"During the next era, Israel’s united kingdom, sonship is tied to kingship, and most explicitly to David, and cityhood is tied to most explicitly to Jerusalem and her people, the fortress of Zion, taken by David from the Jebusites in 2 Samuel 5 (cf. Ps 89:3-4)."
In 2 Sam. 5:13, David took wives and concubines from Jerusalem probably due to some political marriage alliances with the Jebusites. As we know, there was a civil war between David and his son Absalom over the throne which resulted in Absalom raping 10 concubines of King David. These concubines were probably native Jebusite women from Jersualem. Patriarchal power struggles were usually fought over who could control the women in a kinship group. These 10 concubines represented Jerusalem in that control of them meant control of Jersusalem and the throne. Unfortunately, this didn't end well for them as they are imprisoned upon David's return. While woman might represent the city, patriarchy twisted this representation so that the woman is objectified by men abusing their power rather than giving authority to the woman as to what she represents. That's why I don't believe in all male elders.
Shoshana, again, what amazing insights. I think often about those women publicly defiled and shut away for the rest of their lives, and I grieve for all that they lost as pawns on the patriarchal chessboard. The only comfort that I find is imagining each looking into the bronze laver, seeing her reflection, with the faithful Son by her side. The waters of resurrection redeem both the Levite's wife and the Jebusite concubines' narratives. Their stories are not over.
Shoshana, what do you think it means that the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3, as well as the ones found in the Old Testament, the lists of sons who fathered sons in the line of the Messiah, allow Jesus to be traced to a man to who doesn't actually father him --- a man who is the "husband of Mary" or "thought to be" the father of Jesus? What does that tell us about "sons" and the "Son"? Jesus, like Melchizedek, has an unknown genealogy.
Jesus does have a genealogy through Mary as she was probably a descendant of David herself. Remember daughters of zelophehad gained an inheritance for their father's name if there were no males and they married within their kinship group. Joseph was more than likely a cousin of Mary who adopted Jesus as his son which was allowed. Melchizedek may have been a christophany of Jesus himself for all we know. Also, remember Jesus was the promised seed of Gen. 3:15 born of a woman, who was also considered an enemy of Satan. Woman, as an enemy of Satan, where does she fit in? Well, the promise was partially fulfilled through Mary, but I feel that Rev. 12 is the ultimate fulfillment of this promise. Who was the woman in Rev. 12? Some say the church, israel, or Catholics say Mary herself. I guess it depends what denomination you are from. I really respect some aspects of reformed or presbyterian theology, but I am not from those backgrounds so to me the woman in Rev. 12 is the jewish church or Israel herself. Since women are considered enemies of Satan, I think women or a body of women will be spearheading this church. The bible says there will be "an army of women preaching the good news" Psalm 68:11. So if men come first, women will follow as the ultimate enemy of Satan. This why I believe women need to be free to preach, be leaders or elders.
This is so full of beauty and richness, Anna. It's a bit of a fire hose of meaning and glory! I love how you develop the picture of daughter, wife, and mother Zion. I feel like what you are offering on this Substack should be a course in seminary, and also something churches would greatly benefit in teaching.
Thank you, Aimee. I think that if we are able to find the right scaffolding (skeleton, paradigm, structure?) for what God is telling us about himself (our "very great reward") by making us male and female, then so much work will open up for so many. The paradigms we have been using (Aristotle and "role" anthropology) are self-obsessed dead ends, whether we are studying maleness and femaleness academically in seminary or practically trying to make it work in our own lives. Whenever our seminaries get around to taking the questions of theological anthropology seriously, there will be so much work and joy for so many to take hold of. Thank you, Aimee, for being a true friend.
I really appreciate your encouragement, Aaron. By the way, I am still thinking about your question of inversion in John and continually relistening to your "God is a Wedding" Parts 3 and 4. If woman is representative of sacred space, then Jesus openly referring or alluding to himself as the temple seems to counter the symbolism. I see the inversion as well in Ruth, when Ruth says to Boaz, "take me under your wing." Right now, I see "wing" as a reference to the Holy Spirit who took to himself a true "body" (the heavenly temple dwelling to which the symbolism of the woman is bound). So this to me is a clear case of inversion. When I asked a professor, whose theological work I deeply respect, what he thought of the Isaiah 6:1 glory train that forms and fills the heavenly temple (woman's symbolism as I see it), he said that off the top of his head, he thought it was a manifestation of the Son *and* Spirit in perichoretic relation. I can't stop thinking about that and at this point have no idea how that fits.
It’s interesting you mention the Son and Spirit in perichoretic relation. After reading this essay I realized I’ve never really considered the possibility that the feminine imagery applied to Jesus in John might point to the Spirit. Or, how the Spirit in general fits in that series. We’ll just need to keep praying John 14:26! “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things”
Yes, perichoretic relationship makes sense because the throne from which the train or hem comes is singular. Throughout Scripture, I think that there is never mentioned more than one divine throne. That throne is associated with the Father and the Son, perhaps in perichoretic relation. So the *throne* is the manifestation of the Father and Son in relation, so it would make sense that the *glory train* manifests the Son and Spirit in similar relation. And yet the picture is that the train-Glory Cloud fills the throne room and causes it to quake, surrounding the throne and sealing the *three* in the divine embrace , revealing the one immutable glory of God in his triunity.
"During the next era, Israel’s united kingdom, sonship is tied to kingship, and most explicitly to David, and cityhood is tied to most explicitly to Jerusalem and her people, the fortress of Zion, taken by David from the Jebusites in 2 Samuel 5 (cf. Ps 89:3-4)."
In 2 Sam. 5:13, David took wives and concubines from Jerusalem probably due to some political marriage alliances with the Jebusites. As we know, there was a civil war between David and his son Absalom over the throne which resulted in Absalom raping 10 concubines of King David. These concubines were probably native Jebusite women from Jersualem. Patriarchal power struggles were usually fought over who could control the women in a kinship group. These 10 concubines represented Jerusalem in that control of them meant control of Jersusalem and the throne. Unfortunately, this didn't end well for them as they are imprisoned upon David's return. While woman might represent the city, patriarchy twisted this representation so that the woman is objectified by men abusing their power rather than giving authority to the woman as to what she represents. That's why I don't believe in all male elders.
Shoshana, again, what amazing insights. I think often about those women publicly defiled and shut away for the rest of their lives, and I grieve for all that they lost as pawns on the patriarchal chessboard. The only comfort that I find is imagining each looking into the bronze laver, seeing her reflection, with the faithful Son by her side. The waters of resurrection redeem both the Levite's wife and the Jebusite concubines' narratives. Their stories are not over.
Shoshana, what do you think it means that the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3, as well as the ones found in the Old Testament, the lists of sons who fathered sons in the line of the Messiah, allow Jesus to be traced to a man to who doesn't actually father him --- a man who is the "husband of Mary" or "thought to be" the father of Jesus? What does that tell us about "sons" and the "Son"? Jesus, like Melchizedek, has an unknown genealogy.
Jesus does have a genealogy through Mary as she was probably a descendant of David herself. Remember daughters of zelophehad gained an inheritance for their father's name if there were no males and they married within their kinship group. Joseph was more than likely a cousin of Mary who adopted Jesus as his son which was allowed. Melchizedek may have been a christophany of Jesus himself for all we know. Also, remember Jesus was the promised seed of Gen. 3:15 born of a woman, who was also considered an enemy of Satan. Woman, as an enemy of Satan, where does she fit in? Well, the promise was partially fulfilled through Mary, but I feel that Rev. 12 is the ultimate fulfillment of this promise. Who was the woman in Rev. 12? Some say the church, israel, or Catholics say Mary herself. I guess it depends what denomination you are from. I really respect some aspects of reformed or presbyterian theology, but I am not from those backgrounds so to me the woman in Rev. 12 is the jewish church or Israel herself. Since women are considered enemies of Satan, I think women or a body of women will be spearheading this church. The bible says there will be "an army of women preaching the good news" Psalm 68:11. So if men come first, women will follow as the ultimate enemy of Satan. This why I believe women need to be free to preach, be leaders or elders.
Excellent as always, keep up the good work!
This is so full of beauty and richness, Anna. It's a bit of a fire hose of meaning and glory! I love how you develop the picture of daughter, wife, and mother Zion. I feel like what you are offering on this Substack should be a course in seminary, and also something churches would greatly benefit in teaching.
Thank you, Aimee. I think that if we are able to find the right scaffolding (skeleton, paradigm, structure?) for what God is telling us about himself (our "very great reward") by making us male and female, then so much work will open up for so many. The paradigms we have been using (Aristotle and "role" anthropology) are self-obsessed dead ends, whether we are studying maleness and femaleness academically in seminary or practically trying to make it work in our own lives. Whenever our seminaries get around to taking the questions of theological anthropology seriously, there will be so much work and joy for so many to take hold of. Thank you, Aimee, for being a true friend.
Seconded! Seminary course, church teaching material, and book. Absolutely.
I really appreciate your encouragement, Aaron. By the way, I am still thinking about your question of inversion in John and continually relistening to your "God is a Wedding" Parts 3 and 4. If woman is representative of sacred space, then Jesus openly referring or alluding to himself as the temple seems to counter the symbolism. I see the inversion as well in Ruth, when Ruth says to Boaz, "take me under your wing." Right now, I see "wing" as a reference to the Holy Spirit who took to himself a true "body" (the heavenly temple dwelling to which the symbolism of the woman is bound). So this to me is a clear case of inversion. When I asked a professor, whose theological work I deeply respect, what he thought of the Isaiah 6:1 glory train that forms and fills the heavenly temple (woman's symbolism as I see it), he said that off the top of his head, he thought it was a manifestation of the Son *and* Spirit in perichoretic relation. I can't stop thinking about that and at this point have no idea how that fits.
It’s interesting you mention the Son and Spirit in perichoretic relation. After reading this essay I realized I’ve never really considered the possibility that the feminine imagery applied to Jesus in John might point to the Spirit. Or, how the Spirit in general fits in that series. We’ll just need to keep praying John 14:26! “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things”
Yes, perichoretic relationship makes sense because the throne from which the train or hem comes is singular. Throughout Scripture, I think that there is never mentioned more than one divine throne. That throne is associated with the Father and the Son, perhaps in perichoretic relation. So the *throne* is the manifestation of the Father and Son in relation, so it would make sense that the *glory train* manifests the Son and Spirit in similar relation. And yet the picture is that the train-Glory Cloud fills the throne room and causes it to quake, surrounding the throne and sealing the *three* in the divine embrace , revealing the one immutable glory of God in his triunity.