Western Society is perhaps more indebted to the Hebrew Bible than to any other book, and arguably the most famous teaching associated with the Hebrew Bible is that of absolute monotheism.  This position famously affirms that there is only one god in existence and no other(s).  For example, Deuteronomy 6:4, known as the Shema, has often been cited since antiquity as supporting this understanding of monotheism.[1] It declares, “Listen, O Israel, YHWH is our god, YHWH alone [lit. YHWH (is) one]” (שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד). This understanding of ancient Israelite faith, found in both popular and scholarly circles, purportedly traces itself in the biblical narrative to at least the time when YHWH revealed himself at Sinai to Moses and Israel,[2] if not all the way back to the creation of the world in Genesis 1 when God alone created the world by his word.[3] Naturally, this view has been held to be in direct opposition to the Mesopotamian theogonic and cosmogonic myths, such as the infamous Enuma Elish,[4] which recounts the creation of the gods and the world through fierce battles and rivalries between the personified primal elements of nature and the many gods who eventually tame them.

As familiar as this description might sound, it nevertheless has been severely critiqued by modern Biblicists and Assyriologists, especially for the time of pre-exilic Israel.[5] All along, it seems, Israel believed in the existence of a multiplicity of divine beings, as numerous biblical texts reveal.  Thus, for example, after the miraculous escape of the Israelites from Egypt through the divine power of YHWH, Exodus 15:11, part of one of the oldest poems in the Hebrew Bible, simply asks, “Who is like you among the gods, O YHWH?” (מִֽי־כָמֹכָה בָּֽאֵלִם יְהוָה). Of course, for the author of this text, YHWH is supreme among the gods, yet the question implies that there are other gods in existence, just as Exodus 20:3 assumes that there are indeed other gods that the Israelites might worship at YHWH’s expense.[6] Nevertheless, such texts might seem to be paltry evidence that Israel was polytheistic in any meaningful sense of the word, even in its earliest periods.  Yet for the ancient historian the evidence is significant enough to warrant further examination of the biblical, epigraphical, and archaeological evidences that might be brought to bear on the issue of determining whether or not ancient Israel was truly monotheistic.

[2] Perhaps the most articulate proponent of a unique Israelite monotheism dating to the time of Moses is Yeḥezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel: from its Beginning to the Babylonian Exile (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960).  Also note the conservative views of Jeffrey H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions, HSS 31 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); and W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: An Historical Analysis of Two Conflicting Faiths (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968).

[3] Although other divinities appear to be present during the creation of the world in Genesis 1 (see, for instance, Gen. 1:26-27; cf. Gen. 3:22; 11:7).

[4] For a good translation of ancient Mesopotamian myths, including Enuma Elish, see Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).  For Ugaritic and Canaanite myths, see Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle 1, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU 1.1 – 1.2 (Leiden: Brill, 1994); Smith, Mark S. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle 2, Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3 – 1.4 (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Mark S. Smith and Simon B. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997); and Michael Coogan, Stories from Ancient Canaan (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978).

[5] Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. The Biblical resource series. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Journal for the study of the Old Testament, 265 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001); and Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1973).

[6] Cyrus Herzl Gordon and Gary Rendsurg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1997), 148-149.  Also note the title of J. Tigay’s book, You Shall Have No Other Gods.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is God’s power for salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first, as well as the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith(fullness) for faith(fullness), as it has been written, ‘(and) the Righteous One/righteous will live through faith(fullness).’  -Romans 1.16-17 [1]

Few passages in the New Testament have elicited more debate throughout the centuries than Romans 1.16-17 and its explanatory corollary passages in Romans 3 and 5. Standing towards the beginning of perhaps Paul’s greatest letter, Romans 1.16-17 is the formulaic prelude to a dense discussion which follows in subsequent chapters. It is the author’s contention that the most adequate understanding of Paul’s writings follows from the recent insights of what has been termed the “New Perspective on Paul” (hereafter NPP).[2] Although not a univocal movement, the NPP is a revolution in Pauline scholarship which began in the late 1970’s following E.P. Sander’s major publication Paul and Palestinian Judaism, seeking to place Paul and his writings back in their proper historical context: namely that of first century Judaism(s).[3] Dislodging Paul from later Augustinian and Reformed interpretations that portray Paul as though he were fighting against Pelagius, Erastus, or the Catholic Church, the NPP has brought to the fore important components of Pauline thought that have been previously neglected—or simply misunderstood—not least of which is Paul’s discussion the dikaiosune theou, the “righteousness of God.”

To understand Paul’s writings, one must first understand his personal background and the socio-historical context of his writings. Paul was born a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised on the eighth day of his life, belonged to the Pharisaic party, and claimed to have followed the “traditions of my fathers” more passionately than any of his contemporaries, even stating that he was “blameless” according to the “righteousness” that could be found under the Torah/Law (Philippians 3.4-6; Rom. 9.1-5; Gal. 1.14; 2.15). His zeal for Torah led him to fight against the “church of God” (Gal. 1.13). However, he abruptly became its greatest advocate after he received “the benefaction of God”[4] (1 Cor. 15.8-10) when God “[revealed] his Son” (Gal. 1:16), the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth, to him in a revelatory vision (cf. 1 Cor. 9:1-2). Following this vision Paul became a powerful advocate for Gentile Christianity, often combating within early Christianity alternative viewpoints that tried to disavow Gentiles Christians full admittance into the Church unless they first followed Torah proscriptions, such as circumcision and dietary laws.[5]

However, despite his revolutionary change from strict Torah observance to his new-found Christian “freedom” (Gal. 2.4), much of Paul’s personality and religious worldview remained the same.[6] Scholars now almost universally recognize this point,[7] which is foundational for all further discussion. For instance, Paul quotes often from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, displaying his underlying assumption that they are still authoritative texts for interpreting the God of Israel’s past and present will and actions. He likens his call as an apostle to a prophetic calling (Gal. 1.15-16; cf. Isa. 49.1; Jer. 1.5);[8] in fact, he appears to understand his mission as apostle to the Gentiles as shaped around passages in Isaiah that display the Gentiles coming to worship the God of Israel (Rom. 15.21; cf. Isa. 52.15).[9] His devotion for Torah has now become his devotion to the proclamation of the Christian gospel.[10] His worldview remains dominated by the Jewish mentality of division between Jews and Gentiles, between the God of Israel and the pagan gods of corrupted humanity (Rom. 1.16; 9.24; 1 Cor. 1.22-25; 10.32, etc.).[11] His religious thought is dominated by an apocalyptic understanding of the Messiah (the Messiah being a decidedly Jewish eschatological hope), and the future judgment of the world (e.g., 2 Cor. 5.10; Rom. 2.3-11).[12] His theology is constructed around the understanding that God’s relationship with humanity is founded upon covenant agreements, especially God’s covenants with Abraham.[13] In fact, his arguments in Galatians and Romans are primarily shaped around explicating this covenant and its present purposes (see for instance, Gal. 3-5; Rom. 4-11). Many other such points could be listed. Simply, Paul’s concerns are the concerns of first century Judaism, but have been uniquely reformulated in result of his revelatory vision that prompted his newfound understanding that in Jesus of Nazareth God revealed his saving plan to the entire world, not just to those of Jewish heritage.[14]

With this basic understanding of the man who penned the letter to the Romans, our first question should thus be: What would a first-century Jew or Jewish Christian have understood by the phrase “the righteousness of God”? This phrase occurs throughout the Septuagint (LXX), and typically refers to God’s covenant faithfulness—especially within the Psalms and Isaiah, both of which were frequently quoted or alluded to by early Christians, including Paul.[15] That is, it is typically employed to express God’s own faithfulness to his covenants. According to Richard Hays:

God’s righteousness is manifest in his resolute faithfulness to the covenant with Israel. Indeed, in the lament Psalms, the Psalmist can frequently appeal to God’s righteousness as a way of invoking the…covenant blessing (cf. Ps 31:1; 71:2)… [God's righteousness] characterizes not merely an abstract attribute of God, but [a specific] aspect of the divine character made manifest in the action of claiming and delivering Israel.[16]

Before proceeding further, however, it must be understood that “righteousness language” as a theological concept within biblical literature (including Paul) and Second-Temple Judaism has its roots in the metaphor of the law courts of ancient Israel.[17] In ancient Israel, the law court was where the plaintiff or defendant would be vindicated, or declared “righteous,” after the trial had been heard by a judge. The righteousness at stake for the defendant or plaintiff is that of a status (not necessarily a judgment of the moral state of the individual) after the trial has concluded which declares them to be in the right.[18] The righteousness at stake for the judge, however, is not a status, but a quality of impartiality and commitment to fairness that he uses in deciding the case.[19] It is clear within this context that when calling the judge “righteous” or the defendant or plaintiff “righteous,” two quite different meanings are being posited. It is a conflation of usage to suggest that the judge has imputed or imparted his own righteousness to the defendant or plaintiff after a case has been decided, as if righteousness is a substance that can be transferred from one to another; nor does it make any sense to say that the judge has a status of righteousness after the trial has been concluded. Simply, the judge’s “righteousness” and the plaintiff’s or defendant’s “righteousness” are different categorically.[20] This point will become important when analyzing the history of interpretation of Paul’s use of dikaiosune theou in Romans.[21]

One more critical point must also be understood concerning “righteousness/justification” language (both “just” and “righteous” in English [and their other related forms] translate just one word [and their related forms] in Greek and Hebrew) and the theological metaphor of the law court—it only makes sense when the understanding of God’s righteousness (as judge) is firmly fixed within the understanding of the covenant with Israel.[22] For it is within the analogy of the law court that the apocalyptic judgment of God upon the nations (Gentiles) will occur, and within which God’s vindication of Israel is often portrayed within the biblical texts (especially Isaiah and Psalms).[23] For instance: Israel has been constantly oppressed throughout her history by the gentile nations (whether depicted as the Assyrians, Babylonians, or, for first century Judaism, Rome), and seeks vindication in God’s metaphorical law court by bringing a suit against them (in some alternative instances, interestingly, it is instead YHWH who brings a suit against Israel for unfaithfulness; this “covenant lawsuit” motif is found often in biblical literature. [see Hosea 4.1-3; 12.2; Isaiah 3.13-15; Micah 6.1-8]).[24] Often in this scenario Israel (as plaintiff) seeks to be acquitted—declared “righteous” or vindicated—as God’s true people on the grounds of God’s own faithfulness to the covenant that he had graciously made with them. If Israel truly is God’s chosen community as he has promised and declared, then his righteousness—his resolute faithfulness to this covenant to deliver Israel and honor his covenant with them—they believe, will assure them their victory in court.[25]

As mentioned, however, Israel has been oppressed by foreign nations throughout her history. Has God, therefore, been unfaithful to his covenant? Has the honor of his name been destroyed for withholding his judgment on the Gentiles and allowing his own people to be oppressed? Prophetic interpreters, such as Hosea and Jeremiah, stated that Israel had often been allowed to be afflicted because of her sinfulness—for having been unfaithful to the Mosaic Covenant charter, the Torah.[26] The question thus arose following the annihilation of the Israelite monarchy and state in 586 BCE: would Israel ever be vindicated? Had God permanently abandoned Israel on account of her metaphorical “adultery” (for the analogy of Israel’s unfaithfulness to YHWH as adultery in biblical literature, see Hos. 1-3; Jer. 2.2; 3.1-5, 19-20; Ezek. 16; Is. 5.1-7; 62.5)? According to Richard Hays, following the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, the question of the continuing validity of God’s prior covenants with Israel became of paramount importance to explain, and it was to “God’s [own] righteousness”—the dikaiosune theou—that Israel’s hopes would appeal: “…In Deutero-Isaiah, God’s righteousness becomes the ground and content of an eschatological hope for the setting right of human historical experience: despite present appearances to the contrary, God will reveal his righteousness in a way which will vindicate Israel’s trust in him, thus leading all nations to acknowledge his cosmic lordship.” [27]

It is within this context of the metaphor of the law court and the hope of Israel’s future vindication on account of God’s own righteousness that Paul’s purposes for Romans should be grounded. Second Temple Judaism (including what would become the Christian movement) often expressed their future hope for the vindication of Israel through their eschatological views of the coming Messiah.[28] But if Israel already had a hope for the future deliverance of Israel (a hope based upon God’s righteousness and covenant promises, and which would manifest itself in a deliverer Messiah), what is Paul then seeking to defend God’s righteousness and the covenant against in Romans? Here we encounter head on Paul’s contention with those in the early Christian movement who sought to make Gentile converts conform to Torah obligations before allowing them full participation within the Christian community.[29] If Paul’s position is that Gentile converts do not need to follow Torah restrictions to be allowed full fellowship/table participation in the covenant community, has God been unfaithful to ethnic Israel which had been historically defined around the Mosaic covenant and its subsequent Torah obligations? It is to explain how God has both been faithful to the Mosaic covenant contracted with Israel and yet allowed Gentiles into the covenant community without first conforming to Torah obligations that much of Paul’s argument in Romans is focused according to the NPP.[30] For Paul, God’s honor and faithfulness to the covenant with Israel is not in question, for he has not abandoned her or his covenants with her, but has now instead reconstituted the true people of God—the true “Israel”—in the new Christian community, whose covenant charter is the “Torah (nomou) of faith” (Rom 3.27), not the Mosaic Torah.

God’s righteousness—his resolute covenant faithfulness to assure Israel’s hope of vindication—has been manifested apart from the Law (Rom. 3.28)—that is, the Torah—by sending Jesus to redeem all humanity (thus destroying Israel’s true oppressors, not Babylon or Rome, but sin and death) and to redefine God’s chosen community. For Paul, Israel had missed her vocation, namely to be that of a light to the world and to declare to the Gentiles through her example that the God of Israel’s dominion is all pervasive.[31] They had misunderstood all along the original covenant with Abraham (a covenant which, importantly, did not function under later Mosaic Torah obligations), which was destined to redeem all of humanity—not just ethnic Israel.[32] God, according to Paul, has acted to do just that in Jesus the Messiah. God’s righteousness is now apart from Torah, for it is not Torah that now defines or identifies who is truly member of “Israel.”

Before proceeding further, it might be helpful to clarify the Torah’s relationship to the covenant. This is another place where the NPP has helped to shed significant light on Pauline studies. As E.P. Sanders originally stated:

The all-pervasive view [of Judaism] can be summarized in the phrase ‘covenantal nomism’. Briefly put, covenantal nomism is the view that one’s place in God’s plan is established on the basis of the covenant and that the covenant requires as the proper response of man his obedience to its commandments, while providing means of atonement for transgression…obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such. It simply keeps an individual in the group which is the recipient of God’s grace.[33]

Sanders summarizes:

…covenantal nomism is this: (1) God has chosen Israel and (2) given the law. The law implies both (3) God‟s promise to maintain the election and (4) the requirement to obey. (5) God rewards obedience and punishes transgression. (6) The law provides for means of atonement, and atonement results in (7) maintenance or re-establishment of the covenantal relationship. (8) All those who are maintained in the covenant by obedience, atonement and God’s mercy belong to the group which will be saved. An important interpretation of the first and last points is that election and ultimately salvation are considered to be by God’s mercy rather than human achievement.[34]

Simply stated, Torah obligations were not usually viewed by early Jews, including Paul, as a means of earning salvation; rather one kept the Torah as the proper response to the salvific covenant offered by God to Israel. Unfortunately, later interpreters such as Augustine and Luther have misunderstood this crucial point, and in so doing have often presented Paul as antagonistic to the Torah, or as refuting (anachronistically) some form of moral legalism that seeks to earn God’s salvific favor. Rather, Paul is arguing that Torah obligations are no longer the means of maintaining the covenant and identifying who is already a part of true Israel.[35] The true community is no longer identified and no longer maintains the covenant based upon Mosaic Torah obligations as a proper response to God’s covenant love, but now instead keeps the “Torah of faith” (Rom. 3.27).

This foundational discussion of God’s righteousness and the relationship of Torah to the Mosaic Covenant will now allow us to understand properly what Paul’s use of another technical term—“justification”—meant. In Romans, as has been noted, Paul’s main purpose is to explain how God has accepted Gentile Christians as part of the true community of God without having to maintain Torah regulations. Paul’s point is that the true covenant community is no longer outwardly defined or identified only by those who are of Jewish ethnicity and practice strict Torah obedience—for God has now redefined the community around those who believe through “Christ’s faith(fulness)” (Rom. 3.22, 25-26). “Justification” as a technical term is about explaining how one is identified as a member within the collective covenant community (i.e., the Christian church, the new Israel); it is not used to denote how an individual somehow receives their future “salvation” in the present, or forgiveness of sins for that matter.[36] Paul is not using “justification” as a technical term to explain how a sinner is ultimately found to be worthy to dwell in God’s presence, and he is certainly not using “justification” as a term to explain how one is saved by God’s grace as opposed to those who try to “merit” their own future salvation and right standing with God. For both Paul, and Jews at large, earning ones salvation was not a concern. However, defining who God’s true people were in the present was always a pressing issue for both Jews and early Christians.[37] “Justification” as a technical term is concerned with identifying/defining those who are in the present members of God’s true corporate covenant community, those who can anticipate God’s future vindication conditional upon their continuing faithful obedience to the covenant and their future eschatological judgment. And for Paul it is those who “believe” through “Christ’s faith(fulness)” that have this covenant identification. Christian “faith” for Paul is, as N.T. Wright has stated, a “badge” identifying them as a member of God’s people, just as faithful adherence to Torah prescriptions had been in the past a means of identifying God’s chosen group.[38]

Returning now to the original phrase under discussion, it is quite clear that when dikaiosune theou is taken as referring to God’s own righteousness, Paul quickly becomes dislodged from later Augustinian and Reformed readings that make his discussion of the “righteousness of God” in Romans the antidote to Pelagianism or the teachings of the medieval Catholic Church which (according to Luther) stressed “works righteousness,” seeking to merit God’s salvific favor and grace. Rather, by placing Paul’s writings in their proper first century context, it becomes clear that the dikaiosune theou is a subjective and/or possessive genitival construction referring back to God himself—it is God’s own righteousness that is being discussed in Paul’s writings in terms of his covenant faithfulness (possessive genitive) and his closely related acts of covenant faithfulness (subjective genitive).[39] Because Lutheran, Reformed, and Augustinian readings have most often erroneously taken Paul’s discussion of the righteousness of God as the terminology for how a human can come to stand in God’s holy presence, they have instead turned the phrase “righteousness of God” into a genitive of origin (making “righteousness” an “imparted” or “imputed” status given to humans that declares them “righteous”) or an objective genitive (denoting righteousness as a “quality” that some humans have [or are given from God] that God recognizes as effectual).[40] However, Paul is simply not addressing how an individual sinner is accounted as “saved” when he discusses the “righteousness of God” (or when he uses “justification” language for that matter). God’s righteousness (as judge) simply is not a transferable substance or  legal fiction that is “imparted” or “infused” for/to/into humans to make them worthy to dwell in God’s heavenly presence. As N.T. Wright has stated, “The Jewish context…creates such a strong presumption in favour [sic] of [righteousness as referring to God himself] that it could only be overthrown if Paul quite clearly argued against it.”[41] As Richard Hays has summarized the situation:

Once it is recognized that “the righteousness of God” in Romans is deliberately explicated in terms of this covenant conceptuality, it becomes apparent that the term refers neither to an abstract ideal of divine distributive justice nor to a legal status or moral character imputed or conveyed by God to human beings. It refers rather to God’s own unshakable faithfulness…Insofar as “righteousness” may be ascribed to human beneficiaries of God’s grace…this righteousness should be interpreted primarily in terms of the covenant relationship to God and membership within the covenant community…”Righteousness” refers to God’s covenant-faithfulness which declares persons full participants in the community of God’s people. This declaration has a quasi-legal dimension, but there is no question here of a legal fiction whereby God juggles his heavenly account books and pretends not to notice human sin. The legal language points rather to the formal inclusion of those who once were “not my people” in a concrete historical community of the “sons of the living God” (Rom. 9.25-26)[42]

Romans is thus a nuanced explanation of how God has been faithful in his own righteousness to his past covenants to redeem the world, and how one defines the true” Israel”, or community of God. It is not an argument for how to combat those who try to approve themselves worthy of a right relationship with God through works. Rather, the works Paul discusses are those of the Mosaic Torah, by which devoted Pharisees—and Paul had said he had been a “blameless” Pharisee—identified who was truly a member of the covenant community in the here and now.[43] By admitting that Paul’s primary concern is how Gentiles can have full table fellowship with fellow Jewish Christians and be considered “Abraham’s children” (Gal. 3. 29; cf. Rom. 4-8) the depths of Paul’s writings are released.

[2] Many of the world’s foremost biblical scholars are major proponents of the NPP. See: E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns in Religion (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1977); Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 1983); James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul, and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990); The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998); N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said: Was St. Paul the Real Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997); “The Letter to the Romans.” New Interpreters Bible, Volume X. Ed. Leander E .Keck. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002); Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (Philidelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976).  See also Ben Witherington’s Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004).

[3] For a simple introduction to historical scholarships’ views on Paul as well as the beginning of the NPP and its aims, see N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 7-23. That we can only really speak of first century Judaisms, see pg. 78 specifically.

[4] Here I have followed the suggested translation of Zeba Cook in “The Divine Benefactions of Paul the Client,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 2 (2001-05): 9-26 (as cited in Blake Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: The Problems of Theism and the Love of Go, Volume 2 (SLC, UT: Kofford Books, 2004), 293, 306), whose explanation of the translation of 1 Cor. 15.10 is as follows: “The typical translation of charis as “grace” obscures the clear connection that Paul draws between the reception of the vision and the charis that makes him what he is. While, as a translation, “grace” has pleasant theological nuances, it hardly reflects the meaning the word has in the context in which it functions, namely that of divine patronage. Instead, translating charis in a way that Paul’s contemporaries would have understood the term brings this verse into startling relief: “By the benefaction of God I am what I am, and his benefaction which was given to me was not in vain, but I toiled beyond all of them, not I but the benefaction of God which is with me”(1 Cor. 15.10).”

[5] Although this point is likely obvious from a simple reading of Galatians and Romans, see anyway Bart Ehrman’s introductory discussion of the Letter to the Galatians in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 331-340.

[6] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 293-301; N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 25-37; and John W. Drane’s article “Paul” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Eds. Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993), 576-579.

[7] Ibid. So specifically claims N.T. Wright in What Paul Really Said, 20.

[8] Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), 87-93. Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles (Philidelphia, PA: Fortress, 1976), 7-23.

[9] Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 87-93; N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 78.

[10] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 39-40.

[11] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 29-35, 79-94; Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 293-301; and Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 87-93.

[12] Ibid. For the role of the Messiah among various Jewish and early Christian groups see Bart Ehrman The New Testament, 68.

[13] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 29-35; Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 293-301; and Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 87-93.

[14] For a fuller discussion of Paul’s Jewishness as laid out here, see Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 87-93. Such works are of course heavily indebted to the foundational studies of W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism; Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology (London: S.P.C.K., 1955), and E.P. Sanders revolutionary work Paul and Palestinian Judaism. For a good, although brief, introduction into Paul’s pre-Christian background and the affects it had upon his subsequent Christian life and thought, see again N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 25-37, as well as the subsequent chapters which systematically flesh out Paul’s modified Jewish views and mentality in light of his revelatory experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus. See also Bart Ehrman’s discussion of Paul’s newfound views in consequence of his vision in The New Testament, 293-301.

[15] At least 107 direct quotations of the Hebrew Bible appear in Paul’s writings, many of which belong to the Psalms and Isaiah. See M. Silva, “Old Testament in Paul,” in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, Eds. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 631.

[16] See Richard B. Hay’s article “Justification” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 3. Ed. David Noel Freedman (Doubleday, 1992), 1129. See also the discussion of Ben Witherington in Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 52-56.

[17] For a discussion of the metaphorical law court in which righteousness language is couched, see: N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 96-99.

[18] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 98-99.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] For how this plays out in the history of interpretation, see N.T. Wright in What Paul Really Said, 100-103, 113-117, 118-120, 125-133.

[22] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pgs. 95-99.

[23] Ibid. Also, see Richard B. Hays, “Justification,” pg. 1129-1133.

[24] See Michael Coogan’s The Old Testament A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), 323; also pgs. 321-325.

[25] For a discussion of the biblical eschatological judgment and the analogy of the law court as described in this paragraph, see again N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pgs. 96-99.

[26] For and introduction to Hosea and Jeremiah see Michael Coogan, The Old Testament, 321-325 and 366-376, respectively.

[27] Richard B. Hays, “Justification,” 1129.

[28] For the role of the Messiah among various Jewish and early Christian groups see Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 68. For instance, the Qumran community had hopes of two future Messiah’s, one political and the other priestly. Their own conception was that their community was actually the true Israel. Much of their literature also expresses the apocalyptic view of the coming eschatological judgment of the nations. See the lengthy introduction of Geza Vermes in The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Classics, 2004).

[29] Ben Witherington on page 3 in Paul’s Letter to the Romans has correctly noted, however, that there are no direct indications that Paul is critiquing specific Jewish Christians in Rome who are trying to make Gentile Christians follow Torah laws, and that, therefore, this letter is not a polemic against them, but rather simply an explanation or exhortation based on God’s righteousness. Even though this letter is not necessarily directed against Jewish Christians at Rome and shouldn’t be regarded as a polemic against them as such, it is of course important to note that much of Paul’s thought expressed in this letter certainly developed in such engagements (cf. Galatians) and clearly cannot be completely divorced from such contexts.

[30] Again, see representative NPP scholarship on Paul’s historical context and Romans in such works as: James Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle; N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said; “The Letter to the Romans,” in the New Interpreters Bible, Vol. X. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002); Krister Stendahl, Paul among Jews and Gentiles.

[31] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 33, 84-85, 106.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 75, 420. Emphasis in the original has been removed.

[34] Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 422.

[35] Ibid.

[36] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 118-133.

[37] See the discussion in N.T. Wright in What Paul Really Said, 25-30, 31, 32-35. Wright convincingly argues that proper keeping of Torah was seen as the way in which many Jews in the present could be identified (or self-identified) as part of the true Israel, as those who could anticipate future vindication conditional on their continuing faithfulness to the covenant obligations as defined by the Torah. Divisions within Judaism(s), therefore, often centered on what constituted proper “Torah keeping,” and not about how one is to enter the covenant.

[38] N.T. Wright,What Paul Really Said, 132.

[39] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 100-103.

[40] Ibid.

[41] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, pg. 103.

[42] Richard B. Hays,”Justification,” 1133.

[43] N.T. Wright, What Paul Really Said, 118-133.

Until 1935, when Otto Eissfeldt published his volume Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen, und das Ende des Gottes Moloch,[4] it had been presumed that there was an Israelite cult which performed human sacrifices to a god named Molech/Molek.  However, Eissfeldt argued that there never was a deity Molech (and thus there was no cult devoted to him), and that the term mlk was not the name of a deity at any rate, but a term used for a sacrifice—in this case a human sacrifice—cognate with the Phoenician/Punic mlk sacrifice.  Eissfeldt’s thesis won a large number of adherents and is still accepted by many scholars today, although notable scholars such as John Day and George Heider have disagreed with him in certain instances.  For instance, they argue that although there are times in the Hebrew Bible when this word does indeed indicate a type of sacrifice, there was yet a god named Molech and a cult dedicated to him in ancient Israel, and that this deity was a Canaanite underworld deity.[5] In support of this conclusion[6], Day has argued that it is clear that the alleged god Molech is not to be equated with either YHWH, the Ammonite god Milcom, Baal, nor the Aramean deity Adad-milki; rather, a god mlk is known from the Ugaritic texts, as well as from Akkadian sources.  Further, he argues that the fact that there was a separate cult area where the sacrifices were performed (the topheth south of Jerusalem, as opposed to the Jerusalem temple) argues against the identification of Molech with YHWH.  Moreover, Day believes that the Hebrew Bible has not misunderstood what was originally a term for a sacrifice with a name for a deity, because this would have had to happen in a variety of biblical sources, a fact he feels strains credulity.

What are we to make of these disagreements amongst scholars?  Most scholars today, including Day, agree on at least several points: there was a cult of child sacrifice in ancient Israel, and that this practice is of Canaanite origin; that this type of sacrifice, contra some older scholarship, does indeed refer to the practice of actually sacrificing children, and not simply of dedicating them to a deity;[7] that there are a number of instances in the Hebrew Bible where the term mlk is most certainly a term for a (human) sacrifice–just as in the Phoenician/Punic sources–and not a god, as Eissfeldt originally brought to light; and that, although this term may be used for a sacrifice, there are yet instances in the Hebrew Bible where the term more naturally refers to an alleged deity named Molech.  The central questions therefore remain: was there a deity named Molech to whom an Israelite cult was dedicated and for whom human sacrifices were performed, as Day and Heider have argued?  And if so, what can be known about this deity?

There are a number of points that might be marshaled against the arguments put forth by Day.  Day goes to great lengths to suggest that certain biblical texts (e.g., Jeremiah 7:31; 19:5; 32:35) do not indicate that the Israelites were sacrificing their children to YHWH.[8] It seems more likely, however, given other passages in the Hebrew Bible that refer to these sacrifices being performed for YHWH or at YHWH’s command, that these passages in Jeremiah do intimate or imply that human sacrifices were being performed for/to YHWH.  For instance, Jeremiah 32:35 (a part of the Deuteronomistic redaction of the text[9]) reads, “And they built high places for Baal, which are in the valley of ben Hinnom in order to make their sons and their daughters pass through the fire as a mlk sacrifice.  This I did not command them, nor was it in my heart (for them) to do this abomination…”  The other passages in Jeremiah are similar.

However, even if these passages in Jeremiah are not conclusive as to whether human sacrifices were performed in YHWH’s name or at YHWH’s behest, other biblical passages confirm this fact.  For instance, Ezekiel 20:25-26 directly indicates that YHWH actually commanded such sacrifices: “I [YHWH] also gave them statutes that were not good, and ordinances by which they could not live.  I caused them to sin by their (own) gifts, by causing (them) to pass through (the fire) all who open the womb [i.e., the firstborn], in order that I might horrify them, in order that they might know that I am YHWH.”  Moreover, the imagery of the mlk sacrifice in Isaiah 30:27-33 (esp. verse 33) clearly indicates that such offerings were performed for/to YHWH.  Micah 6:6-7 is also of note, as it condemns child sacrifice, not because it is immoral, but because, in absence of covenant fidelity and justice, it is an excessive and unnecessary form of worship, just as are sacrifices to YHWH of, for instance, thousands of rams.[10] I therefore agree with Mark Smith that “These passages indicate that in the seventh century child sacrifice was a Judean practice performed in the name of Yahweh…In [Isaiah 30:27-33] there is no offense taken at the tophet, the precinct of child sacrifice.  It would appear that Jerusalemite cult included child sacrifice under Yahwistic patronage; it is this that Leviticus 20:2-5 deplores.”[11] This is of significance for another reason: because the topheth was seen as operating under YHWHistic patronage, Day’s argument that, because there was a separate place from YHWH’s Jerusalem temple for human mlk sacrifices to take place (namely the topheth) and this therefore indicates that YHWH must have been a separate deity from the alleged god Molech, is unconvincing.

The somewhat opaque references in Jeremiah referred to above have additional implications for evaluating Day’s argument that the Deuteronomists and other biblical authors, who lived at a time when (or soon after) such sacrifices were actually being performed, would not have confused the sacrificial term mlk with the name of a deity.  Saul Olyan has cogently argued that this is not a case of the Deuteronomists’ misunderstanding the terms and their references; rather it is a matter of the Deuteronomists purposefully distorting the terminology and their references in order to criticize what were otherwise native Israelite practices that they deemed illegitimate.  Just as they distorted the original nature of Asherah/the asherah in Israelite religion by associating her/it with Baal instead of YHWH,[12] so too the Deuteronomists, as seen in the passage quoted from Jeremiah above, associated human sacrifice, otherwise a traditional Israelite practice in certain circles, with Baal—a polemical distortion, as human sacrifice is nowhere else attested in Canaanite religion for Baal.[13] Rather, human sacrifice in Canaanite religion was associated with El (with whom YHWH was identified at an earlier period in Israelite religion).[14] That the Deuteronomists have distorted the factual reality behind the mlk sacrifice and the deity/deities for whom it was intended, one might also note that the Deuteronomists also (mis)identify Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, with Molech in 1 Kings 11:7; however, as Day himself has argued, human sacrifice was a Canaanite phenomenon, and it seems unlikely that Molech is to be equated with the Ammonite god Milcom.[15] Finally, it also seems from Deuteronomistic polemic that such sacrifices were  known to take place at the bamot, or “high places,” and this again points to a purposeful dissimulation, as the bamot, contra the Deuteronomistic historiographic presentation, were a common feature of traditional Israelite religion and the worship of YHWH (although, as will be noted below, there is apparently no extra biblical evidence for such sacrifices actually taking place at the bamot).[16] For these reasons I conclude that Day has misunderstood the real problem: it is not a matter of the Deuteronomistic (and other, later) authors misunderstanding the real nature of the sacrifices and for whom they were performed (indeed, several authors know exactly for whom they were intended: YHWH); rather, it is a matter of the Deuteronomistic agenda to discredit practices which they deemed illegitimate, as in the case of Asherah/the asherah.

Other problems with Day’s analysis remain.  For instance, although Day cites evidence that there was a god mlk in both Ugaritic and Akkadian sources, there is no evidence linking the god mlk with human sacrifice or with the Hebrew and Phoenician sacrificial term mlk.[17] In fact, as Day argues, the sacrificial term mlk originates from the root hlk, meaning “to go,” and in this way is similar to other sacrificial terms in Hebrew, such as ‘olah and qorban.[18] Nor is it certain that the god mlk in the Ugaritic texts pertains to the cult of the dead,[19] although it seems likely that, whoever this deity actually was, he did have some connection with the underworld.[20] These complications, in turn, may call into question the biblical evidence that might be mounted for associating veneration of the dead at the high places with child sacrifice—at any rate, there is no extra biblical evidence that child sacrifice ever even occurred at the high places[21] (and this may indicate that child sacrifice was actually not a very common practice in ancient Israel[22]). Finally, Ugarit does not even attest to the practice of child sacrifice, a serious issue for Day’s suggestions.[23]

Although mentioned above, it is worth reiterating the fact that child sacrifice in the ancient Near East was primarily the province of El (=Baal Hamon=Baal Addir=Addir Melek=(later) YHWH; cf. 2 Kings 17:31), not biblical Baal (=Hadad=Baal Shamem)—in fact, as Olyan has argued at length, there is no evidence that Baal was ever the recipient of human sacrifice in Canaanite religion (although there may be a few references for such sacrifices being dedicated to Baal among non-Canaanites[24]).[25] This is significant, because, if true, it would further undermine the credibility of the Deuteronomistic presentation of human sacrifices being performed for Baal.

Finally, it is worth discussing other ancient Near Eastern sources concerning human sacrifice.  As recounted by Philo of Byblos, and as we have seen in our discussion of an alleged Molech cult in ancient Israel, there were apparently a number of deities to whom a human mlk sacrifice could be offered, including El (=Kronos), Ouranos, YHWH, and other deities.  What other evidence do we have from the ancient Mediterranean world regarding such sacrifices, and to whom were they offered?  As mentioned above, it seems clear that human sacrifice was an indigenous Canaanite (and hence Israelite) practice, frequently associated with El (later identified with YHWH in Israelite religions).  Mark Smith has an excellent discussion of the relevant evidence, including textual, epigraphical, archaeological, and iconographic materials.[26] All I offer here is a brief summary of the most pertinent evidences.

Both Phoenician and Punic materials designate multiple recipients for the mlk sacrifice, just as Philo attests.  These deities include Eshmun, Baal Hamon and Tannit (=El and Asherah[27]).[28] Other classical sources, including Diodorus Siculus, also indicate that such sacrifices were performed for Kronos (=El).[29] New Kingdom war reliefs in Egypt also depict Levantine peoples performing child sacrifices during times of war.[30] Archaeological evidence from Punic Carthage also attests to child sacrifice and burials, although some scholars have argued that the practice of human sacrifice was still quite rare there, contrary to popular polemic in the ancient world.[31] Other sites of child sacrifice are known from the ancient Mediterranean world, all the way from Spain, to Sicily, to Sardinia, and possibly Tyre.[32] Additionally, there is archaeological evidence in Late Bronze Age Ammon in Transjordan of burned children’s bones, probably indicating a cult of human sacrifice there.[33] This fact, in turn, lines up well with the biblical account of 2 Kings 3, where the kings of Judah, Israel, and Edom ally together and attack king Moab of Mesha, driving him back to his city.  In verse 27 king Mesha sacrifices his son upon a wall bringing “great wrath” on Israel—presumably because the god of Moab was summoned to Mesha’s defense via the sacrifice—and they (the Israelites) fled back to their own land.  This story is also of note because it agrees with Philo of Byblos and Porphyry, as well as what we saw in Egyptian war reliefs: namely that these sacrifices were offered by the royal or ruling classes during times of great trouble, including war.

In conclusion, therefore, it seems quite likely that, contrary to biblical polemic and Deuteronomistic historiogrpahical distortion, human (child) sacrifice was a traditional Canaanite (and hence Israelite) practice, and that mlk sacrifices were indeed devoted to YHWH, even among royal (so-called official) circles.

[2] See, for example, Smith, The Early History of God, 171-181, as well as Saul Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 11-13 and notes.

[3] For this point see Baumgarten, The Phoenician History, 248-249.

[4] Otto Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebräischen, und das Ende des Gottes Moloch (Halle: Niemeyer, 1935).

[5] Day, Molech, 84.

[6] For what follows, see Day, Molech, 82-85.

[7] It is worth noting that the term does not inherently refer to human sacrifice.  In Punic materials it simply refers to a sacrifice of some sort and the following word in construct with mlk specifies the type of sacrifice.  Hence, mlk sacrifices of animals are known in our sources.  However, for the biblical authors, this sacrifice seems to specify human (child) sacrifices in most instances.  See Day, Molech, 4-13.

[8] Day, Molech, 85.

[9] Day, Molech, 85.

[10] Olyan, Asherah, 13.

[11] Smith, The Early History of God, 172.

[12] Olyan, Asherah, 13-14, 38-61, 74.

[13] Olyan, Asherah, 12 and notes, 68.

[14] Olyan, Asherah, 12 and notes, 62-68.

[15] Day, Molech, 84.

[16] Smith, The Early History of God, 9, 11, 12, 180-181.

[17] Smith, The Early History of God, 178-179.

[18] Day, Molech, 7-8, 82.  This may therefore undermine the argument put forth by those who suggest that the term mlk necessarily indicates that the origins of this sacrifice lie in human sacrifices performed by the king, or that it was a sacrifice performed for the king deity of the pantheon (whether El, YHWH, etc.), contra Smith, The Early History of God, 178.

[19] Smith, The Early History of God, 179.

[20] For a full discussion, see Smith, The Early History of God, 178-181, and the literature cited there.

[21] Smith, The Early History of God, 181.

[22] Smith, The Early History of God, 181.

[23] Smith, The Early History of God, 179.

[24] Olyan, Asherah, 68, n. 20.

[25] Olyan, Asherah, 12 and notes, 62-68.

[26] Smith, The Early History of God, 172-178.  The following discussion is based on his analysis.

[27] As argued at length by Olyan, Asherah, 62-69.

[28] Smith, The Early History of God, 172-173.

[29] Smith, The Early History of God, 173.

[30] Smith, The Early History of God, 177.

[31] Smith, The Early History of God, 173-174.

[32] Smith, The Early History of God, 173 and notes.

[33] Smith, The Early History of God, 177-178.

Perhaps no text has influenced current gender roles and concepts of sexuality in Western culture more than the biblical Yahwist (J) account of creation found in Genesis 2-3. [1] This familiar story of the creation of Eve and Adam (the archetypal woman and man) in the Garden of Eden has a long and varied history of interpretation within the Christian tradition, having very often been used as a prooftext to demonstrate that women are inferior and/or subordinate to men socially, morally, and religiously. Such patriarchal and subordinating interpretations of Eve (and hence woman) to Adam (and thus man), in fact, are found in some biblical texts themselves. For instance, 1 Timothy 2.11-15 (NRSV, alternate translations in brackets), uses the story of Eve an Adam in an attempt to show why woman (or specifically wives) are not to teach but to keep silent in public worship and to fully submit to the authority of man (or her husband). According to the author of 1 Timothy (who is most likely not Paul, but a later disciple of Paul writing in his name), this is because Eve was created secondarily to Adam, and because she was the transgressor who was deceived by the serpent, while the man was not deceived. This passage reads:

Let a woman [wife] learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman [wife] to teach or to have authority over a man [her husband]; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

However, are such patriarchal interpretations of the Eve and Adam story correct? Is the text itself patriarchal–bent on demonstrating the inferiority and inequality of women to men–or is it simply that the text has been interpreted patriarchally throughout its history of interpretation (on account of the fact that it has most often been interpreted by male elitists), when in fact the text itself is actually egalitarian, underscoring the equality of the sexes?

The Yahwist account of Eve and Adam has received a number of (re)interpretations in modern feminist biblical scholarship. Feminist biblical scholarship, recognizing that gender is a social construct, and hence “a matter of power” [269], and that all writing is gendered in perspective, generally seeks to (re)discover the history and voices of women–whose written records are typically very limited and who have often been erased or ignored from historical memory–and to “expose the culturally based presuppositions in classic discourse.” (270) Here I will present several critically informed feminist interpretations of the story of Eve and Adam found in Genesis 2-3.

Phyllis Trible

Trible suggests that it is not until after the “fall” that hierarchical distinctions between man and woman come about; rather, before Eve’s and Adam’s banishment from the garden there is a high degree of equality between the sexes that is evinced in the text. She notes that God first made the human (adam) without gender, since, although a masculine pronoun is used for the new creature, it is not until the woman is made from this creature that the sexes are differentiated. Appealing to binary logic (the ability to establish difference[s] based on opposites), the male cannot really be distinguished without the female, and vice versa. Moreover, Trible suggests that woman is really the pinnacle of creation, and that it is significant that she is described as man’s “help(er)” (Hebrew ‘ezer), since this word is often used elsewhere as a descriptor of God–clearly a superior being to the man. Finally, she notes that woman is the active and assertive agent in the story, while the man is passive.

Mieke Bal

Bal develops Eve as “a character of great power” (271). Eve’s act of eating the fruit is truly humanity’s first act of human independence, making humanity, now possessing a real knowledge of good and evil, more like God/the gods (Gen. 3.22). It is by this act, Bal suggests, that humanity and divinity can truly enter into a genuine relationship. Eve did not “sin” (no such word is found in the story), but rather chose reality, and “her choice marks the emergence of human character” (271).

Carol Meyers

Meyers seeks to interpret the story of Eve and Adam within its historical-cultural context of ancient Israelite (pre-monarchical) agrarian society. For Meyers, the emphasis on food and sustenance, which would have been of the utmost importance in the context of an ancient agrarian society, overrides the themes of disobedience and its effects. The garden is well watered; there is no need for the toils of plowing, planting, and harvesting field crops. “For Meyers, Genesis 2-3 is not a story of “the fall” (no word for “fall” or “sin” is ever mentioned) but a wisdom tale dealing “with the meaning of the paradoxes and harsh facts of life”" (272). Meyers, based on her own translation of Genesis 3.16, suggests that God’s judgment for woman is not pain in childbirth but rather multiple pregnancies, and, like her husband Adam, increased agrarian toil. Her translation of Genesis 3.16 reads:

I will greatly increase your toil and your pregnancies; [along] with travail shall you beget children. For to your man is your desire, and he shall predominate over you.

Thus female subordination after Eve’s and Adam’s departure from the garden is limited to the domain of sexual activity, and is not concerned with general social hierarchy.

However, other commentators have been less optimistic that the character of Eve (and hence of woman in general) may be so equally rehabilitated. As mentioned, all writing is gendered, and “Genesis 2-3, as a story of origins, is, among other things, in the business of constructing gender roles…” The man “names both genders–and according to him, the woman is derivative of the man,” which is further underscored by the fact that God “relates woman to the man as his “helper”.” The man suggests that the woman’s primary role is to be the “mother of all living.” God assigns each sex their own specific duties. Thus “the narrative establishes a particular kind of life style for men and women” (273).

Susan Lanser

“Susan Lanser, applying the principles of speech-act theory to the text, argues that inference and context are as important to the production of meaning as the formal characteristics of language.” (273) Thus the man (Hebrew ha’adam), when first introduced into the story, would be assumed to have a masculine gender. Moreover, when the man calls the new creature “woman,” this is an act that defines her (and not simply a recognition of sexual difference), just as the man’s naming the animals defines them. Lanser argues that the accusatory formula of Genesis 3.14 that is directed to the serpent is carried over into Genesis 3.16, and so this statement is, in fact, a divine punishment, and not a simple descriptive statement.

David Clines

Clines, contra Trible, argues that the word “helper” attributed to Eve does not (necessarily) indicate her superiority to the man, and at any rate she is still secondary to the man and his status, roles, and function(s). For Clines, Eve is still only essential to the man for the act of procreation.

Phyllis Bird

Bird, although recognizing that the story of Eve and Adam is clearly androcentric in nature, nevertheless finds more to salvage than Lanser or Clines. For Bird the first human is certainly male (contra Trible), but the man does not fully represent humanity. Bird comments that “Although the help which the woman is meant to give to the man is undoubtedly help in procreation, the account in Genesis 2 subordinates function to passion. The attraction of the sexes is the author’s primary interest, the sexual drive whose consummation is conceived as a re-union” (274). For Bird, the subordination of woman to man is not a part of God’s original creation. Human sexuality, originally meant as a means of happiness and fulfillment, can be turned into a weapon of oppression.

David Jobling

Jobling, utlizing structuralist analysis informed by Marxist and feminist ideology, seeks to find meaning in the text by highlighting its own tensions. For Jobling, there is tension in the presentation of Eve. Although the story blames Eve (the woman) for the negative vicissitudes of life, nevertheless she is, as Trible pointed out, an active and intelligent character while the man is passive. Jobling observes that “at the deepest level of the text, where the fall myth as a whole is in tension with “a man to till the earth,” the possibility is evoked that the human transformation in which the woman took powerful initiative was positive, rather than negative, that the complex human world is to be preferred over any male ideal,” although he notes that this is not occasioned by an ancient feminist perspective, but rather by a patriarchal insecurity which attempts to both legitimize its power and make sense of “femaleness” (276).

Who Has Been “Deceived”?

As has been seen, there have been many different interpretations and applications, from ancient times until the present, of the story of Eve and Adam in Genesis 2-3. These interpretations bring a number of important questions to the fore: Is Eve truly equal to Adam, or is the biblical story of Eve and Adam irretrievably patriarchal? Or is there perhaps some middle ground? Simply, of what significance is the biblical story of Eve and Adam for informing a modern understanding of human sexuality and gender, and especially among those Judeo-Christian traditions (including LDS Christianity) that accept the Bible as an authoritative religious text in some sense? What interpretations of the story seem most valid to you, and why, and how can or should this text be appropriated in today’s society (or societies)?

Notes

[1] The following discussion is from Danna Nolan Fewell’s article “Reading the Bible Ideologically: Feminist Criticism” in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Application, edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), pgs. 268-282. All quotes (including those of other authors) and page numbers refer to this article.

Mark, however, consistently portrays the twelve as misunderstanding Jesus’ identity, his “suffering messiahship and his call to suffering discipleship,” and the altruistic “ministerial service” that is required in the community of disciples. (319)  After Judas betrays Jesus, the remaining eleven eventually forsake Jesus during his passion and flee for safety.  Even Peter, the leading member of Jesus’ inner circle of the twelve, denies him.

However, Jesus is followed during his passion by certain women followers.  The discipleship of these faithful women who are willing to suffer and endure persecution–and perhaps even death given their association with Jesus–powerfully contrasts with Jesus’ abandonment by the twelve.  It is the female followers of Jesus who take up the cross and follow him to his death (Mark 8.34; 10.28).  Mark presents these women as exemplifying true Christian discipleship over and against the twelve.  This is because these women have genuine “faith,” the power, according to Mark, that is necessary to enable one to persist amidst suffering and persecution for Jesus and the gospel. Mark 15.41 stresses the true discipleship of these women by utilizing two verbs used elsewhere in the gospel to characterize faithful discipleship.  In this verse these women “followed” him (cf. Mark 8.34; 10.28) and “ministered” to him (c.f. Mark 10.41-45; this verb, in fact, underlies the entirety of Jesus’ ministry, as well as the type of leadership required among God’s community).

The presentation of women as true disciples in the Gospel of Mark is further evidenced at the beginning and end of the passion narrative.  I conclude with the following quote by feminist biblical scholar Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza:

It is a woman who recognizes Jesus’ suffering messiahship and, in a prophetic-sign action, anoints Jesus for his burial, while “some” of the disciples reprimand her.  Further, it is a servant woman who challenges Peter to act on his promise not to betray Jesus.  In doing so she unmasks and exposes him for what he is, a betrayer.  Finally, two women, Mary of Magdala and Mary (the mother) of Joses, witness the place where Jesus was buried (15:47), and three women receive the news of his resurrection (16:1-8).  Thus at the end of Mark’s Gospel the women disciples emerge as examples of suffering discipleship and true leadership. They are the apostolic eye-witnesses of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection…They preserve the messianic identity of the crucified and resurrected Lord which is entrusted to the circle of the disciples…Those who are the farthest from the center of religious and political power, the slaves, the children, the gentiles, the women, become the paradigms of true discipleship. (321, 322, 323)

Notes

[1] The following analysis is based on the work of  feminist biblical scholar Elisabeth Schusser Fiorenza.  See her book entitled In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Co., 1988), pgs. 316-323.

LDS Christians proudly proclaim that woman and man may be joined in marriage through the power of God both for this life and the life to come.  For Mormons, the marriage covenant does not necessarily have to end when “death do[es] you part,” but may potentially exist “for time and all eternity” when “sealed” by God’s power, provided that both partners of the marriage relationship persist in faithfulness to each other and to God.  LDS Christians usually make reference to uniquely Mormon sources, such as Doctrine and Covenants 132.15-19, when attempting to clearly delineate the source for this theological understanding.  The relevant portions of D&C 132.15-19 read:

…[I]f a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven…And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word…And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood…it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world…

However, there is a tradition in the synoptic gospels that records a controversy-dialogue between Jesus and the Sadducees concerning the resurrection of the dead and marriage in the new age/afterlife, which tradition seems to seriously call into question notions of marriage, gender, and sex in the new age/heaven.  The oldest account of this tradition is found in Mark 12.18-27, which account was then modified and redacted separately by both “Matthew” and “Luke.”

Mark 12.18-27 (NRSV, used throughout) reads:

Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man [lit. "his brother"] shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; and the second married her and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. In the resurrection [lit. "when they rise"] whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.’

Matthew’s version (22.23-32) reads:

The same day some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, saying, ‘Teacher, Moses said, “If a man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.” Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. The second did the same, so also the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman herself died. In the resurrection , then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her.’ Jesus answered them, ‘You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.’

Luke’s version (20.27-38) reads:

Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man [lit. "his brother"] shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; then the second and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. Finally the woman also died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they cannot die any more, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.’

Analysis

The following analysis is that of biblical feminist scholar Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza [1], and will be referring to the oldest account of this tradition found in the gospel of Mark (although I have provided all three accounts for the reader’s convenience so that the differences in each account might stand out more sharply).

—

The Sadducees rejected a belief in the resurrection on the grounds that such a view is not found in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible, traditionally ascribed to Moses), which is the only authority that the Sadducees accepted as authoritative.  They thus approach Jesus in an attempt to show the inconsistency of the notion of a future resurrection with the procedure of levirate marriage (outlined in Deuteronomy 25.5-10), since levirate marriage would (seemingly) entail that in the resurrection one woman might be married to several persons to whom she was married serially in mortal life.  For the Sadducees, the issue clearly pertains to the resurrection, as they certainly believed that the levirate marriage as prescribed in the Torah was a correct practice.

As Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza has stated:

The law of levirate marriage served the purpose of continuing the patriarchal family, by securing its wealth and the inheritance within it, a concern important to the Sadducees, many of whom were upper class and priests, rich landowners living in Jerusalem…For them the levirate law protecting and perpetuating the patriarchal structures of the “house” was of utmost importance.  Although this law sometimes created more hardship for the brother of the deceased husband, while protecting the financial security of the widow, it nevertheless served the continuation of the family line and maintenance of patriarchal structures. [2]

According to Fiorenza, Jesus’ response that the Sadducees are wrong must be seen in the context of his call to equal discipleship for both men and women in the messianic community that is being brought about through Jesus’ proclamation of the basileia (“kingdom, dominion”).  In God’s world the patriarchal marriage system, to which the Sadducees adhere, does not exist.  The statement that “when they rise from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” must be seen with this context.  Fiorenza states:

The last expression ["like the angels in heaven"] is often understood to mean that their “being as angels are” implies asexuality or freedom from sexual differentiation and sexual intercourse.  There is no doubt that this interpretation has claimed a long tradition but it has no basis in the text.  The eschatological being of men and women “like the angels or heavenly messengers” must be understood with reference to the first part of the sentence.  It is not that sexual differentiation and sexuality do not exist in the “world” of God, but that “patriarchal marriage is no more,” because its function in maintaining and continuing patriarchal economic and religious structures is no longer necessary.  This is what it means to live and be “like the angels” who live in “the world” of God. [3]

My Reflections

Often in apocalyptic Judeo-Christian texts of the Second Temple period, the coming eschatological age was seen in terms of the original creation of the earth.  In the original creation, before there was death and corruption, God created woman and man as equal partners in marriage.  Thus in the age to come women an men are to be equal.  However, Jesus’ ministry, by his proclamation of the basileia of God through his miracles, was seen as inaugurating the coming age in the here and now.  Jesus’ call was for “domination-free relationships in the community of disciples” in the here and now. [4]  Thus human marriage is not to be patriarchal, but rather coequal and egalitarian in the present as well.

It seems additionally worthy of note that Jesus is not arguing for asexuality in the life to come, but rather that patriarchal marriage, grounded in patriarchal socio-religio-economical structures, will be eliminated.  Jesus’ call is for equal discipleship, and this does not necessitate asexuality, but can theoretically be accomplished with sexual differentiation in place (whether in the present or future age).

Questions

What other interpretations or suggestions might be offered for the text? Is it possible to reconcile Fiorenza’s analysis with LDS Christian thought concerning “eternal marriage”? And if so, how?  Additionally, what other impact(s) might this analysis have for an LDS Christian understanding of marriage in this life?

Notes

[1] The following feminist analysis is that of Elisabeth Schusser Fiorenza.  See her book entitled In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Co., 1988), pgs. 143-145.

[2] pg. 144.

[3] pg. 144.

[4] pg. 143.

This post (yes, I know the title is rather provocative) was inspired by a comment that TT made in a previous post in this series concerning 1 Cor. 11.10, which reads “For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels” (NRSV, used throughout; emphasis mine).  The part of TT’s comment which is the inspiration for this post reads, “women are supposed to wear veils so that they don’t get raped by angels.”  Another commentor said later in the discussion that “Is the point to take the most extreme interpretations of these passages possible (”women had to worry about getting raped by angels,” honestly!)” (please read the post and comments for full context).

TT’s comment and the following reaction quickly reminded me of Genesis 6.1-4 (and other texts), which presents a tradition of heavenly beings coming down from their celestial abode and mating with humans.  As I have already discussed elsewhere on FPR several times (see here, here, here, here, here and here), references to a divine council or heavenly assembly are found frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible [1]. The divine council is simply the heavenly royal court over which Yahweh, the God of Israel, presides as heavenly king. The members of this heavenly court or assembly are referred to in the Hebrew Bible by such terms as: bene (ha)’elohim “sons of God” (Gen. 6.2, 4; Deut. 32.8-9; Job 1.6, 2.2, 38.7), ‘elohim “gods” (Ps. 82.1, 6), bene elim “sons of gods” (Ps. 29.1, 89.7), and bene ‘elyon “sons of the Most High” (Ps. 82.6). Moreover, the council itself is referred to by such appellations as the adat ‘el “council/assembly/congregation of ‘El/God” (Ps. 82.1), sod qedoshim rabbah “great council of the holy ones” (Ps. 89.8), sod YHWH “the council of Yahweh” (Jer. 23.18), and sod eloah “council of God” (Job 15.8).

The members of the divine council–the “sons of G/god(s)” or “gods” as they are often described–served various functions. Yahweh’s heavenly council was frequently depicted in terms analogous to that of the royal court of an earthly king or monarch. Thus, just as a king presides over a body of counselors and administrators with whom he counsels and to whom he issues decrees, so too Yahweh was surrounded by an assemblage of heavenly beings with whom he counseled and to whom he issued decrees. For this reason the God of Israel is designated as ‘el ‘elyon “the Most High God” (Gen.14.18-19; Ps. 78.35; cf. Ps. 82.6), because there are other, lower gods who serve him and praise him in his heavenly divine council. The God of Israel is the Most High (God) because there are other, subordinate gods in his heavenly council. These gods obey Yahweh’s decrees and pay deference to Yahweh because he is the supreme God of the pantheon–but they too are still gods nonetheless. Like many ancient Near Eastern texts which exult a particular earthly king as supreme over all the kings or rulers of other nations, so Yahweh is supreme in relation to the other gods of his council and those of other nations. The relevant issue in these texts is not one of “ontology” or species, of course, but one of power, might, and glory. Thus we read in Ps. 29.1 (NRSV, alternate translation):

Ascribe to Yahweh, O sons of gods [bene 'elim],
ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength.

There are thus numerous biblical passages which clearly state or imply that there are other real gods in existence, although Yahweh is seen as supreme among them. In addition to those verses cited above, consider also Psalm 89.6 (NRSV, adapted), which reads: “For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh? Who among the sons of God is like Yahweh…?”, as well as Psalm 99.2 (4QPsalm), which states: “Yahweh is great in Zion, he is exalted over all the gods.” Furthermore, Deuteronomy 32.43 (NRSV) goes on to affirm that, “Praise, O heavens, his people, worship him, all you gods!” Finally, Job 38.4-7 (cf. Genesis 1.26-27; 3.22) (NRSV, adapted) declares: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” These are just a sample of the biblical texts which demonstrate that the biblical authors believed that there were other real gods in existence besides Yahweh (see also Deut. 32.8-9, Ex. 15.11, Ps. 82.1, 6).

Celestial Sex

Genesis 6.1-4 reflects the background of the divine council.  This passage reads:

When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, ‘My spirit shall not abide in mortals for ever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’ The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterwards—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.

Here the heavenly beings of Yahweh’s council–the “sons of God” or gods–descend from their heavenly home and mate with human women producing children.  This same ancient tradition is found in the non-canonical book of Enoch, chapters 6 and 7.  Chapter 6, verses 1-3 reads:

And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.’

Chapter 7, verses 1-3 continues:

And all…took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells

Reflections

I think it is clear that the Bible presents a tradition of heavenly beings mating with humans; moreover, such views are found in later Judeo-Christian texts.  How can, or should, such notions be interpreted among Christians (including LDS Christians) in modern times?  And, in contrast to the initial outcry concerning TT’s comment about 1 Cor. 11.10, is it really such a stretch, given these biblical and non-biblical sources, to think that some early Jews and Christians might have worried that women could still be sexually enticed or overpowered by angels (fallen or otherwise)?  Although I do not as yet have a firm conclusion on what 1 Cor. 11.10 is referring to in its reference to women and angels, it doesn’t seem quite so ridiculous as it might appear at first glance.

Notes

[1] See John Day’s section “The Sons of El (God)” in his book Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Journal for the study of the Old Testament, 265. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 22-24.

The Bible takes for granted a three-storied structure of the universe: heaven, earth, and underworld (Ex. 20:4). According to this Weltbild, the earth is a flat surface, corrugated by mountains and divided by rivers and lakes. Above the earth, like a huge dome, is spread the firmament that holds back the heavenly ocean and supports the dwelling place of the gods (Genesis 1:8; Ps. 148:4). The earth itself is founded on pillars that are sunk into the subterranean waters (Ps. 24:2; 104:5), in the depths of which is located Sheol, the realm of death. In this view, the habitable world is surrounded by the waters of chaos, which unless held back, would engulf the world, a threat graphically portrayed in the flood story (Genesis 7:11; c.f. 1:6) and in various poems in the Old Testament (e.g., Ps. 46:1-4; 104:5-9). [1]

(For a picture of this worldview, see HERE.)

This explanation of the ancient Israelite cosmological worldview makes excellent sense of the P account of creation (Gen. 1.1-2.4a), which views creation as one of providing order through separation and the maintaining of boundaries. For instance, Genesis 1.6-8 (NRSV) reads:

And God said, ‘Let there be a dome [raqi’a] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate [b-d-l] the waters from the waters.’ So God made the dome [raqi’a] and separated [b-d-l] the waters that were under the dome [raqi’a] from the waters that were above the dome [raqi’a]. And it was so. God called the dome [raqi’a] Sky [shamayim]. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

For P, the purpose of the raqi’a, which is literally an extended solid surface that encircled the earth (translated as “firmament” in the KJV, “expanse” in the NIV, and “dome” in the NRSV), is to separate the heavenly waters above the earth from the subterranean waters below, so as to provide a space in which God can fashion the remainder of his earthly creation, and in order to hold back these waters from destroying the earth thereafter. Within this “bubble” the earth/land (Hebrew ‘erets) sits upon the subterranean waters with pillars supporting it. Within the raqi’a are holes or “windows” (e.g., Mal. 3.10) which God may at times (from above) open and pour down rain from heaven, and through which (from below) the water for rivers and springs flow upwards. Additionally, as noted just above, the waters above and below the earth, if not restrained by God, may surge forth upon creation rendering it as chaotic as it was before God had formed the cosmos by establishing order through separation and forming boundaries. This is dramatically portrayed in P’s corresponding account of the flood in Genesis 7.11-12. It probably is thus more appropriate then to render raqi’a as “dome,” or something similar, such as the NRSV and several other modern scholarly translations have done, rather than as the (rather ambiguous) translation “firmament” as is found in the KJV.

Furthermore, Israel’s cosmological worldview (as outlined above) coincides with the cosmological worldviews of its ancient Near Eastern neighbors. As mentioned, ancient Israelites did not exist in an ideological and social vacuum, and in this case it seems virtually certain that they shared the dominant cosmological worldview of their day. In fact, as most recent scholarly treatments of the origins of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have concluded, no ancient Near Eastern societies held such a view until sometime in the late second century. The fact that no other ancient Near Eastern societies contemporaneous with ancient Israel held this view, combined with the fact that there are no clear or unambiguous references to the notion of creatio ex nihilo until post-biblical times, cuts decidedly against its historical plausibility. In any event, that this ancient Israelite cosmological worldview described above can be so easily superimposed on so many different biblical texts, in conjunction with its terrific overall explanatory power of P’s literary depiction of how God created the earth, in addition to the fact that it also aligns so well within its ancient Near Eastern context, strongly encourages us to take Genesis 1.1-2 as describing a primeval chaotic state from which God formed the cosmos ex materia.

Reflections

This ancient Israelite cosmological worldview assumes a pre-scientific view of the cosmos that was ubiquitous in the ancient Near East among Israel’s neighbors. This worldview helps make sense of why creation is seen in terms of separation and differentiation in the P account, and this cosmological worldview helps make sense of the numerous literary parallels held in common between P and other ancient Near Eastern texts (see here). What value, then, is to be found in such accounts for modern religious traditions that accept the Bible as an authoritative text in some sense, but which are also informed by modern science?  

As just one suggestion, I believe value may be found in the fact that this cosmological worldview makes meaningful sense of Israelite understanding(s) of the purpose of the nation of Israel and the organization of its society in relationship to God. Ancient Israelites believed that the creation of the cosmos by means of God’s establishing order and boundaries on the primeval chaos mirrored God’s creation of Israel, which was separated from all other nations by God’s holy covenant, and which was ordered by this covenants’ attending laws.  So too God may separate each of us from the darkness of a sinful, alienated life and give meaningful shape and purpose to each of our chaotic lives by creating us anew through his Holy Spirit as we strive after sanctification.

Notes

[1] See Bernhard W. Anderson’s From Creation to New Creation, OTB (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994), 20.

Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Saviour. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.

Here it is clarified that women are to be subject to their husbands (who are subject to Christ), who are their “heads,” just as Christ is the “head” of the church. 1 Corinthians 14.33-36 additionally states that women [or specifically wives?] are not to speak in church–and that such conduct is in fact “shameful”!–because they are “subordinate.” (It should be noted that many scholars think that this passage might be a later interpolation into Paul’s letter, since it reflects language and ideology more characteristic with Deutero-Pauline literature.) This passage reads:

As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Here women (or specifically wives) are to learn at home by being taught by their husbands rather than by participating vocally in the church setting. I will also note in this section 1 Corinthians 11.2-18, which I have already discussed in a separate post, which states, among other things, that women should only pray or prophesy in church settings if they have a “veil” covering their head (note here that, in contrast to 1 Corinthians 14.33-36 cited above and 1 Timothy 2.8-15, discussed just below, women apparently can be vocal in church meetings!), that a shaved head for a women is shameful, that woman is the reflection of man (contrast Gen. 1.26-27 which states that both men and women are in the image and likeness of God!), and that husbands are the heads of their wives just as Christ is the head of “every man” and as God is the “head of Christ.” Moreover, it states that this was the typical understanding and practice among the “churches of God ” (v. 16) at this period of time.

There are even some passages in the New Testament which seem to strongly suggest that there are specifically female roles and duties that have soteriological consequences. 1 Timothy 2.8-15, like 1 Corinthians 14.33-36 just cited above, offers additional justification for the subordination of women to men, but it also states that women are to be “saved” through the act of childbearing. It reads:

I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Here women are to learn “in silence” and with “full submission” to men; no woman is to have authority over a man, apparently because Eve, the female progenitor in the garden of Eden story, was “deceived” when she first ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and Adam, her male counterpart, was not (note Genesis 3.16 in which Yahweh states to the woman that a husband will “rule” [Hebrew mashal be] over his wife: “‘I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you”); and, despite that Eve/the woman was deceived in the garden, yet she is to be “saved” through childbearing in a faithful marriage.

In contrast to these New Testament passages which seem to subordinate women to men in a variety of ways, Paul tends to equalize social distinctions that existed in Greco-Roman and ancient Near Eastern society (note that most scholars believe that the letters of 1 Timothy, Ephesians, and Colossians, referenced to above, were not, in fact, written by Paul, but rather by later pupils of Paul in his honor, and to carry forward their understandings of the traditions he passed on to them [thus explaining why there appears to be so many apparent tensions and contradictions among the various teachings in these passages]). For instance, Galatians 3.26-29 states:

. . . for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

Here Paul states that, in Christ, a number of important social structures or distinctions that stratified society in the ancient Mediterranean world are erased. Additionally, it seems clear that Paul believed Christian women could certainly teach publicly, including in the church setting, and there is strong evidence in Paul’s writings that women served important functions in church meetings. For instance, Romans 16.7 commends Junia as prominent among the apostles, and Philippians 4.2 indicates that women provided houses in which early Christian worship meetings took place.

Reflections

For those Christian traditions which accept the New Testament texts as authoritative in some sense, including LDS Christianity, and especially for those traditions which believe that the Bible is the only authoritative source of doctrine or that it represents God’s perfect, completely authoritative, words to mankind, how are these many different, and quite culturally based, viewpoints in the Bible to be reconciled and appropriated in modern Christianity?

As just one suggestion concerning the tensions found in the Pauline texts discussed above–although this suggestion will, of course, not satisfy all readers, especially those with strong views concerning the inerrancy and sufficiency of the biblical texts– I would simply consider the fact that Paul and his audience lived in a society that often had very different social and cultural values (and especially concerning the relationship[s] of women and men), many of which values were based in notions of honor and shame. Moreover, I think it is worth noting that no one remains static in all their thoughts and conclusions on every issue. If Paul wrote those passages attributed to him which subordinate women to men in a number of significant ways, perhaps he simply was still growing and developing spiritually and intellectually himself, and just had not as yet carried his understanding of the equality that is found in Christ (see again Gal.3.28-29) all the way through in this situation. Perhaps comfort may simply be found in knowing that even great men such as Paul and Peter had disagreements and weaknesses (see Galatians 2, for example, which records and interesting confrontation between Paul and Peter over the proper relationship[s] between Jewish and Gentile Christians in the church), and that they too were always still growing in their discipleship.

in the midst of the gods ['elohim] he holds judgement.

Ps. 82.1 (NRSV)

References to a divine council or heavenly assembly are found frequently throughout the Hebrew Bible [1]. Simply, the divine council is the heavenly royal court over which Yahweh, the God of Israel, presides as heavenly king. The members of this heavenly court or assembly are referred to in the Hebrew Bible by such terms as: bene (ha)’elohim “sons of God” (Gen. 6.2, 4; Deut. 32.8-9; Job 1.6, 2.2, 38.7), ‘elohim “gods” (Ps. 82.1, 6), bene elim “sons of gods” (Ps. 29.1, 89.7), and bene ‘elyon “sons of the Most High” (Ps. 82.6). Moreover, the council itself is referred to by such appellations as the adat ‘el “council/assembly/congregation of ‘El/God” (Ps. 82.1), sod qedoshim rabbah “great council of the holy ones” (Ps. 89.8), sod YHWH “the council of Yahweh” (Jer. 23.18), and sod eloah “council of God” (Job 15.8).

The members of the divine council–the “sons of god” or “gods” as they are often described–served various functions. Yahweh’s heavenly council was frequently depicted in terms analogous to that of the royal court of an earthly king or monarch. Thus, just as a king presides over a body of counselors and administrators with whom he counsels and to whom he issues decrees, so too Yahweh was surrounded by an assemblage of heavenly beings with whom he counseled and to whom he issued decrees. For this reason the God of Israel is designated as ‘el ‘elyon “the Most High God” (Gen.14.18-19; Ps. 78.35; cf. Ps. 82.6), because there are other, lower gods who serve him and praise him in his heavenly divine council. The God of Israel is the Most High (God) because there are other, subordinate gods in his heavenly council. These gods obey Yahweh’s decrees and pay deference to Yahweh because he is the supreme God of the pantheon–but they too are still gods nonetheless. Like many ancient Near Eastern texts which exult a particular earthly king as supreme over all the kings or rulers of other nations, so Yahweh is supreme in relation to the other gods of his council and those of other nations. The relevant issue in these texts is not one of “ontology” or species, of course, but one of power, might, and glory. Thus we read in Ps. 29.1 (NRSV, alternate translation):

Ascribe to Yahweh, O sons of gods [bene 'elim],

ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength.

In light of the preceding discussion, other biblical passages which directly state or imply the other existence of gods also make much more sense. For instance, Exodus 15.11 (NRSV) states:

Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods ['elim]?

Who is like you, majestic in holiness,

awesome in splendour, doing wonders?

And Psalm 95.3 (NRSV) reads:

For the Lord is a great God,

and a great King above all gods ['elohim].

The notion of the divine council in the Hebrew Bible has become more prominent and clearly defined in light of the important discoveries from ancient Ugarit, which discoveries provide perhaps the most important ancient literary and linguistic parallels to the Hebrew Bible to date (although there are noteworthy differences to be sure). In the texts from ancient Ugarit, the Canaanite high god ‘El presides over an large heavenly assembly (phr, dr, or ‘dt), the highest tier of which was composed of his sons (bn ‘il ). From KTU2 1.4.VI.46 we learn that El and Athirat (biblical Asherah), the consort of ‘El, had seventy divine sons. Such details recovered from the texts of ancient Ugarit very likely relate to the biblical descriptions of the divine council. For instance, in the table of nations in Genesis 10 there are exactly seventy nations listed, and in Deut. 32.8-9 the nations of the earth are divided among the sons of God, each of whom is given their own dominion or stewardship (this theme is also present in Psalm 82). Later Jewish tradition also asserted that there were seventy nations on earth, and other later texts confirm that there were seventy guardian angels which watched over them (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Deut. 32.8; 1 En. 89.59-77, 90.22-27). This tradition is clearly dependent on these earlier notions found in Genesis 10 and Deut. 32.8-9 (and Psalm 82) concerning the number of the nations and the sons of god appointed over them, and these biblical texts, in turn, are informed by the older traditions connected with the texts discovered at the ancient city of Ugarit. Thus Deut. 32.8-9 (NRSV, adapted) reads:

When the Most High ['elyon] apportioned the nations,

when he divided humankind,

he fixed the boundaries of the peoples

according to the number of the sons of God/gods [bene 'elohim];

YHWH’s portion was/is his people,

Jacob his allotted share.

The Masoretic Text (MT) which was followed by the King James Translators has “sons of Israel” instead of “sons of God.” However, the LXX and manuscript 4QDeut from the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as several other ancient versions support the reading of the “sons of God.” The MT reading thus appears to be a deliberate alteration to change what was otherwise seen by an ancient scribe as a reference to the existence of other gods. Additionally, it should be noted that the sons of god/gods are never called the “sons of Yahweh;” except for Ps. 82.6, references to the sons of God virtually always occur with the root ‘l in the word for God. This is additional evidence that the notion of the divine council found in the Hebrew Bible is most likely heavily indebted to that of ‘El and his assembly of divine sons as found in the Ugaritic texts. Furthermore, Is. 14.13 pictures the assembly meeting upon the divine mountain of assembly, which notion is consistent with the depiction of the council as found in the Ugaritic texts as well.

There are thus numerous biblical passages which clearly state or imply that there are other real gods in existence, although Yahweh is seen as supreme among them. In addition to those verses cited above, consider also Psalm 89.6 (NRSV, adapted), which reads: “For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh? Who among the sons of God is like Yahweh…?”, as well as Psalm 99.2 (4QPsalm), which states: “Yahweh is great in Zion, he is exalted over all the gods.” Furthermore, Deuteronomy 32.43 (NRSV) goes on to affirm that, “Praise, O heavens, his people, worship him, all you gods!” Finally, Job 38.4-7 (cf. Genesis 1.26-27; 3.22) (NRSV, adapted) declares: “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” These are just a sample of the biblical texts which demonstrate that the biblical authors believed that there were other real gods in existence besides Yahweh.

Reflections

I have purposely failed to define either the concepts of monotheism or polytheism in the post, and I will leave such discussion for the comments below. I will note again, however, that the difference between Yahweh and the gods of his council (or the gods of other nations) was not seen by the ancient Israelites in terms of a difference in species or kind, but in degree of power, might, and glory. I would also note that passages such as Deuteronomy 32.8-9 clearly demonstrate that these other gods held dominions or stewardships over other nations, just as Yahweh possessed Israel. Moreover, it seems clear based on passages such Job 38.4-7 and Genesis 1.26-27 (as well as Genesis 3.22) that these other gods participated in the creation of the world and were considered to be like God (i.e., having knowledge of good and evil and being immortal). What then do these texts imply or entail for those monotheistic Judeo-Christian religious traditions–including LDS Christianity–that lay claim to the Bible as a religiously authoritative text in some sense? How can or should such ancient Israelite views be dealt with in these faith traditions?

Notes

[1] For this post I have drawn heavily from John Day’s section “The Sons of El (God)” in his book Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. Journal for the study of the Old Testament, 265. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 22-24.