It’s so good to read Covenant theology WITHOUT the presupposition that men are superior humans and that God is a masculine being. As you wrote, it may change everything once reading through the lens of equality.
Yes, it makes a huge difference how we approach the text. If we approach Genesis 2 with "our lens verses" (listening and learning from you, Brian), which for me are the two great commandments, to love our triune Lord God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our minds, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, then I think that we find triune representation. If we approach Genesis 2 through the lens of monadic power and hierarchy, then we will find something very different. I see it as "love seeking understanding" vs. "power seeking understanding."
And by the way, even though I find your great-Uncle Meredith's anthropology troublesome, the foundational work he has done on redemptive history provides the framework for a better house (a better anthropology) which will be the impetus for greater love among us.
Very helpful as always! I appreciate you going back up to the "headwaters" of where some of these errors crept in and rightly calling for a new framework. I'm fully convinced that you are correct.
You've really got me thinking about the right ways to handle the munis triplex; is it a human (vs male) commission? Or is there perhaps a corresponding feminine munis triplex...
I also loved the line, "we make Adam a first Christ, instead of Christ the Second Adam." Very insightful. And I think there is a lot to be said about how theological structures that "miss" Eve as imago dei are very prone to "missing" the Holy Spirit as well!
I think that this current highly conceptual framework will have some major trickle down effects on the ways we do ecclesiology and church polity as well, so keep writing!
Yes, the office of king was introduced late in the theocracy, and the circumstances seemed to be rejection of God as king. And then you have Deborah who as judge could be said to have occupied a type of kingly-prophetic office. In others words, king and prophet could not be said to be exclusively gender-based. Only the priesthood could be said to be exclusively male, but then again, it is the priesthood that Christ fulfilled most explicitly in his earthly sojourn, becoming a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews is clear that the earthly Levitical priesthood devolved on him. And then in 1 Peter 2:9, Peter, an apostle, who could have tied his apostolic office to a theocratic office, rather calls God's corporate people a royal priesthood (king-priest), a holy nation, a people for his possession, to proclaim his praises (prophet). Christ bestows on his people, in union and communion with himself, the national privileges and offices that came before. It all devolves on Christ, who bestows the benefits and blessings to his church.
As always, so encouraging. Yes, it is highly conceptual, but at least the way my mind works, if by grace we happen upon the right framework, other things will fall into place. Many of us get impatient with the framework because we want to get right to ethics, but I think we cannot go wrong by spending time thinking in community about the new categories. If the framework is Representation of God, Son-Spirit (his glory), Sonship-city, I think that there will be rich rewards in just meditation. This life is so brief, and my prayer is that the benefits of seeing representation will be not only increased love of God and neighbor but fresh hope in the future that will be ours shortly. I do think that the primary ways Eve points to the spirit is her procession from Adam in Genesis 2, mirroring the personal procession of the Spirit from the Son (Gal 4:6, cf. John 15:26, Acts 2:33), and (2) representing the Spirit as the effulgence of the Son's glory. Paul seems to tie the Genesis 2 woman to this glory in 1 Cor. 11:7. Thanks again, John, for your encouragement.
This makes my thoughts clearer and more in line with yours. I appreciate your biblical studies, which reveal more of what was happening in the Garden. I'm not 100 percent sure I agree with you, but this post shows me I am closer, I think. I see why you say the female represents Heaven.
The Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son are intricately connected. The Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, brought the Father to earth in the conception of Jesus. I hold a belief, though it may lack concrete evidence, that the Holy Spirit carried Jesus back to the Father (Acts 2:9 suggests He was 'taken up '). This forms a sacred arch of unity--the Holy Spirit receives from the Father, conceives the Son, and bears the Son back to the Father. This unity brings heaven to earth, maintaining harmony with the Father and extending it into the church. This is the Kingdom, the Body of Christ, Heaven on earth, the goodness on earth, the Sabbath Rest.
The female in the Garden represents this sacred arch. The female proceeds from the male, receives from the male, conceives fruit (not children), and delivers that fruit in the form of Heaven on earth.
The male, as representative of the Father, gives himself fully to the female--the flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. The unity between them is the Heaven on earth, the Garden as it should be.
The goodness of the Father is brought forth by the actions of the Holy Spirit, sent from above, to establish the Kingdom on earth. The woman Mary brought forth the goodness of the Father in the form of her Son. It is woman who establishes the Kingdom--either concretely (Jesus) or abstractly--with the input of the man (or the Son of Man).
This can only be achieved if men are willing to give themselves completely. Keeping women apart as "other" cannot achieve the work of the Kingdom. Just as resistance to the Holy Spirit leads us astray, resistance to women's input also does so. Men and women cannot be divided and achieve the will of the Father.
As always, I am open to correction but hope I am on the right track.
Thanks, Sheila. Your last paragraph here is what is so often on my mind. The "othering" and distancing of our neighbor is not the way of the kingdom. All we have to do is look at Revelation 7:9 where we see the ingathering of Isaiah 2:2 and Micah 4:1-4. The entire canon turns us to this picture, our unity and diversity, reflecting his unity and diversity, tuning our hearts to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. And yes, Sheila, you are right, the trinitarian personal processions are so important in understanding ourselves in our unfolded diversity and enfolded unity. Thank you!
Sheila (and Anna), this last paragraph is exactly what I think I Peter 3:7 is referencing as it links the understanding and honoring of women to the effectiveness of the prayers of the husbands. That is clear scriptural evidence of the danger to the church of neglecting to value the wisdom of women. Genesis 1 and I Peter 3:7 have become my guiding stars in understanding how God sees women.
It’s so good to read Covenant theology WITHOUT the presupposition that men are superior humans and that God is a masculine being. As you wrote, it may change everything once reading through the lens of equality.
Yes, it makes a huge difference how we approach the text. If we approach Genesis 2 with "our lens verses" (listening and learning from you, Brian), which for me are the two great commandments, to love our triune Lord God with all our hearts, with all our souls, and with all our minds, and to love our neighbor as ourselves, then I think that we find triune representation. If we approach Genesis 2 through the lens of monadic power and hierarchy, then we will find something very different. I see it as "love seeking understanding" vs. "power seeking understanding."
And by the way, even though I find your great-Uncle Meredith's anthropology troublesome, the foundational work he has done on redemptive history provides the framework for a better house (a better anthropology) which will be the impetus for greater love among us.
Very helpful as always! I appreciate you going back up to the "headwaters" of where some of these errors crept in and rightly calling for a new framework. I'm fully convinced that you are correct.
You've really got me thinking about the right ways to handle the munis triplex; is it a human (vs male) commission? Or is there perhaps a corresponding feminine munis triplex...
I also loved the line, "we make Adam a first Christ, instead of Christ the Second Adam." Very insightful. And I think there is a lot to be said about how theological structures that "miss" Eve as imago dei are very prone to "missing" the Holy Spirit as well!
I think that this current highly conceptual framework will have some major trickle down effects on the ways we do ecclesiology and church polity as well, so keep writing!
Yes, the office of king was introduced late in the theocracy, and the circumstances seemed to be rejection of God as king. And then you have Deborah who as judge could be said to have occupied a type of kingly-prophetic office. In others words, king and prophet could not be said to be exclusively gender-based. Only the priesthood could be said to be exclusively male, but then again, it is the priesthood that Christ fulfilled most explicitly in his earthly sojourn, becoming a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews is clear that the earthly Levitical priesthood devolved on him. And then in 1 Peter 2:9, Peter, an apostle, who could have tied his apostolic office to a theocratic office, rather calls God's corporate people a royal priesthood (king-priest), a holy nation, a people for his possession, to proclaim his praises (prophet). Christ bestows on his people, in union and communion with himself, the national privileges and offices that came before. It all devolves on Christ, who bestows the benefits and blessings to his church.
As always, so encouraging. Yes, it is highly conceptual, but at least the way my mind works, if by grace we happen upon the right framework, other things will fall into place. Many of us get impatient with the framework because we want to get right to ethics, but I think we cannot go wrong by spending time thinking in community about the new categories. If the framework is Representation of God, Son-Spirit (his glory), Sonship-city, I think that there will be rich rewards in just meditation. This life is so brief, and my prayer is that the benefits of seeing representation will be not only increased love of God and neighbor but fresh hope in the future that will be ours shortly. I do think that the primary ways Eve points to the spirit is her procession from Adam in Genesis 2, mirroring the personal procession of the Spirit from the Son (Gal 4:6, cf. John 15:26, Acts 2:33), and (2) representing the Spirit as the effulgence of the Son's glory. Paul seems to tie the Genesis 2 woman to this glory in 1 Cor. 11:7. Thanks again, John, for your encouragement.
This makes my thoughts clearer and more in line with yours. I appreciate your biblical studies, which reveal more of what was happening in the Garden. I'm not 100 percent sure I agree with you, but this post shows me I am closer, I think. I see why you say the female represents Heaven.
The Father, the Holy Spirit, and the Son are intricately connected. The Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father, brought the Father to earth in the conception of Jesus. I hold a belief, though it may lack concrete evidence, that the Holy Spirit carried Jesus back to the Father (Acts 2:9 suggests He was 'taken up '). This forms a sacred arch of unity--the Holy Spirit receives from the Father, conceives the Son, and bears the Son back to the Father. This unity brings heaven to earth, maintaining harmony with the Father and extending it into the church. This is the Kingdom, the Body of Christ, Heaven on earth, the goodness on earth, the Sabbath Rest.
The female in the Garden represents this sacred arch. The female proceeds from the male, receives from the male, conceives fruit (not children), and delivers that fruit in the form of Heaven on earth.
The male, as representative of the Father, gives himself fully to the female--the flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. The unity between them is the Heaven on earth, the Garden as it should be.
The goodness of the Father is brought forth by the actions of the Holy Spirit, sent from above, to establish the Kingdom on earth. The woman Mary brought forth the goodness of the Father in the form of her Son. It is woman who establishes the Kingdom--either concretely (Jesus) or abstractly--with the input of the man (or the Son of Man).
This can only be achieved if men are willing to give themselves completely. Keeping women apart as "other" cannot achieve the work of the Kingdom. Just as resistance to the Holy Spirit leads us astray, resistance to women's input also does so. Men and women cannot be divided and achieve the will of the Father.
As always, I am open to correction but hope I am on the right track.
Thanks, Sheila. Your last paragraph here is what is so often on my mind. The "othering" and distancing of our neighbor is not the way of the kingdom. All we have to do is look at Revelation 7:9 where we see the ingathering of Isaiah 2:2 and Micah 4:1-4. The entire canon turns us to this picture, our unity and diversity, reflecting his unity and diversity, tuning our hearts to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. And yes, Sheila, you are right, the trinitarian personal processions are so important in understanding ourselves in our unfolded diversity and enfolded unity. Thank you!
Sheila (and Anna), this last paragraph is exactly what I think I Peter 3:7 is referencing as it links the understanding and honoring of women to the effectiveness of the prayers of the husbands. That is clear scriptural evidence of the danger to the church of neglecting to value the wisdom of women. Genesis 1 and I Peter 3:7 have become my guiding stars in understanding how God sees women.