 |
 |
 |
|
|
|---|
|
by Ruth Hoppin
Pacific Coast Region/Society of
Biblical Literature meeting, St. Mary’s College, Moraga, CA
Ruth Hoppin is a free-lance writer and independent researcher in
New Testament studies. She writes and speaks on Priscilla as author of Hebrews,
and inspirational topics. Her book, Priscilla’s Letter: Finding the Author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Lost Coast Press, 2000), is a CBE book resource.
Hoppin is a contributor to the IVP Women’s Bible Commentary and a
forthcoming volume in the Feminist Companion to Christian Origins series by
Sheffield Academic Press.
This article originated as a paper which I presented at the Pacific
Coast Region/Society of Biblical Literature meeting, New Testament Epistles and
Apocalypse Section, St. Mary’s College, Moraga, CA, in March 2002. I wish
to focus here on Hebrews’ distinctive theology and how it relates to
gender equality. To name Hebrews "Priscilla’s Letter" has its own
implications for gender equality, of course. Here is a brief recapitulation of
my argument.
Eliminating other possibilities one by one, I match Priscilla’s
career with that of the unknown author, citing the following points of
identity:
She was a colleague of Paul and Timothy.
Her career centered
along the Rome/Ephesus axis, route of the epistle.
She was a
teacher/catechist/evangelist.
There are two literary links to the epistle. One is the reference in
Hebrews to instruction in baptisms - instructions Priscilla had to give Apollos
(Acts Ch. 18 and 19). The second is Hebrews’ scriptural grounding for the
messiahship of Jesus- the subject of Apollos’ preaching as
Priscilla’s protégé.
She was trained in rhetoric as the daughter of an eminent Roman family.
Priscilla broke with precedent by naming specific women as exemplars of faith
in a roll-call of heroes, and alluding to many others clearly or obliquely.
She embodies a cogent explanation for the loss of the author’s
name.
If you are not ready to posit Priscilla as the author of Hebrews, then
think "Priscilla - or a person who matches the same description." Implications
of the theology of Hebrews for gender equality are just that - implications.
Hebrews is not an intentional feminist polemic, but a pastoral explication and
exhortation. If its theology tends to support gender equality, its very
unintentionality makes the case for gender equality even stronger.
In the apostolic church there appear to be two main lines of
Christology- that of Paul, and that of the author of Hebrews. In Hebrews,
Priscilla - or a Priscilla look-alike presents a theology that differs in
several key concepts from that of Paul. I will discuss four theological
insights unique to Hebrews that have substantial, though generally overlooked,
implications for gender equality. These insights counterbalance Paul’s
theology. They interpret rather than contradict and are intrinsic to the
theology, or theologies, of the early church, both reflecting and shaping their
development.
I. The Meaning of the Crucifixation
Paul and the writer of Hebrews differ in their interpretation of the
meaning of the crucifixion. The crucifixion was for Paul, a salvational event
directly impacting the believer, encompassing mystical union with Christ.
For Paul, the crucifixion changes the believer, atoning for sin,
facilitating a right relationship with God:
"We know that our old self was crucified with him, so that the body
of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin (Rom.
6:6)";
"I have been crucified with Christ: ...it is Christ who lives in
me... (Gal. 2:20)";
"May I never boast of anything except the cross of our
Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the
world (Gal. 6:14)."
For the Hebrews author, the crucifixion was essential to salvation
because it changed Jesus. Through the experience of suffering and death he was
enabled to completely empathize with humanity (Heb. 5:7-10; 2:9-18): -
"Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered
(Heb. 5:8)."
"and having been made perfect, he became the source of
eternal salvation for all who obey him?(Heb. 5:9)."
"crowned with honor
and glory because of the suffering of death?that? he might taste death for
everyone (Heb. 2:9)."
"He had to become like his brothers and sisters in
every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest?,to make
a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people (Heb. 2:17)."
"Because
he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are
tested (Heb. 2:18)."
Only by having undergone this transformation through
suffering could Jesus offer himself, a perfect offering for sin, in the
capacity of High Priest (Heb. 10:12).
So for Paul, the crucifixion is sanctification, offering holiness
through mystic union with Christ. For the writer of Hebrews, the crucifixion is
redemption (Heb. 10:19-22), restoring the believer to a right relationship with
God and a rightful place in the religious and spiritual life of the community.
This is possible through the perfection of Jesus through suffering, refining
his qualities of tenderness and empathy to the highest possible level.
The author of Hebrews does not claim that tenderness, sympathy and
empathy are exclusively feminine traits; on the contrary, they are considered
human traits, for Jesus’ development of these traits are the pathway by
which he fully identifies with humankind. The path began with incarnation in
human form and ended with the experience of death as mortals experience death.
Nonetheless, whether rightly or wrongly, the traits in question are
traditionally perceived as feminine. By making these stereotypical feminine
qualities perquisite to the salvational activity of Christ, they are elevated
in value.
The theology of Hebrews thus has subtle but profound implications for
gender equality. In such a theological milieu, both men and women are
subliminally and overtly enjoined to value "feminine" traits through
recognizing them as decisive in God’s plan of salvation. The perception of
women is ultimately elevated. Since women are encouraged to value more highly
the traits imputed to them their own self-perception is sure to be elevated.
II. Perception of the Church
Mystical union with Christ, a cornerstone of Paul’s soteriology, is
not articulated in Hebrews. Equally notable for its absence in the epistle is
Pauline and deutero-Pauline formulation of the church as the body of Christ and
Christ as the head of the church.
Much has been written about the body/head metaphor. Is it to be
construed as a cooperative arrangement in which the church acts in partnership
with Christ - or is the headship of Christ a paradigm for the headship of the
husband in reference to the wife? The reason why much has been written about it
is that the metaphor is intrinsically ambiguous. Hierarchical in its
expression, if not in its core meaning, it lends itself to the construction of
other hierarchical relationships.
As an associate of Paul, the author might have echoed this key analogy
of Pauline and deutero-Pauline thought. But she didn’t. Thus, such
creative theology as "For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is
the head of the church" (Eph. 5:23) is nowhere to be found in the epistle to
the Hebrews. That entire passage in which the church, feminized and subject to
Christ (v. 21-33), becomes the model for wives being subject to their husbands,
would never have gotten past Priscilla. Nor would: "Christ is the head of every
man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ" (1
Cor. 11:3).
It is worth noting that three of five instances in which this metaphor
appears have nothing to do with gender roles. In Col. 1:18, Eph. 1:20-23, and 1
Cor. 12:12-31, Christ is presented as the origin of the church, and the
provider of spiritual gifts. Only in two passages (Eph. 5:21-33 and 1 Cor.
11:3) is the metaphor tweaked in the direction of hierarchical roles based on
sex.
In Hebrews the church is a house or household. Household imagery, in
which hospitality is enjoined, appears elsewhere in the New Testament, but in
Hebrews it is the dominant image of the church. There is no body/head metaphor
just waiting to be given a non-egalitarian spin. Church members are alternately
children (Heb. 2:10,13,14) or siblings (v. 11,12,17) of Jesus.
For followers of Jesus, salvation is an ongoing process. Believers are
assured of his intercession and promised direct access to God (Heb. 4:14-16;
6:19-20; 10:19-20).
In her article on the soteriology of Hebrews, Brenda B. Colijn writes:
"The images of salvation presented in Hebrews are significantly different from
the familiar images of justification and reconciliation that are the usual
focus of systematic theologies... (salvation is viewed as ) dynamic and
relational rather than static and purely juridical."
In Hebrews we do, in fact, find a relational, inclusive, and
non-juridical outlook compatible with gender equality.
III. Focus on the ascension
It is possible that Paul and the author of Hebrews differ not only in
their interpretation of the crucifixion, but its centrality. For Paul, the
crucifixion/resurrection is the central salvational event. In Hebrews, the
ascension/exaltation is the central salvational event. The exaltation of Christ
to Glory, and enthronement at the right hand of God completes the cycle of
salvation that began at the incarnation.
Ascension soteriology, highlighted in Hebrews, is attested in a variety
of New Testament writings besides the gospels. Paul alludes to the ascension
indirectly in Rom. 10:6. The disputed author of Ephesians underscores the
importance of the ascension as a prelude to bestowal of spiritual gifts (Eph.
4:7-12). Luke has Peter refer to the ascension and spiritual gifting in an
early sermon (Acts 2:33).
What are the implications for gender equality of Hebrews’ focus on
the ascension? First, when Jesus ascended to glory, he withdrew from the
historical milieu in which he was formerly confined - its cultural, historical
and religious presuppositions that marginalized women. Jesus’ earthly life
and ministry will always have been that of a first century Jewish male, living
in a particular region. But at the ascension, Jesus was divested of his
first-centuriness, so that he could be accessible to every era. He was no
longer thirty-something; he was the pre-existent Christ. He gave up his
habitation in a particular region of the globe so that he could be accessible
in every locality. He was no longer defined by the particularities of his
earthly body, which he left to fulfill an eternal destiny as Spirit, to be
worshiped in spirit and truth.
Those who seek to justify the exclusion of women from leadership roles
because the historical Jesus was male, do well to ponder the ascension theology
of Hebrews.
A second implication of the ascension for gender equality is the
commission to preach the gospel to all nations, with which it is linked. Power
to enable the world mission was concomitant with gifts of the Holy Spirit,
bestowed after the ascension. At Pentecost, and beyond, gifts of the Spirit
were bestowed without partiality as to gender. Thus, the great commission to
evangelize applied to both sexes. The gospel was to be preached by all
believers regardless of gender to all people regardless of gender. The gospel
was not to be preached exclusively to men or exclusively by men.
To empower believers for this mission, diverse gifts were imparted. In a
chapter enumerating spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12), apostles, prophets and
teachers are cited as recipients of these gifts, and all are admonished to
"strive for the greater gifts."
In verse 13, we find a truncated version of Gal. 3:28, with reference to
Jews and Greeks, slave and free, but omitting "male and female." Yet, the first
two dichotomies suggest the third, especially in view of the reference to all
baptized persons: "For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body -
Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and we were all made to drink of one Spirit."
The well-known egalitarian statement in Gal. 3:28, like the shortened form in 1
Cor. 12:13, is preceded by an inclusive, unqualified reference to baptized
persons: "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... (Gal. 3:27-28)."
Spiritual gifting of women and men for leadership, an outcome of the
ascension of Christ, made possible the task to which they were called.
IV. A Second Look at Melchizedek
We discern the fourth implication of the theology of Hebrews for gender
equality in the introduction of a hitherto obscure figure into the New
Testament. On the surface, the author’s intentions were innocent enough.
She went to a Qumran document, 11 Q Melchizedek (11Q13), where Melchizedek had
an exalted, near-divine status - that of a Priest-Messiah, in whom the two
Messianic functions, Priest and King, were coalesced into one person. Then she
did an end run around the Aaronic and Levitical priesthood, reaching back into
salvational history recorded in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, to fetch
Melchizedek as the type of the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ (cf. Ps. 110:4).
The Abraham-Melchizedek encounter was considered important enough to be
recounted in Hebrews (Chapter 7).
In the Genesis story, Melchizedek is introduced as a priest of El Elyon,
translated "God Most High" in a later development. While the translation is
technically correct, it is at once a means and result of the conflation of a
Canaanite High God or Gods with the Israelite God Yahweh.
As Joseph A. Fitzmeyer explains, El is the name of a well known
Canaanite deity of the second millennium B.C.; El and Elyan appear on an eighth
century BC Aramaic inscription from Sefire in northern Syria as the names of a
pair of Canaanite gods. When these verses were taken over by redactors, El
Elyon became a synonym for Yahweh.
G. Levi Della Vida, writing in the Journal of Biblical Literature
(1944), explains that El Elyon was a combination of two high Canaanite deities,
the Lord of Earth and the Lord of Heaven. A redactor "boldly merged two of the
chief Gods of the Canaanite pantheon into one being,... "
Earlier, there was merging in the Tell-el-Amarna Letters of the
15th-14th c. BC, in which the Canaanites called El Elyon "the lord of the
Gods." The ancients often titled this chief Canaanite deity "Most High," "Lord
of heaven," and "Creator of earth," titles later conflated with the Israelite
God.
This leaves us with a Canaanite King-Priest who prefigures the High
Priesthood of Jesus Christ. What could be more subversive of patriarchy in all
its forms? The Canaanite High God, or Gods, El Elyon, had two primary
representatives on earth, the male deity Baal and the female deity Astarte.
We are talking about a female deity - not the feminine aspects of deity,
amply attested in scripture. Astarte or Asherah, represented to worshipers in
her temples by abstract wood, was the bane of Old Testament prophets who strove
to eradicate her influence. The conflict went far beyond a war of words. In a
climactic clash between Elijah and Jezebel, hundreds of prophets on both sides
died violently. As if to forestall the unfolding conflict; as if to reach
across the centuries and assuage its deep wounds, Melchizedek, the Canaanite
Priest who served a male and a female deity, blessed Abraham, a worshiper of
the Israelite God.
We should note, too, that Melchizedek’s priestly colleagues
included women.
Canaanite priestesses served male and female deities.
Of course the true work of healing and reconciliation was to come
through Jesus. In private correspondence, John Beverley Butcher, author of
"Telling the Untold Stories," states that "With his Canaanite roots, his
(Melchizedek’s) priesthood would have been more inclusive of the Divine
Mother...when Jesus is seen as the Great High Priest after the Order of
Melchizedek,... The clash between Elijah and Jezebel is...healed in Jesus the
Christ..." He sees Hebrews "as the great book of healing..., similar to
Paul’s teaching of ‘neither male nor female, neither Jew nor
Gentile’. "
In light of Melchizedek’s Canaanite roots, his ensconcement in a
canonical New Testament epistle as a foreshadowing of Christ carries a message
of undiminished relevance in a world in which gender equality does not yet hold
sway.
It is fitting that Priscilla or someone like her should have delineated
Christ a priest after the order of Melchizedek. In everything he said and did,
Jesus was intent on restructuring social and religious norms that marginalized
or demeaned women. By personal example and public statement, he was constantly
upsetting the patriarchal apple cart by contesting male privilege in the realm
of religion.
The characteristic soteriology of Hebrews, its disavowal through silence
of the body/head metaphor for the church, its focus on the ascension and
exaltation of Christ, and the startling introduction of a Canaanite priest into
the theological equation all converge as arresting implications for gender
equality.
References:
Ruth Hoppin, "Priscilla’s Letter: Finding the Author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews" (Fort Bragg, CA: Lost Coast Press, 2000)
Brenda B. Colijn, " ‘Let Us Approach’: Soteriology in the
Epistle to the Hebrews," JETS Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 571-586.
Peter Atkins, "Ascension Now: Implications of Christ’s Ascension
for Today’s Church," (Collegeville MN: The Liturgical Press, 2001).
G. Levi Della Vida, "El ‘Elyon in Genesis 14:18-20", JBL
LXIII 1944 p. 1-9
Mathias Delcor, "Melchizedek from Genesis to the Qumran Texts and the
Epistle to the Hebrews," JSJ2(1971) p. 115-135.
Joseph A. Fitzmeyer S.J., "Melchizedek in the MT, LXX, and the NT,"
Biblica 81 (2000), p. 63-69. www.bsw.org/project/biblica
Credit. This article originally appeared in Priscilla Papers, a journal
of Christians for Biblic Equality (Winter 2003)
Action?
Poems
Litanies
Prayers
Mary of
Magdala
Picture
meditations
Home
Want to support our campaign for women
priests?
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please, credit this document
as published by www.womenpriests.org!