God is a Wedding
Some further thoughts on gender in the Gospel of John
Last week I wrote that John is doing something unique with gender in his gospel. Today we continue with the question, “why?” What lead the Evangelist to incorporate gender so intentionally and emphatically in his presentation of the good news of Jesus? Answering this question will add further evidence to my first foundational point, that gender is central to John’s gospel; if you aren’t convinced of that yet, I hope you will think about that some more with me.
As I mentioned briefly last time, the short answer to the why question is related to two of John’s big overarching typological themes: creation and exodus. This week’s post will focus on creation.
In The Beginning…
John 1:1 begins with the famous words, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This is a clear echo of Genesis 1:1 which begins with the exact same phrase in the Greek Septuagint, en arché, “in the beginning.” This allusion sets off a central theme in John, connecting the sending of the Son of God into the world with the creation of the world in Genesis 1-3. Images from God’s creating work, as well as the entrance of sin and evil, become central images for Jesus and his mission throughout the gospel. When counted, these images make a long list (and I hope you’ll look at the footnote1). The list is so long because of how closely John has interweaved Genesis 1-3 into his gospel.
There are many ways we could explain this interweaving of creation images, but focusing on gender helps us see one significant way John has mirrored these creation accounts. He is using the gendered imago dei to show how Jesus reveals the Triune God in human flesh.
Gender from Heaven to Earth, from Earth to Heaven
I began part 1 of this study referencing the egalitarian/complementarian debate2, but once we start unpacking John’s development of gender it becomes clear that egal/comp questions are not central. John is doing something so much deeper and richer than addressing “roles” of men and women in family, church and culture. If we want to see how this gospel addresses those contemporary theological/social questions, which might be on the spokes of the wheel, we have to first see the hub and heart of that wheel. To quote my friend
,“It seems to me that if we do not consider the way that God uses gender in the unfolding story of Scripture, we may forfeit what God has given us to fortify our souls to love our neighbor and endure the temptations and hardships of this life.”
Anna has helped me see movement in Genesis 2 that links heaven/earth and man/woman with profound implications for a biblical understanding of gender (see especially these two posts Father Earth and Mother Heaven and What Our Sexuality Points To, as well as her most recent post Polar Opposites or Poles). I am beginning to see similar movement reflected in the Gospel of John.
The second account of creation begins in Genesis 2:4, complementing the first account in Genesis 1:1-2:3. Significantly, Genesis 2:4 begins with an inverted chiastic parallel:
These are the records of the heavens and the earth, concerning their creation. At the time that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
First, heavens and earth. Second, earth and heavens. This mirrors the beginning and end of the first creation account, which began with “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” and then from vv. 2-31 there is an alternating progression from filling the heavens (or “sky”, vv. 6-8, 14-19) and filling the earth (vv. 9-13, 20-25), culminating in God’s image bearers who would represent his heavenly rule on earth (vv. 26-31). This first account concludes with the repeated phrase “the heavens and the earth” and the seventh day of holy blessed rest, suggesting that the earthly image-bearing work of man and woman is destined for heavenly rest with God.
Genesis 2:4-25 develops this in a complementary (no pun intended) and progressive (also no pun intended) movement from earth to heaven, first focusing on the formation of man (vv. 4-17), and secondly focusing on the formation of woman (vv. 18-25). As Anna often puts it, man is the creature of the earth (ie adam, red, clay), and woman is the creature of heaven (ie created from the “side” of man, a word which is most frequently used with reference to the temple in which the heavenly presence of God rested). In this beginning of the world we see that gender is not static but dynamic; not yet arrived but rather pursuing the goal to which gender points.3 Here’s Anna again:
“Eve exits from Adam as the glory creature, representing the hope of Sabbath rest extended to him if only he obeys. Then she returns to Adam signifying the end of time when heaven will become bone and flesh with the earth.”
That second sentence alludes to Genesis 2:23-25 when the first man and woman were wed in one-flesh union. This is not only an original form and standard for humanity (which of course it is), but also represents God’s final goal for humanity and indeed all of creation. The people of God are destined for eschatological union with God, union which is best symbolized by marriage. John develops this foundational biblical symbol throughout his gospel.4
Significantly, in John this marital union centers on the Son of God in whom heaven and earth is wed: “Truly I tell you, you will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (John 1:51). Jesus is alluding to Jacob’s dream (ie “Jacob’s ladder”) in Genesis 28:10-22, and it is telling that the following scene in Genesis is Jacob’s meeting of and betrothal to Rachel at a well (Genesis 29:1-30), and the birth of the tribes of Israel (Genesis 29:31-30:24). Similarly, the narrative scenes after John 1:51 include a wedding (2:1-11), birth imagery (3:1-8), a bride and groom (3:29), further references to heaven and earth (3:12-13, 27, 31), and a man meeting a woman at a well (4:1-42).
God is a Wedding
And here is where I get to a deeper aspect of the why question of gender in John. My first point from last week is simple: John is doing something with gender. Here is my second point:
Point 2: John is doing something with gender because, just as creation in Gen 1-2 shows that both man and woman are required to image the Triune God unto the goal of union between heaven and earth, likewise John’s Gospel shows how masculine and feminine images are required for the incarnate Son of God to exegete God on earth (John 1:18).
Anna’s explanation of how to pursue understanding of gender helps here with point 2:
“We get an understanding of who we are as male and female by looking to God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I have come to think that the best understanding of the trinity should lead to the best understanding of ourselves. In academic language, Theology Proper, the study of the triune God as he is in himself, should be the starting point for Theological Anthropology, the study of man whom he made for forever fellowship with himself.”
I love what Anna is doing with trinitarian theology and biblical typology to explain the imago dei in men and women. I believe John’s Gospel is an important aid here with its concreteness in the enfleshment of Jesus. Dorothy Lee put it this way:
“As the bridge between heaven and earth, Jesus makes possible the crossover so that symbols that belong to God become part of human reality.”5
In other words, as Lee explores at length in her marvelous study Flesh and Glory: Symbolism, Gender and Theology in the Gospel of John, creaturely realities like gender have their origin in God and are thus capable of being revealed symbolically in the incarnate Son.
We’ve run out of space for a substack and there is more to develop and unpack next time. I’ll end here with a long quote from the Camaldolese monk Bruno Barnhart who likewise saw how John is unique in the NT with its presentation of Jesus. If “God is a wedding,” and if Jesus is “the one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side [who] has revealed him” (John 1:18), then we would expect to see masculine and feminine somehow wed in Jesus’ revelation of God. More on that next time.
Quote from Bruno Barnhart
“We have seen that the sexual metaphor in the New Testament has traditionally been interpreted in terms of the union of the Word, as Bridegroom, with that bride who is at once the church, the mother of Jesus and the soul of each believer. This is in continuity with the image of Israel as the bride of God in the Hebrew scriptures. The later biblical tradition which sees the divine wisdom, represented by a feminine figure [i.e. wisdom in Proverbs 8-9: ḥāḵmâ (Hebrew) and sophia (Greek) are feminine nouns and images] as both the companion of God and the companion of man, has had few followers in Christian tradition. When both the Word [Logos, masculine noun] and wisdom [Sophia, feminine] of God were presented by the New Testament authors as conclusively present in the man Jesus, both Word [Logos] and wisdom [Sophia] took on an apparently definitive masculine identity. Our study of John’s gospel suggests that this has been a one-sided development. The symbolic depths of human sexuality exist in God before the creation; both masculine and feminine are present archetypally in the divinity—God is a wedding.”6
Question
What do you think of all this? What additional questions does this raise for you? Concerns? Criticisms?
Word (“God said,” Gen 1:3 etc.; John 1:1; 6:63, 68)
Spirit/Wind/Breath (Gen 1:2, 3:8; John 1: 32-33; 3:5-8; 7:39; ch. 14-16; 20:22)
Life/Zoe/Eve (Gen 1:30; 2:7; 3:20, 22; John 1:4; 3:15-16; 4:36; 5:21, 24-26; ch. 6; 10:10, 28; 11:25; 14:6; 17:2-3; 20:31)
Light (Gen 1:3; John 1:4-9; 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9-10; 12:35-36, 46)
Darkness (Gen 1:2; John 1:5; 6:17; 8:12; 12:35-46; 20:1)
Day (Gen 1:5 counting days; John counting days 1:29, 35, 43; 2:1; 9:4; 11:9)
Night (Gen 1:5; John 3:2; 9:4; 11:10; 13:30; 19:39; 21:3)
Water (Gen 1:6; John 1:26-33; 2:1-11; 3:5; 4:1-45; 5:1-7; 7:38; 13:5; 19:34)
Heaven/Sky (Gen 1:1, 8; John 1:32, 51; 3:13, 27, 31; 6:31-58)
Good (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31; John 2:10; 10:11, 14, 32-33)
Signs (Gen 1:14; John 2:11, 18, 23; 3:2; 4:48, 54; 6:2, 14, 26, 30; 7:31; 9:16; 10:41; 11:47; 12:18, 37; 20:30).
Fruitful (Gen 1:22, 28; John 4:36; 15:1-8)
Fruit and food (Gen 1:29-30; John 4:32, 34; 6:22-59)
God working (Gen 2:2-3; John 5:17-18)
Finish/complete (Gen 2:1, 2 synetelesen; John 4:34 teleiōsō; 5:36 teleiōsō; 17:4 teleiōsas; 17:23 teteleiōmenoi; 19:28 tetelestai hina teleiōthé; 19:30 tetelestai)
Garden (Gen 2:8, 10, 15, 16; 3:1-3, 8, 23, 24; John 18:1, 26; 19:41)
River/Stream (Gen 2:10, 13, 14; John 7:38)
Sleep (Gen 2:21; John 11:11-13)
Side/rib of the man (Gen 2:21-22; John 19:34)
Flesh (Gen 2:23-24; John 1:13, 14; 3:6; 6:51-56)
Serpent/deceiver/murderer (Gen 3:1, 13; 4:8; John 8:44)
Birth/labor pains (Gen 3:16; John 3:1-8; 16:21)
Marriage/Wedding (Gen 2:23-25; John 2:1-11; 3:29; 4:1-42; 12:1-7; ch. 19; 20:11-18)
Tree of life in the middle (2:9; 3:3, 22, 24; John 19:18)
Mother (Gen 3:20; John 2:1, 3, 5, 12; 19:26-27)
Which I hope was not offensive to complementarians; it was somewhat facetious and overstated for effect, but the desired effect was to invite reasoned biblical study of our often rigid constructs.
Please don’t hear what I’m not saying here.
2:1-11 the wedding at Cana
3:27-30 Messiah as heavenly groom, John the Baptist as earthly friend of the groom (and the bride’s identity intentionally veiled until later in the gospel, beginning with ch. 4)
4:1-42 Samaritan woman meeting Jesus at a well which is a Hebrew symbol for betrothal
12:1-7 Mary of Bethany anointing Jesus’ feet echoes many marital images from the Song of Songs
19:1-5, 14 Jesus’ ironic presentation by Pilate as king, the women “standing by the cross” (19:25), and the beloved disciple taking Jesus’ mother “into his home” echo Song 3:4, 11 and 8:2
20:11-18 Mary Magdalene’s meeting the risen Lord also echoes marital images from the Song of Songs
Dorothy Lee, Flesh and Glory: Symbolism, Gender and Theology in the Gospel of John (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Co., 2002), 165.
Bruno Barnhart, The Good Wine: Reading John from the Center (New York: Paulist Press, 1993), 236.
Thanks for your reply. I went back and read your previous post. I have no objection to what reads to me as an egalitarian observation. If you are only asserting Jesus’s value of women, I agree. But it sounds like you are reaching for more in this second post that mingles with the new and very prominent idea of sex difference connected to the imago Dei. Also, I’m not sure that the fact that the writer of John refers to someone as a man or woman is an attempt to make a point about gender, as much as it may be a writing style of that particular writer. But in your other post, I did find this statement intriguing:
“John 12-13 provides an easy example: placing the foot-washing in ch. 13 after Mary’s anointing of Jesus’ feet in ch. 12 invites a comparison between the two acts. Both prefigure Jesus’ death, and while it is common to associate Jesus as doing something a servant would do, coming right after ch. 12 it seems that John portrays Jesus as doing something a woman did just do”
I have noticed this parallel but did not make the comparison with regards to Jesus doing something a woman is doing. But I like your interpretation here.
The use of gender when speaking of the biblical texts is anachronistic, as the distinction between sex and gender is a recent notion. Also associating masculinity and femininity with the imago Dei is a recent development particularly popularized by Karl Barth and Pope John Paul II. Throughout Christian tradition to associate the imago Dei with man/woman was viewed as anthropomorphic. The hyper-spiritualization of gender particularly in debates on sexuality and gender reminds me of the way apartheid advocates spiritualized texts in Genesis to assert separation of Black and White people. I wrote about the imago Dei as it relates to the new spiritualization of gender here: https://karenkeen.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Keen_Hermeneutical-Frameworks_Same-Sex-Relationships.pdf