The Divine Feminine Version (DFV) Study Bible (Version 0.3)
The Divine Feminine Version Study Bible Version 0.3 is made available through the Creative Commons License – Attribution, Noncommercial, No Derivative Works 3.0 United States. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us for full details.
The Divine Feminine Version (DFV): Basic Principles
Cameo Essay: Women in Jesus’ Genealogy
Cameo Essay: “He Taught Them Many Things Through Stories”
Cameo Essay: “Toll Collectors and Sex Workers”
Cameo Essay: The Woman Who Anointed Jesus
Cameo Essay: “Who Really Killed Jesus?”
Cameo Essay: Romans: Systematic Theological Treatise or Narrative about Godde’s People?
The Divine Feminine Version (DFV): Basic Principles
Another Bible Version?
Not long ago, I browsed through the Bible section of a local Christian bookstore. Shelf after shelf sported dozens of customized Study Bibles. Most of the specialty Bibles used the more traditional KJV or NKJV, but many used more contemporary translations, including the ESV, the HCSB, the NCV, the NIV, and the TNIV.
I found a Bible for virtually every person under the sun. Men could stock up on Dad’s Bible: The Father’s Plan; Strive: The Bible for Men; Men of Color Study Bible; and of course the Promise Keeper’s Men’s Study Bible.
For those who aren’t yet married, there’s always The Groom’s Bible, and naturally The Bride’s Bible, along with the Couple’s Devotional Bible; then for the next phase of family life there’s The Parenting Bible and the Family Foundations Study Bible.
For women, I found Mom’s Devotional Bible; True Identity: The Bible for Women; Women of Faith Amazing Freedom Bible; and The Grandmother’s Bible.
For the younger generation, I found The Youth Bible; Teen Study Bible; Revolution: The Bible for Teen Guys; True Images: The Bible for Teen Girls; Student Serendipity Bible; College Devotional Bible; and last but not least, the Varsity Colors Bible.
For the real go-getters, try the Possibility Thinkers Bible, or perhaps The Maximized Living Bible, the New Spirit-Filled Life Bible, or the New Spirit-Filled Life Bible for Women. Then there’s the Celebrate Recovery Bible and the Urban Devotional Bible.
For deep thinkers, I found the Archaelogical Study Bible; The Apologetics Study Bible; and The Reformation Study Bible.
The career Bibles were well represented: The Sportsman’s Bible; The Teacher’s Bible; The Nurse’s Bible; The Firefighter’s Bible; The Police Officer’s Bible; The Sailor’s Bible; The Soldier’s Bible; The Marine’s Bible; and finally the Battlezone Bible for the trooper on the move.
What most struck me, however, was not so much what I did see as what I didn’t see. For all the specialty niche translations and Study Bibles, I had difficulty finding Bibles that challenge patriarchy or even systemic injustice. These were personalized inspirational Bibles, which is fine as far at that goes; but with dozens of Bibles on offer for Christians of all types, why aren’t there more Bibles that seriously engage social issues of the day?
Gender-Inclusive Bibles
I did find one exception in the used Bible section: The 1995 revision of the NRSV named The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version, published by Oxford University Press. Like “gender-inclusive” Bibles already on offer (CEV, GNB, NAB, NCV, NJB, NLT, NRSV, REB, SB, and TNIV), this version meticulously avoids the masculine generic language that has become increasingly controversial in a world striving toward true freedom and equality for all. However, The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version was one of the first to also apply the gender-inclusive principle to Godde. By eliminating all pronouns referring to Godde, this version achieved a gender-neutral conception of the divine; by substituting the word “God” for the word “Father” in most instances, it deemphasized the ubiquitous imaging of Godde in purely masculine terms; by occasionally using the term “Father-Mother,” it strove to remind us that Godde can and should be described in feminine as well as masculine terms.
However, in relying more heavily on gender-neutral language for Godde, this translation did not emphasize the Divine Feminine.
The same can be said of The Inclusive Bible: The First Egalitarian Translation, published by Sheed & Ward in 2007. The result of nineteen years of work by a Catholic group named Priests for Equality, this is the first one-volume edition of a gender-neutral Bible designed for liturgical purposes. This translation, which is more dynamic and poetic, also avoids using masculine language of Godde, but often avoids feminine language as well.
Both of these Bibles are excellent translations and highly recommended. They are two exceptions standing head and shoulders above other inclusive Bible versions. However, in relying so heavily on gender-neutral language for Godde, they offer only a partial concession to those of us who long for a recovery of the Divine Feminine within the Christian tradition. It doesn’t distract us by using masculine terms, but it doesn’t nourish us by using feminine terms either, nor does it challenge those who repudiate the Divine Feminine entirely.
The Divine Feminine Version of the Bible seeks to change all of that. This version comes from a grassroots movement which is frustrated and tired of waiting for the mainstream publishing establishment to provide us with a Bible which incorporates the insights of generations of feminist, womanist, and liberationist scholarship, among others. More recent Bibles such as The Peoples’ Bible do reflect these concerns in their essays and annotations, but they still use translations such as the NRSV which describe Godde using masculine pronouns. We are confident that one day fresh translations reflecting more of these concerns will be made available by established publishers, but in the meantime a gap desperately needs to be filled, and this is the version to do that.
The Development of The Divine Feminine Version (DFV)
The Divine Feminine Version (DFV) has taken its cue from The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version. Rather than develop a new translation directly from the original Greek, the DFV editors modified an existing English translation. In this case, we chose a public domain version which was based on the 1901 ASV and modified to conform to the Majority Text. We began by reformatting this version and modifying it to track more closely with contemporary versions which rely on the Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies.
Noting that most Bible readers don’t spend much time comparing textual variants, we eliminated references to variant manuscript readings in the footnotes, though in some instances we retained questionable passages in brackets. Whereas other contemporary versions relegate verses like Matthew 17:21, 18:11, and 23:14 to the margins, the DFV retains them in brackets.
Though our work was primarily editorial, we did consult the UBS’ Fourth Corrected Edition in order to ensure the accuracy of our work. The reader can therefore rest assured that even when we rendered the Biblical texts in unique ways, we nevertheless strove to ensure that they were plausible interpretations of the original Greek. Additional details on some of these editorial decisions have been included in the cameo essays and footnotes.
No Bible version is perfect. Nor is it possible to provide a technically “literal” translation from one language to another. The closest we can come to a “literal” translation is an interlinear which inserts English words below the Greek text, but that’s not technically a translation. Once a plausible meaning of the original text has been determined, then we can consider the best way to convey that meaning to a current generation. This is where the creative work of reimagining the text comes into play.
Our Philosophy
Generally speaking, Bible versions which tend toward literal fidelity are less readable, whereas Bible versions which tend to be more readable are less literal. The more literal approach is often called “formal equivalence” and the more readable approach is often called “functional equivalence” or “dynamic equivalence.” Because Greek and English are very different languages, no Bible version can be both readable and literal. Consequently, all Bibles occupy some point along the spectrum between those two poles.
The DFV editors haven’t hesitated to render the ancient texts in contemporary language reflecting contemporary concerns and issues. In favoring dynamic equivalence over formal equivalence, we’ve continued in the tradition of many distinguished Bible versions. We maintain that this approach is not only valid but preferable in many ways.
As an example, consider Jeremiah 31:20. The KJV “accurately” translates this text to say “therefore my bowels are troubled for him.” The NIV is less “literal” when it renders this phrase, “therefore my heart yearns for him.” However, in choosing a less “literal” translation, the NIV is more faithful in conveying the sense of the original. In actual fact, of course, neither the bowels nor the heart are the seat of our emotions. Ancient Israelites spoke of the bowels in that way and we speak of the heart in that way, making “heart” a far preferable choice for us.
The point of all this is simply that “changing the words” of the Bible is not necessarily a distortion of the Bible; it can also be a way of faithfully communicating the Bible’s intent. So, for example, rendering the masculine generic “brothers” as “sisters and brothers” conveys the original intent by taking into consideration the fact that traditional masculine generic language doesn’t “read” as generic in today’s English. The term “brothers” may have been considered gender-inclusive at one time, but many today do not consider this a gender-inclusive term. Consequently, choosing a gender-inclusive phrase like “sisters and brothers” is a faithful rendition of the original.
One final note about inclusive language. Many inclusive Bible versions have been criticized for their approach to the problem of the third person singular pronoun. Since there is no gender-neutral third person singular pronoun, most inclusive Bibles approach the problem by either rewriting phrases to use the second person (“you,” “your”) or by rendering phrases in the plural instead of the singular (for example, “laborers deserve their food” instead of “the laborer deserves his food”). These versions have been criticized for potentially obscuring the personal or individual application of some phrases, as in Revelation 3:20 (“I will come in and eat with them” as opposed to “I will come in and eat with him”).
We considered many strategies for approaching the problem of the third person singular pronoun, but decided in the vast majority of cases to use a different (if controversial) approach. We have chosen to use the singular “they,” which has become so commonplace in contemporary English that several grammar texts now admit this usage to be acceptable. In actual fact, the singular “they” has a long history in the English language and has already been used by many other Bible versions, including most notably the King James Version (cf. Matt. 18:35, “if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses,” emphasis added).
From “God” to “Godde”
In the classic feminist book She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse,1 Elizabeth Johnson grapples with the problem of the traditional term “God.”2 Because of its long history of association with an exclusively masculine image of the divine, to many it implies a masculine way of conceiving the Christian “God,” as opposed to “the Goddess,” a term that Christians have not traditionally embraced.
In an attempt to overcome this “God / Goddess” dichotomy, Rosemary Radford Ruether suggested the term “God/ess,” which may work as a written term but which comes across as simply “Goddess” as a spoken term. Consequently, Johnson decided to work with the traditional term “God” as “an interim strategy,”3 “pouring the new wine of women’s hope of flourishing into the old word God,” while recognizing that “[u]ltimately this strategy may be superseded.”4
Since then, a new term has bubbled to the surface, gaining ground on blogs and web sites around the internet within the last few years. That term, “Godde,” seeks the middle ground between “God” and “Goddess,” combining a feminine-type ending with the traditionally masculine-type word. It’s intended as a more gender-inclusive term, something broader than both “God” and “Goddess” and yet transcending both as a term that points beyond itself to a divine reality that we can grasp only by metaphor. Some pronounce the term with two syllables, like “Goddess” without the “ss,” whereas others pronounce it with only one syllable, like “God.” Even if pronounced with only one syllable, however, it nevertheless serves as a constant reminder that the Godde of whom we speak is not the ancient man with the white beard so quickly recognizable as a traditional Christian stereotype.
In a sense, then, this too is experimental, and may or may not continue to gain ground among those seeking alternatives to the exclusively masculine image of “God.” In the future, another alternative may emerge, but for the present the editors of the Divine Feminine Version of the New Testament are content to affirm the increasing popularity of “Godde” as a way of describing the One whom Christians worship.
From the Divine “He” to the Divine “She”: Gender and Biology
In the Women’s Bible Commentary,5 Sharon H. Ringe describes the need for gender-inclusive Bible translations:
A particular concern in women’s interpretation is the problem of language and gender. The so-called generic use of words like ‘man,’ ‘brother,’ or ‘mankind’ and of masculine pronouns in traditional translations of the Bible obscure or even negate the participation of women in the communities whose stories are conveyed in the Bible. The translators of the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) worked strenuously and systematically to address these problems. Their translation, on which this commentary is principally based, uses words like ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ and ‘brothers and sisters’ where the gender of a person is unspecified or where women as well as men are clearly being addressed.6
She goes on, however, to describe a problem not addressed by the NRSV, namely, the exclusively masculine pronouns used of Godde:
A theological issue of great importance in feminist interpretation that was not addressed by the translators of the NRSV is the problem of gender and language about God. All pronouns referring to God in that translation are masculine singular. The explanation given is that these pronouns (or verb endings, as pronouns are often conveyed in Hebrew) are found in the original languages and that therefore the translation is accurate. In both Greek and Hebrew, however, all nouns have grammatical gender, which governs the gender of pronouns used to refer to the nouns. In that sense, those languages are like such modern languages as Spanish, where, for example, ‘table’ (la mesa) is a feminine noun, requiring a feminine pronoun (ella, ‘she’). If one were translating from Spanish to English, however, where pronouns convey biological and not merely grammatical gender, the pronoun that refers to ‘table’ would be translated with the neuter ‘it.’ The same freedom prevails in rendering pronouns from Greek or Hebrew. Thus, the decision about which pronouns to use for God is one that cannot be made on grammatical grounds. It is a theological decision, and one whose resolution affects the way one views God. An interpretative decision that many women make is not to use any pronouns to refer to God (simply to repeat the word ‘God’), thus conveying the theological affirmation that God is beyond categories of gender.7
That’s the approach chosen by An Inclusive Version and The Inclusive Bible, and it is certainly a valid approach: Avoiding all pronouns with reference to Godde is an effective way to highlight the historic Christian position that Godde transcends gender. On the other hand, however, avoiding pronouns altogether arguably doesn’t balance out the exclusively masculine language that so many use of Godde; it simply sidesteps the issue. Consequently, Ringe’s point about the gender of the pronouns in the Bible deserves some emphasis.
As grammarians are constantly reminding feminists, the gender of Hebrew and Greek nouns and pronouns doesn’t imply anything about biology or sex. Fair enough, but that point cuts both ways: The reason that pronouns referring back to “Godde” are masculine in gender is not because Godde is more properly described as a “he,” but because they have to match the gender of the word theos. Consequently, “he,” “she,” and “it” are equally valid ways of rendering those pronouns in English, a language in which the gender of pronouns isn’t determined by the gender of their antecedents but by what we intend to communicate in terms of personhood and sex.
When speaking about Godde, we necessarily use the language of analogy and metaphor because we cannot adequately grasp all that Godde is. When we describe Godde as “she” or “he” we’re not saying that Godde is biologically feminine or masculine, but that Godde engages us in spiritual relationship. Experiencing Godde as “She Who Is” affirms the Divine Feminine and expands our appreciation and understanding of Godde.
It’s our contention that a Bible version which uses the pronoun “she” of Godde is just as true to the original languages as Bible versions which use the pronoun “he.” In fact, given the importance of reclaiming the Divine Feminine within the Christian tradition, the need may be even more urgent.
From “Father” to “Mother”
Rendering “God” as “Godde” and using divine feminine pronouns are straightforward editorial decisions, as we have argued above. But what about the NT’s pervasive use of the masculine word “Father” to describe Godde? Inclusive Bibles have proposed different solutions.
For example, An Inclusive Version often simply replaces “Father” with “God,” but occasionally uses the awkward term “Father-Mother” to balance out the gendered parental imagery. By contrast, The Inclusive Bible uses the term “Abba God” instead of “Father.”
In the DFV we have chosen simply to render “Father” as “Mother” in most cases. This decision is based on the fact that the type of intimate familial divine-human relationship that Christians associate with the term “Father” are equally, if not more powerfully, communicated by the term “Mother.” Relying again on the principle of dynamic equivalence, and recognizing the language of parenthood as a metaphor with reference to Godde, our decision to use “Mother” instead of “Father” seems an appropriate way to highlight the divine feminine.
Christians have long thought of the “Fatherhood” of Godde as an effective metaphor for talking about spiritual intimacy with the divine. For example, many continue to believe that the Aramaic word Abba means “Daddy,” despite the fact that Joachim Jeremias, the scholar who proposed that translation, later retracted his suggestion as “a piece of inadmissable naïvity.” Nevertheless, though the significance of the term Abba is more ambiguous,8 we recognize the importance of the intimate spiritual experience that people associate with the term.
Why “the Son of Godde” and not “the Daughter of Godde”?
In The Divine Feminine Trinity, we argue that all three “persons” of the Trinity may be described using feminine terms. In the case of the second “person” of the Trinity, the Divine Feminine is revealed most strikingly in the incarnation, the “enfleshment” of Lady Wisdom. Why, then, have we chosen to retain the traditional language of “the Son” instead of “the Child” or even “the Daughter” of Godde?
This decision is not based solely on the historical particularity of Jesus’ maleness; we have also considered the theological significance of a gendered representation. If Jesus were merely a teacher of ancient Wisdom, for example, there would be no particular benefit to thinking of him in masculine terms. One reason we have preserved the NT’s image of Jesus in masculine terms has to do with the crucifixion.
Throughout the NT, the story of Jesus is the story of the cross. For Paul, the Gospel is Jesus crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). It may be argued that the Gospels read like passion stories with long introductions. Portraying Jesus as the divine Daughter who was abducted, abused, and killed might run the risk of reinscribing violence against women in our theological discourse. By contrast, it may be argued that the narrative of a privileged male voluntarily laying aside his privilege and giving his life has transformative power. As Elizabeth A. Johnson has written:
Feminist hermeneutics has blazed a trail showing how the gospel story of Jesus resists being used to justify patriarchal dominance in any form. His preaching about the reign of God and his inclusive life-style lived and breathed the opposite, creating a challenge that brought down on his head the wrath of religious and civil authority. They crucified him, but Sophia-God receives that death and transforms it to life. When the story of Jesus is told in this way, a certain appropriateness accrues to the historical fact that he was a male human being. If in a patriarchal culture a woman had preached compassionate love and enacted a style of authority that serves, she would most certainly have been greeted with a colossal shrug. Is this not what women are supposed to do by nature? But from a social position of male privilege Jesus preached and acted this way, and herein lies the summons.
Above all, the cross is raised as a challenge to the natural rightness of male dominating rule. The crucified Jesus embodies the exact opposite of the patriarchal ideal of the powerful man, and shows the steep price to be paid in the struggle for liberation. The cross thus stands as a poignant symbol of the “kenosis of patriarchy,” the self-emptying of male dominating power in favor of the new humanity of compassionate service and mutual empowerment. On this reading Jesus’ maleness is prophecy announcing the end of patriarchy, at least as divinely ordained.9
Consequently, we have chosen to retain the masculine language of “the Son of Godde” in the DFV and have consistently portrayed Jesus in masculine terms. This does not mean that we don’t support feminine representations of Jesus, simply that in the biblical narrative we have chosen to retain the masculine portrait of Jesus in light of the crucifixion.
However, in considering how to render the phrase “the Son of Man,” instead of using a more gender-neutral phrase like “the Human One” or “the Chosen One,” we decided to split the difference and simply replace the word “Man” with “Woman,” rendering the phrase as “the Son of Woman.” Not only does this reinforce our emphasis on the divine feminine, it also echoes the phrase “born of a woman” in Galatians 4:4, a phrase which describes the humanity of Jesus.
Conclusions
None of these decisions is intended to reinvent Christianity. Our intent, using the principle of dynamic equivalence, is to attempt to faithfully restate the ancient text in contemporary language. A better understanding of the scriptural text leads to better theology. We cannot pretend that the interpretative choices made here are the only valid choices or even the best possible choices; multiple strategies are desirable, especially given the great diversity of readers of the New Testament through the ages. No one size will fit all. If we can simply raise awareness of issues in the way we render the text, we believe our purpose will have been achieved.
Mark Mattison, General Editor
Notes
1New York: Crossroad, 1992.
2Ibid., pp. 42-44.
3Ibid., p. 43.
4Ibid., p. 44.
5Westminster / John Knox Press, 1992.
6Ibid., pp. 7,8.
7Ibid., p. 8.
8Cf. D’Angelo, Mary Rose, “Abba and Father: Imperial Theology and the Jesus Traditions,” Journal of Bibical Literature, Vol. III, No. 4, 1992, pp. 611-630.
9Op. cit., pp. 160, 161, emphasis mine.
Cameo Essay: Women in Jesus’ Genealogy
In order to bring greater gender parity to our rendering of the scriptural narrative, the editors of the DFV decided to list the names of biblical women in Jesus’ genealogy whose names are known from other scriptures. In a sense, this simply follows a trajectory that has already been established in Matthew’s genealogy. Matthew’s genealogy actually defies the cultural standard of the time by including five women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary.
Why are these women included? Some have suggested that the women in Matthew’s genealogy are included because they foreshadow the inclusion of Gentiles in Jesus’ communities: Tamar and Rahab were Canaanites, Ruth was a Moabite, and Bathsheba was likely a Hittite. On the other hand, Amy-Jill Levine has suggested that each of these women is included as an example of the “higher righteousness” displayed by those who are “removed from positions of power,” as well as women “who were initially removed from traditional domestic arrangements: unmarried, separated from their spouse, widowed, or prostitutes” (“Matthew,” The Women’s Bible Commentary, p. 253).
While honoring women by inclusion, however, the Matthean genealogy is also troubling in some respects. For instance, the Greek manuscripts do not directly name Bathsheba; she is referred to simply as “the [wife] of Uriah.” She is apparently not even afforded the privilege of being named. Additionally, the very practice of constructing genealogies by patrilineal descent raises questions.
MM
In the beginning there was
Silence
Chaos
Deep
In the beginning there was
Blackness
Void
Nothing
In the beginning
The Spirit brooded
Godde spoke
And Wisdom cheered
In the beginning was Godde
And Wisdom was with Godde
Before She was rationalized into
The Word
Before She was reduced to
A Housewife
In the beginning was Godde and Wisdom
Creating
Cheering
Saying, “It is good.”
SA
Cameo Essay: “He Taught Them Many Things Through Stories”
The literary genre of Jesus’ parables is widely misunderstood. Consequently, the editors of the DFV chose to render the term “parable” as “story” in an attempt to disassociate the term from its traditional baggage. Jesus’ parables are widely regarded as “earthly stories with heavenly meanings,”1 allegories intended to convey spiritual truths quite apart from social and political structures. This despite the fact that Jesus’ stories often addressed pressing social concerns like farming, patron-client relationships, wealth, and poverty.
In the process of this dualistic spiritualization, the concerns of the oppressed have often been marginalized and Godde has generally been identified with oppressive characters:
God is identified with powerful ruling figures, even those who are cruel, arbitrary, and extremely greedy for money: The king destroys a state because some of the members of its elite have murdered his messengers (Matt 22:7). The king orders a guest who lacks a wedding garment to be bound and cast into the outer darkness (Matt 22:11-13). The slaveowner punishes a slave who has refused to acquire 100 percent profit with the money entrusted to him (Matt 25:14-30). The examples can be multiplied. Not even the most refined metaphor theories have questioned that the “king” who acts, for example, as described in Matt 22:1-13 represents God. The words homoioun and homoios in parable introductions are understood as “equate,” not as “compare”; in the latter case it is possible that differences may also play a role.2
The editors of the DFV have followed Schottroff’s lead by preferring the reading “the Reign of Godde can be compared to” over “the Reign of Godde is like.” This more ambiguous rendering opens up Jesus’ stories to more critical reflection and the question of whether Godde’s Reign is being favorably compared to the imperial elements of the story, strongly contrasted with them, or only tangentially like some aspect of them.
Notes
1Herzog, II, William R., Parables as Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Westminster: John Knox Press), 1994, p. 9.
2Schottroff, Luise, The Parables of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), 2006, p. 87.
MM
Cameo Essay: “Toll Collectors and Sex Workers”
The people described as “tax collectors” in most Bible versions were more accurately “toll collectors,” people who staffed booths to collect tolls (cf. Matt. 9:9). They were not high-ranking officials but rather low-level functionaries, “sellouts” who were so desperate for work that they were even willing to collect toll fees for the hated Romans.
Sex workers, in Jesus’ day as in ours, comprised another marginalized social group. They were generally exploited twice: first by being forced into prostitution to survive, servicing a more respectable clientele, and then by being blamed by that same class for encouraging promiscuity.
Jesus refused to ostracize toll collectors and sex workers, victims of an unjust and oppressive social system. Instead he welcomed them, inviting them into table fellowship with himself – a strong statement of acceptance and inclusion.
MM
Cameo Essay: The Woman Who Anointed Jesus
This woman did more than relieve Jesus’ sun- and wind-dried skin with luxurious oil. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the only people whose head was anointed with oil were kings. They were anointed to be the sovereign of the country. This woman’s act was a prophetic act. As she poured the oil over Jesus’ head, she proclaimed that he was the Sovereign of the Jews. It is one of the few times in the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus allowed his messiahship to be openly proclaimed.
But Jesus also made sure that, once again, his followers understood he was a different kind of sovereign. He proclaimed the woman’s prophetic act also prepared him for his burial. Her act proclaimed him as Sovereign and the Son of Woman who would first suffer before coming into his reign. For her generous, prophetic act, Jesus said that wherever the good news was preached, she would be remembered.
SA
Cameo Essay: Who Really Killed Jesus?
One of the most tragic crimes in the history of Christendom is the scurrilous, anti-Semitic charge that “the Jews” killed Jesus. A number of scholars believe that the Gospels laid the groundwork for this charge by downplaying the responsibility of the Romans for the execution of Jesus in an effort to make Christianity appear less politically threatening to the imperial authorities.
Indeed, the portrait of a reluctant Pilate bending under public pressure and washing his hands of the entire affair appears to support this shifting of blame from Rome to the Jews (cf. Matt. 27:24). However, the Gospels also make it clear that it was not the rank-and-file peasants and artisans who handed Jesus over to the Romans; it was the aristocratic elites intent on appeasing the Romans (cf. John 11:48ff). According to John’s Gospel, Jesus blamed both Pilate and Caiaphas for his impending execution (John 19:11). Caiaphas had been appointed to his position by Pilate’s predecessor, Valeris Gratus, and could be deposed by the current prefect, Pilate. Caiaphas had no power over Pilate; that was not the way the political machine was oiled.
In fact, the Gospels may not be as charitable toward Pilate as it appears at first blush. Jesus’ execution was clearly Pilate’s responsibility. Had Pilate truly believed that Jesus was innocent and executed him anyway, he would still have been a scoundrel. Tactics like washing his hands and pretending to bargain with Jesus’ accusers could be understood as shrewd acts of manipulation, the types of blame-shifting tactics practiced by corrupt politicians throughout history.
The incontrovertible fact that Jesus was executed by crucifixion clearly situates the blame for Jesus’ death squarely on the Romans. Crucifixion was not a punishment for ordinary criminals; it was the Empire’s most brutal punishment reserved for revolutionaries and enemies of the state. This political execution implies that Jesus’ career was not limited to teaching spiritual truths, but that it also presented a social and political challenge to the imperial status quo.
MM
Romans: Systematic Theological Treatise
or Narrative about Godde’s People?
Paul’s letter to the Romans occupies an unparalleled place among all the books of the Christian Bible. In a way, this should come as no surprise; as Paul’s magnum opus, it’s by far the largest, most intricately argued work of the first and most prolific writer of the New Testament. As such, it has become the prism through which all of Paul’s letters and, indeed, all of the New Testament tends to be interpreted. It isn’t unusual, for example, for Protestants to reflexively interpret key passages from Matthew in light of classical readings of Paul.
The classical reading is rooted in the work of Augustine and mediated to us through the works of the Protestant Reformers. It approaches Romans as a philosophical treatise about divine sovereignty and human inability to merit justification before an uncompromising Godde, leading to the conclusion that only the sacrificial death of the incarnate Son can satisfy the legal demands of a righteous deity. In this approach, deeds of Torah (like circumcision) in Romans are reduced to nearly incidental examples of ineffective human efforts to earn salvation. This reading not only misrepresents Judaism as a religion of legalism, it also fails to do justice to the structure of the book: although it seems to work somewhat through the first eight chapters, it runs aground on chapters 9 through 11, which can appear as a puzzling anomaly interrupting the flow of the book. It’s often treated as a parenthetical excursus on Israel, though chapter 9 is sometimes interpreted as a series of examples to illustrate the Calvinist doctrine of predestination.
The standard systematic theological approach, then, looks something like this:
|
Chapter(s) |
Topic |
| 1 – 3 | The Doctrine of Total Depravity |
| 4 – 5 | The Doctrine of Justification |
| 6 – 8 | The Doctrine of Sanctification |
| 9 – 11 | Excursus on Israel |
| 12 – 15 | Ethical Application |
| 16 | Postscript |
New Testament scholars have increasingly questioned this approach, however, regarding it as anachronistic. This new perspective on Paul has moved Israel and Torah to the fore, interpreting Romans as a letter about the relationship of Gentile Jesus-followers to Godde’s covenant community. One of the forerunners of this new perspective, Krister Stendahl, summarized the issue:
The Reformers’ interpretation of Paul rests on an analogism when Pauline statements about Faith and Works, Law and Gospel, Jews and Gentiles are read in the framework of late medieval piety. The Law, the Torah, with its specific requirements of circumcision and food restrictions becomes a general principle of “legalism” in religious matters. Where Paul was concerned about the possibility for Gentiles to be included in the messianic community, his statements are now read as answers to the quest for assurance about man’s [sic.] salvation out of a common human predicament.1
This Jewish-Gentile dynamic is established in the salutation (1:1-7) and thanksgiving (1:8-15) portions of the letter and explicitly detailed at the beginning of the body (1:16,17). Chapter 1:18-32 reflects a typically Jewish criticism of pagan Gentiles, followed by a criticism of rival teachers of Gentiles within the Jesus movement (2:1-3:21). Chapter 3:21-26 addresses atonement and reconciliation, followed by 3:17-31 which returns to the key question of Jews and Gentiles together – an anomalous passage on the traditional reading, but an important bookend to 1:16,17 establishing the key concern of Romans in the newer approaches.
Then follows a narrative framework patterned after key points in the story of Israel. In his lecture “Coming Home to St Paul? Reading Romans a Hundred Years after Charles Gore,” N.T. Wright describes that framework with reference to the Exodus:
[T]he Exodus story forms the narrative substructure of much of Paul’s writing. The Exodus was the great redeeming action, accomplished in fulfilment of God’s covenant promises to Abraham. Paul now uses Exodus-language to explain the significance of the Messiah’s death and resurrection. He shapes the whole of Romans 4-8 around a long retelling of the story: the promise to Abraham in ch. 4, the passage through the baptismal water by which freedom is attained in ch. 6, the giving of the Spirit to do what the law could not in chs. 7 and 8, finally reaching the inheritance, the whole redeemed creation, at the climax of ch. 8.2
In this context, “Romans 9-11 is not, then, an extraneous aside, but a necessary and intrinsic part of the letter”3 – the climax of Paul’s argument about Israel in the plan of Godde rather than a parenthetical excursus or an irrelevant dissertation about predestination. “In the same way,” Wright continues, “chapters 12-15 focus on the question of how Christians from different cultural backgrounds should live together in a single community – a question of particular relevance to Rome, where groups from different backgrounds often lived separately, as in some modern cities.”4
The fact that Romans isn’t a systematic theological treatise is strengthened by a consideration of the purpose of Romans. The point of the letter wasn’t to summarize a lifetime of Paul’s philosophizing but to pave the way for the next phase of his ministry. After delivering a financial collection from Gentile Jesus-communities in Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem, Paul hoped to travel to Rome in preparation for a more ambitious mission to Spain (15:22-33). Some scholars have argued that much of the final chapter (16:1-23) was not originally part of Romans, but rather a letter of commendation for the deacon Phoebe (16:1), who was probably the messenger who delivered the letter to the Romans.5
Notes
1Krister Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press), 1977, pp. 85,86.
3Ibid.
4Ibid.
5Cf. Arthur J. Dewey, et al., The Authentic Letters of Paul: A New Reading of Paul’s Rhetoric and Meaning (Salem, OR: Polebridge Press), 2010, pp. 200, 251).
MM
The Comments feature has been disabled on this page. In order to comment on any aspect of the Divine Feminine Version (DFV) of the New Testament, please visit either our Positive (Constructive) Feedback page or our Rebuttals page.
