#if men did not partly share in the feminine aspects of the divine nature

[greater-than-the-sword]

Gender in the Age to Come

A reply to a tumblr mutual in light of James B. Jordan's "Restoring the Office of Woman in the Church"

In order to respond here, my discourse in this post will necessarily take the form of somewhat esoteric musings. I apologize for this to everyone else. It is not my intention to be esoteric, but I am responding to a set of very niche and almost mystical claims.

As well, I do not intend this post to be a speculation about the exact nature of the resurrection bodies, since I do believe that is beyond the scope of what is revealed to us in the Bible. Sorry if that disappoints anyone.

Essentially what I set out to disprove here is the notion that manhood or masculinity is inherently corrupt, violent, a result of the fall, doomed to destruction, or even transient and temporal in a manner that stands opposed to the allegedly superior eternality of feminine qualities.

(Although this may not be your intention, it's hard to imagine how this wouldn't devolve into straight up female superiority brand sexism. But I digress.)

We thankfully agree that James B. Jordan is wrong when he says that the verse stating "woman is the glory of man" means that woman is a type of improved man. That's because of the context of that verse which also says, "Man is the glory of God" (yet as you astutely pointed out, man is not an improved God.)

So, what DOES it mean that woman is the glory of man? I think Jordan hits way closer to this later on in his essay series when he points out that glory is a type of situational relationship evoking the idea of emanation or generation. (obviously that's not ALL it is but I will get into this.)

It's clear to me that Jordan is a man of great wisdom and insight, however he does make some mistakes and he also clearly comes from a very high-church denominational background which colors some of his views.

As much progress as Jordan makes toward explaining some of the more esoteric verses on gender in the Bible, he does still neglect to explore some of the most interesting verses on gender, and does not explore how they might interact with the framework he has set up.

That is what I aim to do here. Although I have a number of quibbles with Jordan, mainly I want to take his best ideas and run with them to their logical conclusion.

My proposition is essentially that masculinity is about the imitation of Christ.

Is man's masculinity not the image of God? If this were not so masculinity would be a result of the fall, but it is not.

Will man not continue to be God's image for the rest of eternity? Or will he relinquish a part of this image?

Is God's image not a gift? Does God take back his gifts? Surely not, because, "the gifts and calling of God cannot be revoked". (Romans 11:26) [We are speaking here of spiritual giftings rather than material ones of course.]

Let's go through this point by point.

Consider the role of masculinity prior to the fall. Of course many things about Adam can be said to represent humanity in general rather than males in particular, but there is one very obviously gendered thing Adam did prior to the fall. (Yes, Jordan is correct in that the Bible is implicit that Adam conveyed God's commands to Eve, but I am talking about something that's actually spelled out in the text.)

Adam had a role in the creation of Eve.

Hardly anyone these days wants to juice any meaning out of this part of the text for fear it will make women look inferior, but it is juicy. And when male inferiority is on the table, it is worth looking into.

Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12,

Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

And from there straight into the verses that Jordan covered.

It is interesting that Paul mentions man's labor in creating woman on an equal footing, which seems odd on the surface when you think that Adam's role in the creation of Eve was completely passive and not comparable to the labor that thousands of women do daily to create new men, but Paul seems to think it is both noteworthy and comparable that woman was created out of man, and it's worth asking why.

If you like esoteric analogies, consider that Adam was put to sleep or "died" metaphorically speaking, sacrificing himself to create Eve. But after that time he again rose, with new "glory", that is, the woman.

So Adam underwent a symbolic sacrificial death that Eve might be created.

Woman did not do this. Only a male did this. Therefore this scene is a viable candidate for a defining masculine trait.

Sure, this is a pre-fall world. So Adam feels no pain, and the thing which he must sacrifice is not something that he will ever miss. But the symbolism is undeniable.

While imitating Christ, man not only dies, but also is resurrected and glorified.

As was our Lord, the ultimate Man. In whose image you are made.

For Adam that was not literal death, and glory meant getting the rewards of experiencing marriage. Therefore, if a man is 'made for death', he is made for resurrection and glorification as well, is he not? And isn't that too a part of his masculine nature as much as the sacrificial symbolic death which preceded it?

Now, I posit the imitation of Christ is a goal of an eternal nature and not merely temporal. In eternity when men are resurrected in glory will their masculine aspects not be more completely fulfilled by having this happen to them?

Clearly the purpose of men isn't to destroy life but to protect it. And ultimately even create it.

I would argue that even a man's capacity for violence isn't the defining characteristic of masculinity but an auxiliary characteristic that springs out of this central defining characteristic.

One might argue, "How can the believer's eventual death, resurrection and glorification be a male fulfillment if all women also die?"

A couple counter arguments:

You might as well argue that Jordan's theory of feminine "responsiveness" is not uniquely feminine since all believers submit to Christ.

All people have in them some germ of both masculine and feminine traits.

Essentially, if as you believe "death is masculine", then so is resurrection and glorification - you can not have the 1st be true without the 2nd also being true.

In the age to come, I posit that redeemed humanity will inherit both the masculine and feminine gifts, but the blessings we've already been given are by no means revoked. Women, having experienced death, resurrection and glorification with Christ; and men, having experienced spiritual marriage and unity to Christ, will both have achieved both masculine and feminine aspects.

Therefore, in the next age, everyone will find a way to share in both masculine and feminine. It is unclear to me whether we will all be therefore genderless from that point on or if some people will still be more masculine than feminine much in the way we are on earth where in our personality people have both masculine and feminine attributes.

After all, may I remind you that "The Bride" is not the ONLY metaphor used to describe the Church in eternity, we are also said to be "kings" who will "rule together with Christ" and "share in his likeness".

Remember that we relate to Christ not only as receivers of him but also as imitators of him.

Or do women not also have a calling to imitate Christ's sacrificial nature? Can women not protect at times? Just as men submit to Christ's headship.

(For one example not mentioned in the articles, Esther was a Christ-figure when she risked death to protect her people.)

On earth the "exceptional cases" of non conformity to gender roles in the Bible exist seemingly to prove that women are also ultimately inheritors of the masculine aspects of the divine nature just as men are of the feminine.

Genuinely I truly hope this helps. I have some other comments on Jordan's work as well, for example his part 3 seems to imply that pastors are intrinsically more masculine than other men, which I thought was very strange. But there are things about his insights that I liked very much. For example, would you believe me if I told you this was the first take on gender roles that I've ever read which defines femininity as anything remotely approaching analytical or rational? Having long considered myself "masculine in temperament" I find this perspective both refreshing and validating.

Anyway, hope this helps. I am powerless to prevent you from somehow twisting this in a blackpilled manner, but I don't think it should be.