This is Life!: Revolutions Around the Cruciform Axis

Your post struck a chord with me, so I went and read Jennifer's and Touchstone's as well. While I am not a greek scholar or a theologian, I take issue with Hutchens' position based on a grammatical argument. (Which would be rejected, but anyway).

I agree that the Bible clearly refers to God and Christ as male, and that sexuality isn't entirely arbitrary or cultural. But to claim that maleness is the "iconic" sex of the human species based on the use of pronouns in Scripture is, I think, extremely shaky.

Here's why: in greek, there is the word "andros," which is equivalent to male or man (XY chromosome). The word "anthropos" is the word for "mankind" or "humanity." English is still weak on gender neutral pronouns; consequently, in the KJV and elsewhere, "anthropos" is translated as "man" (refering to the human race).

My point is this: at least in the original greek, there wasn't this "male-as-icon" linguistic presupposition. There was a gender neutral term that was not confused with the gender specific term. Consequently, those (like Hutchens) who try to defend this anti-egalitarian position are basing it on the English translation of the Bible, not necessarily the original language. They are the ones who, in this case, are imposing culture onto Scripture; those who want to use gender neutral terms to translate other gender neutral terms are being more accurate.

That being said, there are other issues at stake which ought to be addressed (for instance, the original essay refers to the translation of "Brothers," etc.). So I'm not trying to argue that all so-called "egalitarianism" is Biblically legitimate. But I am saying that one of the basic assumptions of the anti-egalitarian crowd is actually pretty off target.

Paul:

First, though I am sympathetic to Touchstone's position, I have not come to fully hold it as my own. I have, over the last several months, been trying to think my way through it, but have not yet come to a settled conviction about it.

Secondly, you raise some good points, and in general, your grammatical points are true.

But when it comes to specifics, some of your points do not meet the reality of how these terms are used.

A very clear example is to look at Genesis 2:15, where, in Greek, it says "God took the man (ton anthropon) whom he had made . . ." In other words, while anthropos is, indeed, the generic word for man, in point of fact, here it is being used in the particular sense: Adam is the anthropos, not aner. At 2:18, God notes that it is not good for the man (ton anthropon) to be alone.

So, to claim that anthropos is genderless is not entirely accurate (and certainly, grammatically speaking, it is marked as masculine gender). You find anthropos used for a particular man, as well as for mankind generally. To the best of my knowledge, you will not find anthropos used for a particular woman.

Clifton:

As I prefaced in my first post, I am not a Greek scholar; I probably only know enough to make me dangerous. Your points are well taken and I was not aware of specific instances where anthropos was used to refer to a specific individual.

I did find it interesting, however, that your example is derived from a time in human history when only one human being was in existence: Adam. I am assuming there are other instances where this usage occurs. But in the passage you are referancing, Adam, a man, *is* humanity. I'm not trying to argue your point, I'm just commenting upon it, and pointing out that the Greek translators of the Old Testament were probably more subtle in their thinking than we often are.

I have more thoughts on this, but not enough time to express them properly! Until another day . . .

Paul's last point is well made. Note that Gen. 1:27 (And God made man, according to the image of God He made him, male and female He made them.) in the LXX uses 'ton anthropon' for 'man' and then calls man male and female. It is quite clearly being used in a genderless fashion. Man means human being, not male.

Paul is right; these anti-egalitarians are injecting culture into the text, not protecting the text from culture.

J Michael and Paul:

I do not believe that anthropos is only about male individuals, nor do I believe is Touchstone making such claims. Rather, they are claiming that anthropos is a male word which includes females, thus their "iconic" interpretation of the biblical texts.

Just do a quick concordance search of "anthropos" in the LXX and NT. You will find these facts, I believe. 1) anthropos is used inclusively of humankind (male and female), 2) anthropos is used of male individuals, and 3) anthropos is never used of female individuals. Thus, the basis, if I'm not mistaken, of Touchstone's interpretation that "man" is the inclusive term, and thus that the male is the icon of humanity in such a way as to include the female.

Let me reiterate: I am sympathetic to this interpretation because it seems a reasoned and consistent interpretation based on thef facts. But I am not yet fully convinced of all the implications of such an interpretation.

I think the implications would be, all people are human, but some are more human than others. I don't see how it could be avoided, if males are the iconic, primary, representative and defining members of the human race. Touchstone would say that's not what we mean, but if I, by myself as a female, cannot "represent" the human race, then I'm not as human as males are.

Jennifer:

I hear what you're saying. But here's some of the impasses from the egalitarian position.

If it takes both male and female to fully icon humanity, then by God becoming incarnate as a male, only half the human race can be saved.

On the other hand, if sex/gender is irrelevant to salvation (i. e., it is Jesus' humanity that saves us, not his being male), then that which contains irreducably important facts that make each of us who we are (our sexual differences) cannot be saved. In other words, salvation cannot extend to anything except our generic humanity, not to our specifically male/female characteristics. Sex and all that is related to sex cannot be saved, since it is not generically human.

I'm studying for the GRE, so this sounds like a math problem to me. m + f = h(umanity); m-f=h, does f-m=h?

Since both male and female are equally representative of human beings, a male or female Saviour could have saved humanity. The Godspy article you quoted a few weeks ago in reference to maleness and the priesthood makes the same claim. Neither the Bible nor tradition has much to say about Christ's maleness. (see this essay: http://www.stnina.org/97sp/97sp-karras-xcmale.htm)

If I understand correctly, the argument runs thus: Jesus was a male because maleness is sexually inclusive because Eve was taken out of Adam, according to the second Genesis creation story. Paul picks this up in I Cor 11 when he argues for women's headcovering. Woman is made from the man, for the sake of the man, and not vice versa. But he doesn't stop there. "Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God."

Thus I could argue that only femaleness is sexually inclusive, because only a woman is capable of being a female and having a male in her womb. But, as Paul says, the important point is that all things come from God.

The disordered sexuality that all humans have, in regards to a tendency to sin with their bodies, to lust, etc. is indeed saved by God becoming human and dwelling in the flesh. Our sexual genitalia is not generically human, but the proclivity to sin is and can be redeemed regardless of the gender of the Savior or the redeemed person. I guess I need to know what you mean by "sex cannot be saved." That sounds to me like you mean maleness and femaleness needs to be saved, that they're sinful in and of themselves. But being male or female is not sinful in and of itself, what's sinful is how we use each other contrary to God's will. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding you.

Jennifer:

What I mean by "sex cannot be saved" (if Christ's humanity was merely generic), is based on the Athanasian (and others) principle that "what is not assumed cannot be saved." If Christ is only generically human (in his salvific impact) then those particular things about our human nature that are not generically shared cannot be saved (since they have not been assumed in Christ). One of the irreducible qualities of being human are our sex differences. There may be others, though once one gets past what is biological/spiritually fundamental, one begins to see there aren't many other irreducible differences.

There's no debate that Jesus was specifically male. The debate is on what import, if any, that maleness has. Those who assume it has no real import (or only does so derivately of a greater trait), must then exclude that particularity from the impact of salvation.

But if we're irreducibly different, how can a male represent humanity better than I can? That seems like a contradiction. Wouldn't the argument be male and females aren't irreducibly different because maleness is inclusive of femaleness?

Saying males are the primary and representative members of the human race sounds metaphorical or symbolic in some sense, because we know that males biologically are just males and aren't somehow male and female while females are just females.

But if we affirm "what is not assumed is not saved" - that's not a metaphor. We mean Jesus was an actual human being, in every way like us but sin. He had actual human flesh. So what of femaleness did he assume? Nothing, and thus I'm not saved. Symbolically representing females, somehow as a male, isn't enough - my female flesh needs to be saved and there is no femaleness in Jesus (since males and females are irreducibly different). Where does that leave me?

My conclusion is that the maleness of Jesus is part of the particularity of what made him human. It's not that it has no real import, or impact on salvation, but his maleness per se does not save me, as a female, because it's somehow inclusive of femaleness. We can be saved as male and female, I'd say, and I guess this is where we truly disagree, because we're not irreducibly different in such a way that it overpowers our common humanity, so thus the humanity of Christ is primarily what saves us. (Of course, it's Christ, as fully human and fully divine, dying on the cross and being resurrected that saves us.)

Jennifer:

You claim that inequality must necessarily follow if the female is derived from the "iconic" male.

But this is not actually necessary.

According to the classic Christian formulation, God the Father is the only unoriginate member of the Trinity, he is the font of the Godhead. He begets the Son eternally and spirates the Spirit eternally. But despite this derivation, neither the Son nor the Spirit are in any way unequal to, or of lesser worth than, the Father. In fact, precisely because they all share the same essence, they all are God.

Humans are only analogously like God, of course, since we differ in our essence from him. Yet our essence is, indeed, made in the image of God. Thus, it seems perfectly plausible to me that the derivation of the female from the male in no way diminishes her worth or essential equality with the man. Though taken from man, the woman shares his essence. There is irreducible distinction, just as there is in the Trinity, but this distinction does not erase the essential unity.

Now, I'm sure that one response to the above is: that's great, but such a dogma has the potential to demean and denigrate, indeed has in actuality demeaned and denigrated, women. They are viewed as essentially different and/or unequal.

I would reply that the dogma of the Trinity is similarly abused and misused, but we do not disaffirm it for all that. The question is not what do sinful humans do with genuine dogma, but rather whether or not what we call dogma is.