gender aspects of creation from a theological, Christological, and soteriological perspective: An exegetical contribution, The

(ProQuest Information and Learning: Foreign text ommited.)

My contribution focuses on a discussion of those biblical texts to which the ancient tradition of the church has constantly looked back in its statements about humanity in its differentiation as male and female. The main direction of this essay is concerned primarily with exegesis and the history of interpretation. My concern here is not with the history of interpretation and its effects in its totality, but to take note of and to work through certain often repeated lines of interpretation.

I will start by presenting how the genderedness of humanity comes to expression in the theology of creation. In the Christian tradition, Genesis 1-3 plays a central role here. I shall give a short and selective interpretation of the text, with reference to present-day exegesis, and contrast this with the early Christian exegesis tradition. I will put to these texts the question as to whether and how the concept of the image of God, so central in (later) Christian tradition, is to be brought into relationship with the distinctive maleness and femaleness of human beings, or in other words, gender as distinct from the humanity that women and men have in common. The question also arises as to the explicit significance of Jesus Christ in the eschatological or protological context of humanity's participation in the image of God.

Then I shall begin a restricted sketch of the question: To what extent did the distinctive maleness or femaleness play a role in the early church tradition in the defining of humanity as being in the image of God? This tradition assumes as a basic axiom that the image of God is constituted through participation in Jesus Christ, the authentic image of God in the protological creation event, and is reconstituted in an eschatological new creation or redemption event. Thus the Christological and soteriological dimension of the theme is outlined.

The mediator of the image of God to human beings took on human nature in his incarnation in the form of a man, or was almost exclusively spoken of in male metaphor. I am deeply interested in the question as to whether this fact brings with it the consequence that a woman, from the point of view of her being in the image of God, stands in some other relation to Christ than does a man. The answer may be of consequence for our general theme.

The gendered nature of human beings comes to expression fundamentally in the creation traditions as canonized by the church, preeminently in Genesis 1-3.1

I am in accord with a broad consensus of modern exegesis (since H. B. Witter in 1711) when I distinguish two distinct and only partially parallel creation accounts, each with its own history. These were brought together and placed in a linear narrative sequence in a process of historical convergence. When this assumption of two traditions is not made, this has-as the older history of interpretation demonstrates-particular consequences for interpretation.

Genesis 2f. is attributed to the more diverse or varied Yahwistic work (J) and today tends to be dated in the time of the later rather than the earlier monarchy.2 Genesis 1:1-2:4a attributes to God six days and eight works of creation. Within Genesis 1:24-31 the creation of human beings is of particular interest to us. It is characterized, through its narrative position and linguistic emphasis, as the high point of the divine work of creation, in particular in Genesis 1:26-28. Human beings3 are exceptional among the creatures4 by virtue of being in the image of God. This finds expression in the expressions tselem and demut, and the prepositions associated with them, referring to God (and the royal court?). It remains a matter of dispute exactly how these are to be understood.fi This is in accord with the observation that, as we shall see, various interpretations have been made in the course of the history of exegesis. What we can in any case say is that in all probability, the term tselem expresses the notion of representation, either concrete or abstract, and demut the notion of similarity or comparability. In context the two expressions are broadly synonymous.7 Nor do the prepositional prefixes imply any clear differentiation.8 A contextual aid to defining this being in the image of God is to be found in the hegemony,9 intended by God, of human beings over other creatures. It is of significance that P so to speak "democratizes" the role of the king in the ancient Orient as spokesman and representative of the deity, and applies it to humanity as a whole. A king often functioned in fact as the image or manifestation of a particular god. 10 For P the human being is placed in this function, and manifests the creator-God to the other creatures. In the context of creation "to rule" certainly implies a dealing with the other life-forms as creatures of God, attentive and not damaging. In any case, an indelible relationship with God is given in the notion of being in the image of God. The text, however, does not explore this further.