Neither Male Nor Female

[Asteriktos]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

[GabrieltheCelt]

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church?

The Church is a hospital for our souls, thus, we must look at both the intentions AND the result of disobeying said intentions, IMO.

[Jetavan]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

Actually, I would say the division is of importance. St. Paul's statement does not deny the reality of male and female gender/qualities, but instead it points to their complementarity and the fact that there is no male alone, and no female alone, in Christ; that male exists only because of the female, and vice versa. In Buddhist terms, "maleness" and "femaleness" are not "inherently existing" as separate, non-interactive entities. But they do exist, in dynamic relationship to each other. The Eucharist, then, is a foretaste of heaven, because in the Eucharist the comm/union of male and female, their interdependence, is ritually enacted. The male priest needs the female non-priest; and vice versa. There is no priest without the non-priest. The priest symoblizes the Creator; the non-priest, the created, in the process of theosis.

[Iconodule]

I think it's a very interesting, and difficult, question. I don't think there are simple answers. I'm looking around for what others have said about it.

[Iconodule]

Some preliminary thoughts of my own-

St. Maximus, when he talks about overcoming the sexual division, I think means that we transcend the division, as opposed to erasing it. And the key to the transcendence is Christ's incarnation. Now we now that the world to come will not be the same as paradise before the Fall, and this is in part due to the difference made by the Incarnation.

Christ assumed the entirety of human nature, and deified it, yet he was still a male. Likewise the Mother of God achieved the heights of perfection but did not cease to be a woman. So I think the way we are to overcome the sexual division will not be a simple reversal of the split, just like the Incarnation, the Second Coming, and Resurrection are not simply a reversal of the Fall.

Also, "neither male nor female," I think, points to unity and equality, not necessarily sameness. We are united in Christ, especially in communion, but this does not erase distinctions.

I think it's wrong to think of the priesthood as a privilege for males, or as something which suggests that women are inferior. The fact that we have many woman saints called "Equal-to-the-Apostles" says something. Likewise, I often think of the meeting of St. Zosima with St. Mary of Egypt with regards to this question. She insists that St. Zosima should give her the blessing first, because he is a priest; but St. Zosima says that she should give the blessing first, because she is holier than he is. They go back and forth for a while, and finally St. Mary gives the blessing first.

But these are just my disorganized musings on your question.

[Lenexa]

I think that you need to understand these verses in context as meaning that we are all equally heirs, that is, children who can attain sanctification, sainthood, in Christ regardless of our gender or race or ethnicity. However 1st Corinthians 11 clearly explains the division between male and female and that in terms of hierarchy that women are subordinate to men. However in spite of the woman being subordinate to man she may attain to a perfection in Christ that far exceeds her husband or father. I think that this is what St.Maximos meant by "transcending this division" as he does not state that we are to "destroy", "terminate" or "eliminate" this division. I don't think that there is any conflict but I am posting links to St.John Chrysostom's Commentary/Homilies on the verses related to gender division.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23103.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220126.htm

[Cymbyz]

The historical context is:  to be part of the Old (Jewish) Covenent, you had to be male, Jewish, and freeborn.  St. Paul is saying that you can be part of the New (Church) covenent, even if you're female, a Gentile, and a slave.

[KBN1]

The historical context is:  to be part of the Old (Jewish) Covenent, you had to be male, Jewish, and freeborn.  St. Paul is saying that you can be part of the New (Church) covenent, even if you're female, a Gentile, and a slave.

Enlightening.  Thank you.

[ialmisry]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

You have stumbled across one of those rare moments when St. Maximos was wrong.

[augustin717]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

You have stumbled across one of those rare moments when St. Maximos was wrong.

I wouldn't say "wrong", but certainly not of the same mind as certain "conservative" magazines.

[Iconodule]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

You have stumbled across one of those rare moments when St. Maximos was wrong.

How? And how do you know?

[ialmisry]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

You have stumbled across one of those rare moments when St. Maximos was wrong.

How? And how do you know?

He created them Male and Female in His Image and Likeness before the Fall.

[jckstraw72]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

You have stumbled across one of those rare moments when St. Maximos was wrong.

How? And how do you know?

He created them Male and Female in His Image and Likeness before the Fall.

but He did that because He knew we would fall, and would need a way to continue the race, so He equipped us beforehand for the fall.

[ialmisry]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

You have stumbled across one of those rare moments when St. Maximos was wrong.

How? And how do you know?

He created them Male and Female in His Image and Likeness before the Fall.

but He did that because He knew we would fall, and would need a way to continue the race, so He equipped us beforehand for the fall.

yes, I've seen that theory floated before. But then He wouldn't have given their first commandment in Paradise:be fruitful and multiply.

[jckstraw72]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

You have stumbled across one of those rare moments when St. Maximos was wrong.

How? And how do you know?

He created them Male and Female in His Image and Likeness before the Fall.

but He did that because He knew we would fall, and would need a way to continue the race, so He equipped us beforehand for the fall.

yes, I've seen that theory floated before. But then He wouldn't have given their first commandment in Paradise:be fruitful and multiply.

we were still called to multiply, just not sexually ... sex didnt exist in the Garden, and the Theotokos is an example of how procreation was meant to happen.

[Iconodule]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

You have stumbled across one of those rare moments when St. Maximos was wrong.

How? And how do you know?

He created them Male and Female in His Image and Likeness before the Fall.

but He did that because He knew we would fall, and would need a way to continue the race, so He equipped us beforehand for the fall.

yes, I've seen that theory floated before. But then He wouldn't have given their first commandment in Paradise:be fruitful and multiply.

Evidently you don't understand St. Maximus' teaching then.

[ialmisry]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

You have stumbled across one of those rare moments when St. Maximos was wrong.

How? And how do you know?

He created them Male and Female in His Image and Likeness before the Fall.

but He did that because He knew we would fall, and would need a way to continue the race, so He equipped us beforehand for the fall.

yes, I've seen that theory floated before. But then He wouldn't have given their first commandment in Paradise:be fruitful and multiply.

we were still called to multiply, just not sexually ... sex didnt exist in the Garden, and the Theotokos is an example of how procreation was meant to happen.

Then the Fathers would not have waxed eloquent on how Adam begot a son after his image and likeness like the Father begot the Son, and that Eve (i.e. Life) processed out of Adam's side like the Spirit from the Father. Nor would there have been any talk of becoming one flesh. "...for this reason..."

Evidently you don't understand St. Maximus' teaching then.

I do, but why don't you be more specific in your defense of St. Maximos' teaching, and I can reply.

[jckstraw72]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

You have stumbled across one of those rare moments when St. Maximos was wrong.

How? And how do you know?

He created them Male and Female in His Image and Likeness before the Fall.

but He did that because He knew we would fall, and would need a way to continue the race, so He equipped us beforehand for the fall.

yes, I've seen that theory floated before. But then He wouldn't have given their first commandment in Paradise:be fruitful and multiply.

we were still called to multiply, just not sexually ... sex didnt exist in the Garden, and the Theotokos is an example of how procreation was meant to happen.

Then the Fathers would not have waxed eloquent on how Adam begot a son after his image and likeness like the Father begot the Son, and that Eve (i.e. Life) processed out of Adam's side like the Spirit from the Father. Nor would there have been any talk of becoming one flesh. "...for this reason..."

not sure how any of this disagrees with what i said ...

[jckstraw72]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

You have stumbled across one of those rare moments when St. Maximos was wrong.

How? And how do you know?

He created them Male and Female in His Image and Likeness before the Fall.

but He did that because He knew we would fall, and would need a way to continue the race, so He equipped us beforehand for the fall.

yes, I've seen that theory floated before. But then He wouldn't have given their first commandment in Paradise:be fruitful and multiply.

we were still called to multiply, just not sexually ... sex didnt exist in the Garden, and the Theotokos is an example of how procreation was meant to happen.

Then the Fathers would not have waxed eloquent on how Adam begot a son after his image and likeness like the Father begot the Son, and that Eve (i.e. Life) processed out of Adam's side like the Spirit from the Father. Nor would there have been any talk of becoming one flesh. "...for this reason..."

Evidently you don't understand St. Maximus' teaching then.

I do, but why don't you be more specific in your defense of St. Maximos' teaching, and I can reply.

St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition 4.24
But we, made confident by God the Word that was made flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man’s nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children

[PeterTheAleut]

As I read this thread, the subject of discussion is the male/female distinction and how this will be realized in the Kingdom of the age to come. I'm not sure how yet another rendition of the debate over whether there was sex in the first Paradise connects with this subject.

[Asteriktos]

As I read this thread, the subject of discussion is the male/female distinction and how this will be realized in the Kingdom of the age to come. I'm not sure how yet another rendition of the debate over whether there was sex in the first Paradise connects with this subject.

Isn't that where all threads on gender go?    I'm not miffed though, I have no problem with threads developing in whatever direction people want. I think that's better than a heavy handed insistence on staying on topic (not that I think any mods here are heavy handed, nor do I intend to impugn your post, which I thank you for).

And I also thank those who suggested some ideas regarding the OP

[Iconodule]

As I read this thread, the subject of discussion is the male/female distinction and how this will be realized in the Kingdom of the age to come. I'm not sure how yet another rendition of the debate over whether there was sex in the first Paradise connects with this subject.

Since, according to St. Maximus, the male/female division was brought about specifically for the purpose of procreation, I think the connection is obvious and also unavoidable.

[Heorhij]

The historical context is:  to be part of the Old (Jewish) Covenent, you had to be male, Jewish, and freeborn.  St. Paul is saying that you can be part of the New (Church) covenent, even if you're female, a Gentile, and a slave.

Great summary. Thank you!

[PeterTheAleut]

As I read this thread, the subject of discussion is the male/female distinction and how this will be realized in the Kingdom of the age to come. I'm not sure how yet another rendition of the debate over whether there was sex in the first Paradise connects with this subject.

Since, according to St. Maximus, the male/female division was brought about specifically for the purpose of procreation, I think the connection is obvious and also unavoidable.

And yet, I see this thread getting derailed by a different topic that we've already discussed in many other places on this forum.

[ialmisry]

St. Paul said that:

"...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28)

And St. Maximos the Confessor said that:

"...according to [the] divine purpose, man was not intended to be divided into the categories of male and female, as is now the case; and that by acquiring perfect knowledge of the inner principles according to which he exists he may transcend this division" (taken from an excerpt in Deification in Christ by Panayiotis Nellas, p. 212)

Why then are gender divisions so important in the Church? For example, while there are theological and historical reasons behind not having female priests, what are we to make of passages such as the above from Sts. Paul and Maximos? Is not the liturgy to be a foretaste of heaven? and if so, shouldn't division be of no importance?

EDIT--Just a note, I am not arguing for a female priesthood here, I'm just struggling to understand.

You have stumbled across one of those rare moments when St. Maximos was wrong.

How? And how do you know?

He created them Male and Female in His Image and Likeness before the Fall.

but He did that because He knew we would fall, and would need a way to continue the race, so He equipped us beforehand for the fall.

yes, I've seen that theory floated before. But then He wouldn't have given their first commandment in Paradise:be fruitful and multiply.

we were still called to multiply, just not sexually ... sex didnt exist in the Garden, and the Theotokos is an example of how procreation was meant to happen.

Then the Fathers would not have waxed eloquent on how Adam begot a son after his image and likeness like the Father begot the Son, and that Eve (i.e. Life) processed out of Adam's side like the Spirit from the Father. Nor would there have been any talk of becoming one flesh. "...for this reason..."

Evidently you don't understand St. Maximus' teaching then.

I do, but why don't you be more specific in your defense of St. Maximos' teaching, and I can reply.

St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition 4.24
But we, made confident by God the Word that was made flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man’s nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children

Ibid, I:8
The terms, 'Word' and 'effulgence,' then, are used because He is begotten of the Father without the union of two, or passion, or time, or flux, or separation : and the terms 'Son' and 'impress of the Father's subsistence,' because He is perfect and has subsistence and is in all respects similar to the Father, save that the Father is not begotten : and the term 'Only-begotten' because He alone was begotten alone of the Father alone. For no other generation is like to the generation of the Son of God, since no other is Son of God. For though the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, yet this is not generative in character but processional. This is a different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just as is the generation of the Son. Wherefore all the qualities the Father has are the Son's, save that the Father is unbegotten , and this exception involves no difference in essence nor dignity , but only a different mode of coming into existence. We have an analogy in Adam, who was not begotten (for God Himself moulded him), and Seth, who was begotten (for he is Adam's son), and Eve, who proceeded out of Adam's rib (for she was not begotten). These do not differ from each other in nature, for they are human beings: but they differ in the mode of coming into existence.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Faith Issues (Moderator: Michał Kalina) > Topic: Neither Male Nor Female