Gender Theology
....work in progress....
The main issue in gender theology is the place of women. I will cut to the chase on this subject; I do not believe that in the Kingdom of God there is a ranking system based on physical anatomy. Who is brave enough to declare that our physical bodies will determine any kind of honour system in the Kingdom of God? I would love to read your comments if you have a solid argument that in the Kingdom of God there will be a ranking system on our physical anatomy. I think the bible is pretty clear that there is a kind of ranking that goes on at least in someway. For example the New Testament writers Paul and James talk about receiving crowns (2 Tim 2:5, 4:8; Jas 1:12). The writer of Hebrews talks about Jesus being ranked at different levels of ranking with crowns (Heb 2:7, 9). Paul seems to suggest that "on the Day" some will pass the 'fire test' as some one who only escapes the flames (1 Cor 3:12-15). This passage talks about each person getting their reward. Since rewards are expressed in crowns and crowns represent positions of authority I have made the conclusion that there is a ranking system in the Kingdom of God. This ranking system is not based on physical anatomy. If your fervently disagree that there is a ranking system in the Kingdom of God then that is fine with me. In fact, it supports my premise in this discussion that there is no ranking system based on physical anatomy if you do not believe in any ranking system at all.
Dominion implies rulership. God is giving Adam a role, the role of ruling. Now if you choose that Adam is the man, then it stands to reason that you would would make a point that the establishment of the physical male rule of man can be made from this statement. However, to make that point you would have to say that the 'God inspired' Moses writing the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) has made some grammatical errors which have been discussed above. However, if you choose to see it that way, then keep reading because you can ignore one piece of evidence but can all the evidence presented together be ignored. Personally, I think the easiest explanation is that God is referring to the most logical 'them' presented in 'humankind' - man and women.
If you have chosen to understand the Gen 1:26 'Adam' as 'humankind' then you have to accept that dominion or rulership is given co-jointly. There would be no hierarchy or rank here. Those of you who fervently seek 'first mention' interpretation should take note of this in the first mention of 'Adam'. Humankind, that is, men and women, are to rule together. Let me illustrate the impact of culture and belief on interpretation. If I was to read Gen 1:26 from the point of view of a culture that believed that women were inferior to men then I would need to say that Adam, the man, is given dominion before the women even existed. Most of us rarely consider the effect our beliefs and culture have put on our interpretation of the Bible. Later, I will discuss some of the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians that have been interpreted such a bias. Again, the simplest way to read the mention of Adam in Gen 1:26 seems to be that God is talking about humankind and therefore implies a co-rulership without hierarchy or rank.
I will now move away from the simple, although I would argue that the only reason this idea is not simple is because it is not currently the predominate belief of Christians. I mentioned that in Gen 1:26 that male and female may have co-existed. I made the link between the language that God, a being in co-existence with Himself known as the Trinity, uses about Himself is similar to the language that He uses about Adam. That is, he talks about Adam in the plural (as mentioned above). Interestingly, the bible does this a few time in Genesis. In the following verses God talks about Himself in the plural. I have said that God co-exists with himself. Perhaps, theologically speaking, 'co-existence' is a crude way to describe what theology calls 'hypostasis'. I am going to argue that for some time Adam was also in hypostasis with himself as male and female. If you think about it, this fits with Adam being made 'in the image of God'.
I first heard an american preacher teach on this. While I loved the preacher, he is not a theologian so I first took it with a 'bag-of-salt' and thought it was an interesting but not very important point. Then, I was in Israel and was invited to share a Sabbath meal with an orthodox Jewish friend of friend. I was fascinated and amazed when he shared (as part of a very prolonged discussion) that only Christians believed in the 'rib-taking' creation of Eve (female) from Adam (male). He said that if we read our Bibles carefully, even our English versions, we would see that man and woman begin their existence as one being. That means that Adam was both male and female. There has been some debate in Jewish circles about whether they had physical parts of both. However, for this discussion, I think the anatomy of Adam is not important. Since then I found more theologians who say the same thing - I found it fascinating. Let me show you what it says in Gen 2 in the famous verses where a 'rib' is taken from Adam the male and a female is created.
Genesis 2:20-25, remember the possible translations of Adam, the man or human beings, as you read this:
It appears that it is possible that male and female co-existed as Adam. My Jewish friend said that God ripped Adam apart and then the one become two. If you read these verses this makes sense. Lets go on to see if there is consistency in this idea. In consistency to co-rulership that I believe makes sense in Gen 1:26 in Gen 2:20 there is a picture of Adam, as male and female, co-ruling by giving names to all the animals. I am going to come back to the helper idea below. Now, look at Adam's prophecy; "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh", it certainly appears that Adam understood that more than just a single rib is taken from his side. It is consistent with the idea that Adam was ripped in half. Then Adam reinforces this idea by stating, "they shall become one flesh". Adam recognises that the two come together to become one (not two). This is a very homostasis like concept. Two that are one is like the Trinity where three are one. Here Adam prophesies, that is he speaks into being, the concept that a man and woman will leave there parents to be united as husband and wife and they shall be one flesh.
An important point that I will pick up on when we discuss Genesis 3 is that Adam is still the name of both parts or at least that Eve is not called Eve in Genesis 2. In fact, in Gen 2:23 the names in the Hebrew are ish and ishah which are translated to the English man and woman. These terms are considered very difficult to interpret and generally seemed to be used in Hebrew to express 'Husband' and 'Wife'. The idea of oneness that occurs between a husband and wife opposed to the less intimate translation of 'man' and 'woman' which does not have the suggestion of oneness. So, in verse 23, the point is not to show the male and female as separate but to show them in oneness as husband and wife. The two are still considered one but now Adam has a helper.
...to be continued... sorry if you read this to here and now you are hanging... come back in a few days and I would have done more....
Thanks, Daniel X. MacRae
The main issue in gender theology is the place of women. I will cut to the chase on this subject; I do not believe that in the Kingdom of God there is a ranking system based on physical anatomy. Who is brave enough to declare that our physical bodies will determine any kind of honour system in the Kingdom of God? I would love to read your comments if you have a solid argument that in the Kingdom of God there will be a ranking system on our physical anatomy. I think the bible is pretty clear that there is a kind of ranking that goes on at least in someway. For example the New Testament writers Paul and James talk about receiving crowns (2 Tim 2:5, 4:8; Jas 1:12). The writer of Hebrews talks about Jesus being ranked at different levels of ranking with crowns (Heb 2:7, 9). Paul seems to suggest that "on the Day" some will pass the 'fire test' as some one who only escapes the flames (1 Cor 3:12-15). This passage talks about each person getting their reward. Since rewards are expressed in crowns and crowns represent positions of authority I have made the conclusion that there is a ranking system in the Kingdom of God. This ranking system is not based on physical anatomy. If your fervently disagree that there is a ranking system in the Kingdom of God then that is fine with me. In fact, it supports my premise in this discussion that there is no ranking system based on physical anatomy if you do not believe in any ranking system at all.
The Creation - Genesis
While some theologians, pastors and scholars may believe in the 'Principle of First Mention' fervently; I think the principle if a significantly useful tool for exegesis and bible study, I do not hold it very very tightly. However, let us look at what kind of Gender Theology can be found in Genesis and if you hold very fervently to the meaning of first mentions you might be surprised about a few things here. I was!
The first important thing we need to know is the meaning of the Hebrew word 'Adam' (אדם). Contrary to popular belief that Adam means man it also has the greater meaning of human being or mankind. This means that when we interpret the Bible (or even read it in Hebrew) we have to make a choice about whether the word should be understood as 'man' or as 'mankind / human being'. We experience the same issue in English. Many universities have asked for the word 'mankind' to be replaced with 'human beings' on account that mankind has themes of male dominant society that is being rejected in modern societies. I think this is an important point. The Hebrew writers of the Bible, in the case of Genesis, Moses, did not have our cultural emphasis and used man in the same way my grandfather would have, often to include the women. This just inter-generational interpretation issues let alone the language and culture interpretation issues. So, not to digress to far on the subject of interpretation, Adam could mean human beings or a man. Interpreters of the bible and the readers (you) have the job to decide from the context what fits.
Genesis 1 - Adam
The first mention of 'Adam' is in Genesis 1:26:
And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. (NIV).
ויאמר אלהים נעשׂה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו וירדו בדגת הים ובעוף השׁמים ובבהמה ובכל־הארץ ובכל־הרמשׂ הרמשׂ על־הארץ׃ (Hebrew OT - Bold font for Adam added).
Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth." (Complete Jewish Bible).Providing a few translations for comparison and interest. Immediately, the choice of how to interpret 'Adam' becomes apparent. The JCB chooses 'humankind' while the NIV chooses man. Another interpretation choice also exists. I had read this verse many times but failed to really take in the some of the language being used. One can also see some interesting grammar being used when God, while discussing the subject of 'Adam', uses the plural tense to describe Adam. God says, "let them..." (emphasis added). We can see that God first uses the similar grammar to describe himself. God says, "Let Us....". Of course, those who read Hebrew actually do not have such a grammatical issue since the word for God used in this verse is Elohim (אלהים), the 'im' is the Hebrew plural marker just the 's' is in English. The singular word for God in Hebrew is Eloah (אלוה). Therefore, to a Hebrew reader, Gen 1:26 reads, "Then Gods said...". The implication in the Jewish faith is not that there is a pantheon of gods; Jews, of course, are strictly monotheistic, but that God is Supreme above all else. Like in English, Hebrew has the 'plural of Majesty', a Queen may speak about herself in plural. The famous English example is the Queen saying, "We are not amused!" While there is some debate about why Moses wrote like this it is generally accepted that Elohim implies that God is referring to Himself as the God of gods which is reflected in Deut 10:17 and to a lesser degree in Exod 12:12, 18:11. The Christian teaching implies that God is referring to His triune self, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (the Trinity).
Grammatically, God refers to Adam in the plural implying that human kind is the best translation. I think this is a very simple and consistent way to read this verse. However I would like to introduce another view and later expand on this view. In the context of gender theology, male and female was likely to have coexisted as one just as God coexists as one. Some people suggest to me that this idea is too far fetched and there is not evidence here that male and female were existing in the same body. There needs to be much more evidence of this. I will supply some more evidence, but first I must highlight one more point in this first mention of 'Adam'. That is, the first mention of Adam contains the idea that God has made him to have dominion over all the animals on Earth (without splitting hairs about actually scientific definitions from modern western biology).For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. Deut. 10:17
Dominion implies rulership. God is giving Adam a role, the role of ruling. Now if you choose that Adam is the man, then it stands to reason that you would would make a point that the establishment of the physical male rule of man can be made from this statement. However, to make that point you would have to say that the 'God inspired' Moses writing the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) has made some grammatical errors which have been discussed above. However, if you choose to see it that way, then keep reading because you can ignore one piece of evidence but can all the evidence presented together be ignored. Personally, I think the easiest explanation is that God is referring to the most logical 'them' presented in 'humankind' - man and women.
If you have chosen to understand the Gen 1:26 'Adam' as 'humankind' then you have to accept that dominion or rulership is given co-jointly. There would be no hierarchy or rank here. Those of you who fervently seek 'first mention' interpretation should take note of this in the first mention of 'Adam'. Humankind, that is, men and women, are to rule together. Let me illustrate the impact of culture and belief on interpretation. If I was to read Gen 1:26 from the point of view of a culture that believed that women were inferior to men then I would need to say that Adam, the man, is given dominion before the women even existed. Most of us rarely consider the effect our beliefs and culture have put on our interpretation of the Bible. Later, I will discuss some of the writings of Paul in 1 Corinthians that have been interpreted such a bias. Again, the simplest way to read the mention of Adam in Gen 1:26 seems to be that God is talking about humankind and therefore implies a co-rulership without hierarchy or rank.
Genesis 2 - Adam and Eve Hypostasis
I will now move away from the simple, although I would argue that the only reason this idea is not simple is because it is not currently the predominate belief of Christians. I mentioned that in Gen 1:26 that male and female may have co-existed. I made the link between the language that God, a being in co-existence with Himself known as the Trinity, uses about Himself is similar to the language that He uses about Adam. That is, he talks about Adam in the plural (as mentioned above). Interestingly, the bible does this a few time in Genesis. In the following verses God talks about Himself in the plural. I have said that God co-exists with himself. Perhaps, theologically speaking, 'co-existence' is a crude way to describe what theology calls 'hypostasis'. I am going to argue that for some time Adam was also in hypostasis with himself as male and female. If you think about it, this fits with Adam being made 'in the image of God'.
I first heard an american preacher teach on this. While I loved the preacher, he is not a theologian so I first took it with a 'bag-of-salt' and thought it was an interesting but not very important point. Then, I was in Israel and was invited to share a Sabbath meal with an orthodox Jewish friend of friend. I was fascinated and amazed when he shared (as part of a very prolonged discussion) that only Christians believed in the 'rib-taking' creation of Eve (female) from Adam (male). He said that if we read our Bibles carefully, even our English versions, we would see that man and woman begin their existence as one being. That means that Adam was both male and female. There has been some debate in Jewish circles about whether they had physical parts of both. However, for this discussion, I think the anatomy of Adam is not important. Since then I found more theologians who say the same thing - I found it fascinating. Let me show you what it says in Gen 2 in the famous verses where a 'rib' is taken from Adam the male and a female is created.
Genesis 2:20-25, remember the possible translations of Adam, the man or human beings, as you read this:
So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. (NIV)Remember that this verse is not originally written in English, its original is Hebrew. The interpreters had to make choices about what Moses is actually writing. They were dealing with generational, cultural and language interference as they decided what words in modern English best expressed what they believed Moses was trying to say. My bibles have a few comments about the translation issues they faced. Maybe you should check your bible and see if it has the same comments as my ones do. A study bible probably does, a few other, easy to read bibles may not. I am looking at my NIV Thomson Chain Reference Study Bible. The word ribs in verse 21 has a little 'c' beside it which means if I look down at the bottom of the page I find some notes beside a little 'c' there. This bible says in those notes, "Or took part of the man's side." The next mention of rib in verse 22 has the coment, "or part". So, if I take some of the translation choices we have already discussed about 'Adam' and 'rib' I can just as easily translate the verse as:
So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the part of the human beings side and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the human being, and he brought her to the human being.Now, let me be the first to admit that this does not prove the most common translation as incorrect. I am not saying that. I am presenting the way my orthodox Jewish friend reads this verse in Hebrew and how he translated to English. This was approximately what he said at his dinner table when trying to translate the verse directly from his Hebrew copy of the Torah to me in English. Is it a big deal? Not really, it doesn't change the message of the Bible. However, in the context of Gender Theology, it highlights our own prejudices when interpreting the Bible. We naturally interpret sections of the Bible to from our own culturally point of view. This does not mean that it is correct. Even more important to consider, it does not mean that we can easily understand a culture that is not our own. While I do mean that it is difficult (if not impossible) to accurately translate exactly what Moses meant in English there is a deeper misunderstanding. The Kingdom of God is not our country and it has cultural values and principles that are not natural for us. I think this is one such example where we read a verse with our own kingdom's (think national) values and principles instead of God's Kingdom values and principles.
It appears that it is possible that male and female co-existed as Adam. My Jewish friend said that God ripped Adam apart and then the one become two. If you read these verses this makes sense. Lets go on to see if there is consistency in this idea. In consistency to co-rulership that I believe makes sense in Gen 1:26 in Gen 2:20 there is a picture of Adam, as male and female, co-ruling by giving names to all the animals. I am going to come back to the helper idea below. Now, look at Adam's prophecy; "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh", it certainly appears that Adam understood that more than just a single rib is taken from his side. It is consistent with the idea that Adam was ripped in half. Then Adam reinforces this idea by stating, "they shall become one flesh". Adam recognises that the two come together to become one (not two). This is a very homostasis like concept. Two that are one is like the Trinity where three are one. Here Adam prophesies, that is he speaks into being, the concept that a man and woman will leave there parents to be united as husband and wife and they shall be one flesh.
An important point that I will pick up on when we discuss Genesis 3 is that Adam is still the name of both parts or at least that Eve is not called Eve in Genesis 2. In fact, in Gen 2:23 the names in the Hebrew are ish and ishah which are translated to the English man and woman. These terms are considered very difficult to interpret and generally seemed to be used in Hebrew to express 'Husband' and 'Wife'. The idea of oneness that occurs between a husband and wife opposed to the less intimate translation of 'man' and 'woman' which does not have the suggestion of oneness. So, in verse 23, the point is not to show the male and female as separate but to show them in oneness as husband and wife. The two are still considered one but now Adam has a helper.
Genesis 2 - The Helper
...to be continued... sorry if you read this to here and now you are hanging... come back in a few days and I would have done more....
Thanks, Daniel X. MacRae
Comments
Post a Comment