There is also biblical and theological justification for arguing that God’s self revelation includes warrant for maternal appellations.

IVP Women’s Bible Commentary wrote:

To Jesus’ mother and to the believer (the symbolic mother, the one who bears fruit for God), Jesus is also saying [in John 19:25-27], “Behold your Son—behold me on the cross.” He reinforces this by a command to the disciple, including the reader, to behold his new mother—also Jesus on the cross, about to shed his blood for the new birth of the world.
…
Jesus understood his death, its manner and its effect on the believer in this way (Jn 16:21-22)… The crucifixion is thus presented metaphorically as Jesus’ going away to give birth to God’s people. Like a woman in labor, he pours out his blood for the life of the world…

Grenz wrote:

The presence of both maternal and paternal metaphors in the Bible has sparked the use of such imagery in evangelical devotional literature. Hannah Whitall Smith, for example, writes, “God is not only father. He is mother as well, and we have all of us known mothers… And it is very certain that the God who created them both, and who is Himself father and mother in one, could never have created earthly fathers and mothers who were more tender and more loving than He is Himself.”

Tucker wrote:

 We sing the words of John W. Petersen in worshipful praise, “Shepherd of love, you knew I had lost my way….” Would it be worse, or blasphemous, to sing something like “Mother of love…”? Both are figures of speech. But because of our fear of taking on the trappings of radical feminism or goddess worship, we dare not sing those words—except perhaps in our closets of prayer.

Kroeger wrote:

So far we have referred to God as “He” and “Him” because most of us are used to employing these terms when we think of the Holy One… This is to ignore what the Bible has to say, for God is pictured as both male and female…
...
God’s likeness to a mother is an important aspect of the divine nature. Can Christians neglect any aspect of God’s being as it is revealed in Scripture? There is good biblical reason, then, to speak of God as both Father and Mother, both “she” and “he”.

[Jereth]

Okay folks, so you can see that there are 2 ways of coming at this issue of “maleness, femaleness and the image of God.” One argument begins with God’s Fatherhood/Sonship as starting point (where “Father” and “Son” are unchangeable absolutes, part of the divine Name, cf. Matt 28:19) and moves downwards to see how this works out in humanity when God ‘images’ himself – the product is 2 sexes, one in headship over the other.

The second argument begins with an egalitarian humanity (distorted by sin into patriarchy) as starting point and works upwards to see what God looks like when we’ve erased the influence of culture on the way that He(/She/It) is revealed in Scripture and the incarnation. The result is no longer Father and Son (these are only metaphors) but an undefined, nameless neuter that can be likened equally to both a human father and mother, and that we can therefore legitimately call Father and Mother.

I will hasten to add that not all egalitarians (including hopefully all the egalitarians participating here in this forum) will follow through with this latter reasoning. However I perceive the line of thought pursued by Groothuis, Grenz, et al as pretty much inevitable once you adopt an egalitarian frame of reference, and so I am deeply concerned. It also troubles me that this novel theology is flowing from the likes of CBE, that is, from evangelicals. Please think prayerfully on these things, and if anyone can show that I am in error in any my own reasoning, please do so.

I rest my case!

In Christ,
Jereth

[Jason]

Hi Jenny,

I think some of the criticism of Andrew M's post could be the result of the terminology of "subsists in/with" and "original".

I'm pretty sure that Andrew M means "first" (in order of creation) by his use of "original", rather than "true"  (which you've used as an addition to/explanation of his words). But you're right it's not clear.

And it would be worthwhile if Andrew M could give us a definition of "subsists in/with", because it's one of those theological terms that seems to mean something profound, but the more I think about it, the less I think I know what it means.

[Jason]

Andrew Moody wrote:

Sons subsist in Adam's humanity one way; Eve in another.

Does this derivation imply inequality? Yes and no.

I don't think it's a question of inequality, unless we make "inequality" to mean "sub-humanity". It seems to me that sub-human is a very different beast from "inequality". Each of us is "not equal" to each other in a whole range of functional and personal ways. E.g., Einstein was a genius, I'm not. Does that make Einstein more human because of his superior brain capacity? I think this is where we must be careful, lest we make mentally disabled folk or terminally ill folk "sub-human" by assessing their humanity on (e)quality of life terms.

Andrew 'Trinity' Moody wrote:

 Adam as the source of our humanity stands in an asymmetric relation to us - he affects me in a way I can't affect him. But if I didn't fully share in his humanity I wouldn't be a real human nor a son of Adam.
And if Eve didn't truly participate in Adam's nature she would not be a suitable partner for him.

Of course we are hard up against major Trinitarian and Christological concepts now. The eternal Son is fully God (and true Son) because he fully shares the Father's nature. Jesus and his bride fully share the same humanity such that we can be one.

Its allllll coming together as Jonathan Edwards would have said.

So the Father is the source of the Son's eternal divinity (think "eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made" of the Nicene Creed)? (Not as well phrased as I would have liked, but hopefully you get my question).


How, then, does the idea of 'being-in-communion' affect the way we understand how we are made in the image of God? That is, if God's being is constituted by the communion and mutual-indwelling of the three persons of the Trinity, then how might our being be constituted by the "being-in-communion" of Adam and Eve?

It's all got rather heady very quickly...apologies.

J.
 

[Jenny George]

Jereth wrote:

What I've been trying very hard to communicate through this thread is: when God (Father, Son, Spirit) images himself in humanity, what emerges is 2 sexes: sex A and sex B. Sex A bears the same titles as the Trinity ("father", "son") while sex B bears titles that are clearly similar but not the same ("mother", "daughter"). And when it comes time for God to become Incarnate, he enters the body of sex A forever. What does this imply? Not that sex B is less like God than sex A, for this would contradict Genesis 1:27 which tells us that both sexes image God, and texts like Isaiah 66:13 and Luke 13:34 where feminine metaphors are used of the divine. What it does imply is that sex A has a certain kind of priority, something the Bible spells out as "headship"... and this "priority" or "headship" is a reflection or pattern of something within God himself. Within God himself there exists an assymmetry or differential between those qualities and attributes which are imaged in the male and those qualities and attributes which are imaged in the female.

and earlier

Jereth wrote:

I can only conclude that within God, that-aspect-of-God-to-which-human-maleness-corresponds comes first, and that-aspect-of-God-to-which-human-femaleness-corresponds comes second. (NB. I have thought for days about how I can phrase this better; I’m pretty sure this is the best way to put it.)

and also

Jereth wrote:

All I would say is that the order of human creation as complementarians understand it (where man is the head of woman) reflects something of the order within God himself (as I've outlined at the beginning of this thread), and in light of Scriptural commands should be lived out in marriage and the church.

As I read this I can't help but be concerned that you are going down a path that is not necessarily coming from the Bible and might not be consistent with orthodox understandings about God.

First, I can't find anywhere in the Bible that the language of "image" is used with a distinction being made between male and female. On the contrary, the times we see the image of God being spoken of we see that male and female are
1. both affirmed as being in the image of God, and
2. both treated as somehow in the image of God in the same way because they are both spoken of (when the image of God is being discussed) under the same name.

Genesis 5 seems to me to be particularly clear on this.

Genesis 5 wrote:

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

 
Both men and women are, together, called "Adam" and they - the Adam that is the human race - are created in the likeness of God. There is nowhere that we get even a hint that there is some part of God that corresponds to maleness that is imaged in Adam and some part of God that corresponds to femaleness that is imaged in Eve. That's (tempting) speculation but I don't see it coming out of the Bible passages.

Of course speculations have been made on little Biblical evidence in the past so it's possible to do that, and interesting and so on. But the additional problems you run into with this particular speculation is that it profoundly threatens the notion of the indivisability/unity of God. This doctrine is often called the simplicity of God. It's been around for a long time and was formulated well before the Reformation but affirmed by the reformers as well.

If orthodox theology is right, then you can't talk about God having parts that can be divided up or that there is "order" or distinct (and different) aspects within God. We are given a hint of relationships that exist within God as the Persons of the Trinity but the church has always been quick to defend the unity of God and to reject ideas that God can be divided up.

It's been fascinating for me to research some of this - let me show you a little bit of what I found through a quick web search.

Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica wrote:

Article 7. Whether God is altogether simple?

Objection 1. It seems that God is not altogether simple. For whatever is from God must imitate Him. Thus from the first being are all beings; and from the first good is all good. But in the things which God has made, nothing is altogether simple. Therefore neither is God altogether simple.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is best must be attributed to God. But with us that which is composite is better than that which is simple; thus, chemical compounds are better than simple elements, and animals than the parts that compose them. Therefore it cannot be said that God is altogether simple.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 6,7): "God is truly and absolutely simple."

I answer that, The absolute simplicity of God may be shown in many ways.

First, from the previous articles of this question. For there is neither composition of quantitative parts in God, since He is not a body; nor composition of matter and form; nor does His nature differ from His "suppositum"; nor His essence from His existence; neither is there in Him composition of genus and difference, nor of subject and accident. Therefore, it is clear that God is nowise composite, but is altogether simple.

Secondly, because every composite is posterior to its component parts, and is dependent on them; but God is the first being, as shown above (Question 2, Article 3).

Thirdly, because every composite has a cause, for things in themselves different cannot unite unless something causes them to unite. But God is uncaused, as shown above (Question 2, Article 3), since He is the first efficient cause.

Fourthly, because in every composite there must be potentiality and actuality; but this does not apply to God; for either one of the parts actuates another, or at least all the parts are potential to the whole.

Fifthly, because nothing composite can be predicated of any single one of its parts. And this is evident in a whole made up of dissimilar parts; for no part of a man is a man, nor any of the parts of the foot, a foot. But in wholes made up of similar parts, although something which is predicated of the whole may be predicated of a part (as a part of the air is air, and a part of water, water), nevertheless certain things are predicable of the whole which cannot be predicated of any of the parts; for instance, if the whole volume of water is two cubits, no part of it can be two cubits. Thus in every composite there is something which is not it itself. But, even if this could be said of whatever has a form, viz. that it has something which is not it itself, as in a white object there is something which does not belong to the essence of white; nevertheless in the form itself, there is nothing besides itself. And so, since God is absolute form, or rather absolute being, He can be in no way composite. Hilary implies this argument, when he says (De Trin. vii): "God, Who is strength, is not made up of things that are weak; nor is He Who is light, composed of things that are dim."

Reply to Objection 1. Whatever is from God imitates Him, as caused things imitate the first cause. But it is of the essence of a thing to be in some sort composite; because at least its existence differs from its essence, as will be shown hereafter, (4, 3).

Reply to Objection 2. With us composite things are better than simple things, because the perfections of created goodness cannot be found in one simple thing, but in many things. But the perfection of divine goodness is found in one simple thing (4, 1 and 6, 2).

and another one:

Carl Trueman in a book about John Owen, a seventeenth century Reformed theologian wrote:

Owen draws four conclusions from his doctrine of divine simplicity. First, God has absolute ontological priority over everything else and enjoys total independence. Second, God is absolutely and perfectly one and the same; his essence is what it is and contains nothing that is accidental to it or which differs from it. Third, all his attributes enjoy perfect oneness and unity in God, since all attributes are infinitely perfect and thus essentially identical with the being of God. Fourth, God contains no potency to be other than that which he is; he is perfect and self-existent and can never be any different.

and finally:

Calvin in the Institutes I.13.2 wrote:

When the Apostle calls the Son of God "the express image of his person," (Heb. 1: 3,) he undoubtedly does assign to the Father some subsistence in which he differs from the Son. For to hold with some interpreters that the term is equivalent to essence, (as if Christ represented the substance of the Father like the impression of a seal upon wax,) were not only harsh but absurd. For the essence of God being simple and undivided, and contained in himself entire, in full perfection, without partition or diminution, it is improper,nay, ridiculous, to call it his express image, (charaktes.)

So, in summary, this is saying that it is not possible to talk about different aspects of God that can be divided up. That means that we cannot say that men are in the image of a part of God and women are in the image of a different part of God. In any case we'd run into problems with that because it implies that neither sex is fully in the image of God and that's not what the Bible says.

Jereth - I understand the problems you have with the egalitarian authors you have quoted later in the thread. I, too, don't like seeing words like "Father" and "Son" set aside casually. I think we have to be a lot more careful than that. (It seems to be the IVP Women's commentary that's the main offender there, not so much the others you quoted.) But I think it might be worth re-looking at some of the arguments you've been putting forward and modifying them just to make sure that you're not running foul of orthodox doctrines about God.

[Jereth]

Thanks Jenny for your comments and research, and those quotes about the unity/simplicity of God.

I do affirm, as you do, that God is a unity -- "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" Deut 6.

If you look back over what I wrote, you'll notice that I was very careful with my language that I did not speak about "parts" of God that can be separated. I thought "aspects" would be legit terminology, but perhaps to you this still sounds like I'm trying to partition up God. I am comfortable talking about different "qualities" or "attributes" within the perfect indivisibility of God -- I don't think that violates the witness of scripture or tradition.

Scripture presents God as a multifaceted being -- he is just and yet merciful; powerful and yet tender; transcendent and yet intimate; sovereign and eternal in his decrees, yet willing to relent; fiercely jealous and yet willing to entrust his reputation to mortals; ruler and yet servant; three and yet one. All these and many other revealed attributes together make up his Glory -- which, as Aquinas and Calvin affirm, is a unity in essence.

I still think we have to live with the fact that, while God is revealed as having both the "fatherly" qualities of leader/ruler/authority and "motherly" qualities of nurture/tender care, his Name is Father. This must mean that the former qualities have a priority over the latter, or else Father alone would be an inappropriate Name and the CBE authors would be correct in the "father-mother-God" direction they are seeking to take the church.

I realise that a fault with my previous posts was giving the impression that the way God is imaged in 2 sexes is something that can be explained simplistically or "mathematically". Let me balance that now by affirming that there is a genuine mystery in how Imago Dei works; yet it is undeniable (I believe) from Scripture -- Genesis 1-2, 5:1ff., 1 Cor 11, etc. -- that male headship comes together with the image.

Jereth

[Andrew Moody]

Woah, there is a LOT to talk about here.

Jereth wrote :What I've been trying very hard to communicate through this thread is: when God (Father, Son, Spirit) images himself in humanity, what emerges is 2 sexes: sex A and sex B. Sex A bears the same titles as the Trinity ("father", "son") while sex B bears titles that are clearly similar but not the same ("mother", "daughter"). And when it comes time for God to become Incarnate, he enters the body of sex A forever.

...All I would say is that the order of human creation as complementarians understand it (where man is the head of woman) reflects something of the order within God himself (as I've outlined at the beginning of this thread), and in light of Scriptural commands should be lived out in marriage and the church.

Hi Jereth,
I like a what of what you say above; fascinating quotes; a really valuable observation on the difference between egal and comp use of God-language†. But I really want to issue a cautionary note about treating the relationship between the and the Father-Son as the archetype for marriage. The Son is not the Father's "wife" as if he completed him (as Eve completes Adam), rather he is the Father's "Son" - a continuation and reiteration of the Father. We are talking different styles of subsistence here* and the most proper translation of divine Father/Son relationship in the created realm is (i) human fatherhood (ii) human participation/adoption in the sonship and imagehood of Christ (not necessarily in that order). Meanwhile the right place to be looking for the archetype of sexuality is not the Father and Son but Christ and the church.

Now this is not to say there is no overlap at all. I think it is clear that the Father's ontological priority as source of the Son entails some kind of relational priority/initiative as evidenced by his making the Son heir (Heb 1) and sending him (um, John's gospel) etc. that is similar to the pattern of priority seen in Christ's relationship to his bride and its type - husbands and wives. And these divine deployments of authority (for want of a better word) show us how authority is supposed to be used – Christ lays down his life; the Father makes a world that will glorify his Son.

This brings us to:

Jason wrote :How, then, does the idea of 'being-in-communion' affect the way we understand how we are made in the image of God? That is, if God's being is constituted by the communion and mutual-indwelling of the three persons of the Trinity, then how might our being be constituted by the "being-in-communion" of Adam and Eve?

This is really such a big and difficult question.

Firstly I again want to stress that I don't think the man-woman relationship is the type of Father and Son so much as it is a type of Christ and the church. Rather it is being human itself that partakes of the Father and Son relationship. The Son is the image of God and so are we by creation/redemption/adoption/sanctification. This sharing in the Son is what humanity ultimately means - which is why marriage ends (when its archetype appears) but the parousia reveals the children of God for what they are. We can think about this for a long time.

Nevertheless again there are some points of overlap in more general terms as I have already mentioned. Some of these are things you have no doubt heard before;
 
- Christianity shows why human existence is all about love because we are made to be like God who is internally relational.

- The other-person-centredness of the Trinity reveals the ultimate paradigm for all relationality which seeks its own good through the good of the other.

- The Trinity shows the right use of authority (see above).

And one pattern you might not have come across before is this:

Richard of St Victor observes that the perfection of love (he's talking about the Trinity) requires more than just two beings mutually gazing, giving and receiving. It needs to be generous. The lover must want the beloved to be loved even more - to be beloved by others. I think that is what we see in the Father's establishment of salvation history - God wanting to give his Son a bride who will cleave to him and see him for what he is.

And surely this is true for our human relationships too. The highest form of love wants to bring about more love and honour for the one we love whether it is our spouse (I feel this intensely when I am able to encourage my children to show love for their mum) or those to whom we minister or ...well whoever. This is a welcoming kind of love that comes straight out of the heartland of the triune God.

And I'll stop there to avoid rewriting my thesis.

Jenny wrote: If orthodox theology is right, then you can't talk about God having parts that can be divided up or that there is "order" or distinct (and different) aspects within God. We are given a hint of relationships that exist within God as the Persons of the Trinity but the church has always been quick to defend the unity of God and to reject ideas that God can be divided up.

Hooley Dooley.

Now this is what my thesis is about so of course I don't know where to begin.
First of all you will probably be encouraged by some of my objections to Jereth's form of the analogia and what I write to Jason about the typology of the imago.

But what about your comments about divine simplicity?

Firstly, you write of there being "hints of relationships" in between the persons of the Trinity and then offset this against the unity as if these ideas might be in competition. Well that might be arguable in the West from Augustine but at Nicaea and in the East the unity of God is established by the (primarily ontological) relationships that obtain between the Father and Son. The Son is God because he is God's Son.

Furthermore whatever view of simplicity you take (and it is a very difficult and debated topic - especially in Aquinas) you can't take it to mean that there is not also personal difference in the Godhead. Much more clearly orthodox than "simplicity" (at least in those terms) is the idea that Father and Son should be distinguished by their relations of origin. There is one divinity; but the Father is the source/arche/principium/fons of that divinity and the Son (as Son) is divine by being perfect participation in that divinity. This is why:

- Aquinas argues that it is more suitable for the Son to be sent and incarnate than the Father (see Summa 1.43 esp Articles 1 and 4 http://home.newadvent.org/summa/1043.htm)

- Calvin writes that in the opera ad extra always begin with the Father and are worked out through the Son and Spirit (Institutes 1.xiii. 18.)

- Owen says the same things as Calvin (but also develops translates it into the concept of an eternal "covenant of redemption" between the persons of the Trinity) See eg "Declaration of the Glorious Mystery of the Person of Jesus Christ" XVII (http://books.google.com/books?id=sNP4UF0AHbwC&pg=PA219) - more quotes here if you want them.

Your warning against dividing the Godhead is right, complementarians need to be very careful to avoid this. Can I also suggest that the converse dangers for egalitarians are modalism or obscurantism.
I think it would strengthen your case if you could answer my challenge below.†

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

† My general observation on this topic is that evangelical egalitarians have a very hard time assimilating the concept of difference into their theologies of either sexuality or Trinity. Evangelical egalitarians usually insist that they do believe in differences between men and women (or the Father and Son) but if you encourage them to show what these differences are you don't tend to get much. Is this too harsh, egalitarian brothers and sisters? If so feel free to prove me wrong by offering

-an aetiology and teleology of human sexuality (as we have been trying to do);
- a description of what "Father" and "Son" mean in the Trinity.


* Thanks to Jason's request for clarity here. "Original" is right - though that's true of Adam and Seth too. I can't do much more than retell the Adam and Eve story and set it against Gen 1:26. Yes, both male and female are created in God's image but, within their relationship, her humanity arises out of his - she is taken out of him and completes him by returning to him. So in some way this is a partitive depiction of humanity; the man is the "original human" but he is incomplete. The woman shares in this true humanity - she comes from him - but is also the missing part of his humanity so that only together are they complete humanity. Any clearer?

[Jenny George]

Jereth wrote:

If you look back over what I wrote, you'll notice that I was very careful with my language that I did not speak about "parts" of God that can be separated. I thought "aspects" would be legit terminology, but perhaps to you this still sounds like I'm trying to partition up God. I am comfortable talking about different "qualities" or "attributes" within the perfect indivisibility of God -- I don't think that violates the witness of scripture or tradition.

Actually "attributes" is exactly the terminology usually used in the doctrine of the simplicity of God to affirm that God is his attributes and that you can't divide up different attributes. God is all of his attributes at the same time.

Jereth wrote:

Scripture presents God as a multifaceted being -- he is just and yet merciful; powerful and yet tender; transcendent and yet intimate; sovereign and eternal in his decrees, yet willing to relent; fiercely jealous and yet willing to entrust his reputation to mortals; ruler and yet servant; three and yet one. All these and many other revealed attributes together make up his Glory -- which, as Aquinas and Calvin affirm, is a unity in essence.

Yes but I personally wouldn't use the word "yet" in the first sentence at all (for me anyway it has a tendency to tempt me to break down the simplicity of God). So I would say: God is just and merciful. God is powerful and tender. God is transcendent and intimate. God is sovereign and eternal and willing to relent. etc.

Jereth wrote:

I still think we have to live with the fact that, while God is revealed as having both the "fatherly" qualities of leader/ruler/authority and "motherly" qualities of nurture/tender care, his Name is Father. This must mean that the former qualities have a priority over the latter, or else Father alone would be an inappropriate Name and the CBE authors would be correct in the "father-mother-God" direction they are seeking to take the church.

And here's where I think you wander into realms of speculation and away from the Bible. God is revealed as having the qualities of leader/ruler/authority and nurture/tender care. And God is named Father in the Bible. There are at least two possible inferences from this (probably many more but at least two very different ones).

(1) leader/ruler is fatherly and nurture/tender care is motherly and since God is called "Father" the leader/ruler qualities in God must have higher priority than the former. This is the inference you've drawn.
(2) both leader/ruler and nurture/tender care are attributes that can be encompassed in the name "Father".

The problem with inference (1) is that it uses gender stereotyping on a wide scale (why is motherhood about tender care while somehow fatherhood is not?). It also does what you have rightly censured in the other quotes you gave which is that it theorises from observations about humanity (in this case motherhood and fatherhood) to draw conclusions about what God must be like, instead of taking what God has revealed about himself and using that to understand humanity (in this case, what a full understanding of fatherhood might look like). Finally this approach also talks about some attributes of God having priority over other attributes: a position that clearly threatens the simplicity of God since that doctrine says that God is indivisable from his attributes. God is his attributes and so how can he be more one of them than another?

On the other hand, inference (2) can be drawn from the passages of the Bible without resorting to other explanations.

Jereth wrote:

I realise that a fault with my previous posts was giving the impression that the way God is imaged in 2 sexes is something that can be explained simplistically or "mathematically". Let me balance that now by affirming that there is a genuine mystery in how Imago Dei works; yet it is undeniable (I believe) from Scripture -- Genesis 1-2, 5:1ff., 1 Cor 11, etc. -- that male headship comes together with the image.

Well I guess I am denying it

Male headship is not in the Genesis texts about the image of God. The image of God is not in the texts about headship. There is no textual link that I can see. Nor does it seem necessary from a systematic theology standpoint to link the two. The idea of priority within God that corresponds to maleness and femaleness is not needed as a basis for headship. I think you can come up with a better basis for headship than that without having to assume relatively novel things about the nature of God to do it.