WN: The sermon by the above historian is revolutionary in terms of the role of women in the early church. Be assured: you will not be disappointed if you listen with an open mind and heart. The implications, if the text discussed is fully corroborated, are truly gargantuan! . . . It must be shouted from the rooftops!
It has been my deep conviction for decades that biblical justice, like a garden super weed, once grasped, connects all other justice issues where domination and oppression hold sway: everything from women’s roles to racial issues; from colonization to intimate partner abuse; from treatment of criminals to international warfare. To which Amos (5:24) thunderously rejoins:
But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!
Then the Psalmist in 85:10:
Love and faithfulness meet together; righteousness and peace kiss each other.
Amen, and again I say, Amen!
Please now click on: All The Marys. (Did I say you won’t be disappointed?!) A shout-out to our friend and mentor Elsie Goerzen, Co-Director of Mennonite Central Committee of British Columbia’s powerful End Abuse Program, for drawing our attention to it.
I’ll somewhat give the content away with this excerpt about the sermon from Ms. Bass:
Here’s my sermon from the Wild Goose Festival, based on Luke 10: 38-42 and John 11. Sorry it is a little late! Our drive home last night took much longer than expected.
Since the sermon draws from Elizabeth Schrader’s work on the Marys, I sent it to her that she might listen. She responded by saying it was “powerful” and well-represents her work (noting the stylistic differences between an academic paper and a sermon!). And she also wanted listeners to know that, at this point, the Nestle-Aland committee of the Greek New Testament is aware of this work and will take it into account as they work on updated critical editions of the New Testament. In her words, “they are unlikely to remove Martha completely unless further discoveries come to light, but the apparatus (the footnotes) in John 11 may well change as a result of this discovery.”
So, that’s where the academic discussion currently stands. And who knows where it will go as researchers follow these questions? The New Testament continues to open up with amazing new insights as scholars like Libbie press into ancient texts in new ways — and making it possible for us to understand scripture closer to original sources.
Enjoy the sermon. It is Good News indeed.
I invite you to imagine with me — What would Christianity have been like if we’d known about Mary the Tower the entire time? What does it mean for us going forward?
After having read the sermon, you may wish also to read, by Ms. Schrader (2016), the more academic: Was Martha of Bethany Added to the Fourth Gospel in the Second Century? (This was supplied through Elsie Goerzen, in correspondence with Ms. Schrader. It was published here: Schrader, E. (2017). Was Martha of Bethany Added to the Fourth Gospel in the Second Century? Harvard Theological Review,110(3), 360-392. doi:10.1017/S0017816016000213.)
My good friend Gerry shared the following corroborating videos featuring Ms. Schrader‘s discussing at a more academic level her research on Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of John. He had sent the sermon to a friend who is an ordained Roman Catholic woman priest. I had known nothing of this! This too is exciting! Here is their website:
Gerry explains:
Unfortunately, the ordinations of these women are still not considered “licit” by our institutional Church. Some Catholic priests decided some years ago that to wait for the institution to change its position was unjust, and eventually a Catholic bishop agreed (only the Bishop can ordain) and so 7 women were ordained (in 2002). It’s inevitable that this injustice, and the blindness that creates it, will eventually change in a more universal (i.e. ‘catholic’) way. For this I pray.
The website further introduces their mandate in a recording (click on image). Below it, you may read their statement:
Roman Catholic Womenpriests are at the forefront of a model of service that offers Catholics a renewed priestly ministry in vibrant grassroots communities where all are equal and all are welcome. The voice of the Catholic people—the sensus fidelium—has spoken. We women are no longer asking for permission to be priests. Instead, we have taken back our rightful God-given place ministering to Catholics as inclusive and welcoming priests.
Yes, we have challenged and broken the Church’s Canon Law 10241, an unjust law that discriminates against women. Despite what some bishops may lead the faithful to believe, our ordinations are valid because we are ordained in apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church.
The Catholic people have accepted us as their priests and they continue to support us as we grow from the seven bold women first ordained on the Danube River in 2002. Ordained women are already ministering in over 34 states across the country and are also present in Canada, Europe, South and Central America, South Africa, Philippines and Taiwan.
We are here to stay.
I can only echo Gerry’s prayer, and add: a hearty Amen!
Now, please view the videos:
Hearing Ms. Bass’ sermon today not only gave me goose-bumps; I found it was truly revelatory and thrilling! More power to all the brilliant women doing painstaking work on early Christianity! The Gospels are impossibly hot potatoes: arguably the most revolutionary texts –“towering” in light of the sermon–in human history! Who can hold them for very long without deep soul-searching searing? . . .
Despite my having been raised in the Plymouth Brethren tradition where the Bible–an exclusive interpretation thereof–was Pope, and where women were emphatically under male leadership, Ms. Bass shatters that notion–by use of the biblical text! Enough to tease your interest, I hope. But to forewarn: I for one was, as they say: “blown away.”
This Wikipedia article fills in some background, with highlights in this colour:
Mary Magdalene,[a] sometimes called Mary of Magdala, or simply the Magdalene or the Madeleine, was a woman who, according to the four canonical gospels, traveled with Jesus as one of his followers and was a witness to his crucifixion and resurrection.[1]She is mentioned by name twelve times in the canonical gospels, more than most of theapostles and more than any other woman in the gospels, other than Jesus’s family. Mary’s epithetMagdalene may mean that she came from the town of Magdala, a fishing town on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee in Roman Judea. [But hear the sermon on this detail.]
The Gospel of Luke[2] lists Mary Magdalene as one of the women who traveled with Jesus and helped support his ministry “out of their resources”, indicating that she was probably wealthy. The same passage also states that seven demons had been driven out of her, a statement which is repeated in Mark 16. In all the four canonical gospels, Mary Magdalene was a witness to the crucifixion of Jesus and, in the Synoptic Gospels, she was also present at his burial. All the four gospels identified her, either alone or as a member of a largergroup of womenwhich includesJesus’s mother, as the first to witness theempty tomb,[1]and, either alone or as a member of a group, as the first to witness Jesus’s resurrection.[3] [That is, the first Apostle (Sent One) to preach the Gospel. Saint Paul reflects the reality of female Apostles in this salutation from Romans 16:
7Greet Andronicus and Junia,dmy fellow countrymen and fellow prisoners. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.]
To be noted. The male form of the female name, Junia, alluded to in footenote d, is nonexixtent in Greek literature at the time of Christ. It is also not in the earliest manuscripts. More on this below with reference to Beth Allison Barr.]
For these reasons, Mary Magdalene is known in some Christian traditions as the “apostle to the apostles”. Mary Magdalene is a central figure in later Gnostic Christian writings, including the Dialogue of the Savior, the Pistis Sophia, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Mary. These texts portray Mary Magdalene as an apostle, as Jesus’s closest and most beloved disciple and the only one who truly understood his teachings. In the Gnostic texts, or Gnostic gospels, Mary Magdalene’s closeness to Jesus results in tension with another disciple, Peter, due to her sex and Peter’s envy of the special teachings given to her. In the Gospel of Philip‘s text she is described as Jesus’s companion, as the disciple Jesus loved the most and the one Jesus kissed on the mouth,[4][5] which has led some people to conclude that she and Jesus were in a relationship. Some fiction portrays her as the wife of Jesus.
The portrayal of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute began in 591, when Pope Gregory I conflated Mary Magdalene, who was introduced in Luke 8:2,[6] with Mary of Bethany (Luke 10:39)[7] and the unnamed “sinful woman” who anointed Jesus’s feet in Luke 7:36–50.[8] Pope Gregory’s Easter sermon resulted in a widespread belief that Mary Magdalene was a repentant prostitute or promiscuous woman.[9][1] Elaborate medieval legends from Western Europe then emerged, which told exaggerated tales of Mary Magdalene’s wealth and beauty, as well as of her alleged journey to southern Gaul (modern-day France). The identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and the unnamed “sinful woman” was still a major controversy in the years leading up to the Reformation, and some Protestant leaders rejected it. During the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Church emphasized Mary Magdalene as a symbol of penance. In 1969, Pope Paul VIremoved the identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and the “sinful woman” from theGeneral Roman Calendar, but the view of her as a former prostitute has persisted in popular culture. [But hear the sermon.]
Mary Magdalene is considered to be a saint by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran denominations. In 2016Pope Francisraised the level of liturgical memory on July 22 from memorial to feast, and for her to be referred to as the “Apostle of the apostles.”[10] Other Protestant churches honor her as a heroine of the faith. The Eastern Orthodox churches also commemorate her on the Sunday of the Myrrhbearers, the Orthodox equivalent of one of the Western Three Marys traditions.
That’s the power of this book. Complementarianism, even in its softer forms, isn’t just wrong theologically and biblically. It is a heresy that hurts people, practically, emotionally, and spiritually. So, as Beth says, “Stop it!”
In the video discussion below (on the website), Barr references Junia–one of several women commended by Paul for their service in Romans 16. She writes:
Junia, I showed them, was accepted as an apostle until nearly modern times, when her name began to be translated as a man’s name: Junias (p. 66).
Another highly significant point not mentioned by Barr is:
Andronicus, Athanasius of Christianoupolis and Saint Junia; Venerated in Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Churches; Feast May 17, 23 Pashons (Coptic Orthodox); Attributes Christian Martyrdom
Only one record of the male name “Junias” has been discovered in extra-biblical Greek literature, which names him as the bishop of Apameia of Syria. Three clear occurrences of “Junia” have been found. While earlier searches for “Junias” in Latin also yielded no evidence, it is reported that “Junias” has been found as a Latin nickname or diminutive for the name “Junianas,” which was not uncommon both in Greek and Latin. While this is a possibility, historical studies on the name “Junia” as a contracted form of “Junianas” has shown there are over 250 citations of the name Junia in antiquity all of which have been found to refer to women, with not one single case proven to be the abbreviated form of Junianus to Junia.[18] Meanwhile, the name Junia is attested multiple times on inscriptions, tombstones and records; most notably, the half sister, Junia Secunda, of Marcus Junius Brutus.[19] —Wikipedia: Junia
In other words, “Junias” was likely a made-up name because translators could not accept that Paul was designating a woman to be an apostle–especially a “prominent” one.
From her book is this:
I remember feeling like such a hypocrite, standing before my college classroom.
Here I was, walking my students through compelling historical evidence that the problem with women in leadership wasn’t Paul; the problem was with how we misunderstood and obscured Paul. Here I was, showing my students how women really did lead and teach in the early church, even as deacons and apostles. Junia, I showed them, was accepted as an apostle until nearly modern times, when her name began to be translated as a man’s name: Junias. New Testament scholar Eldon Jay Epp compiled two tables surveying Greek New Testaments from Erasmus through the twentieth century.1 Together, the charts show that the Greek name Junia was almost universally translated in its female form until the twentieth century, when the name suddenly began to be translated as the masculine Junias. Why? Gaventa explains:
Epp makes it painfully, maddeningly clear that a major factor in twentieth-century treatments of Romans 16:7 was the assumption that a woman could not have been an apostle.2
Junia became Junias because modern Christians assumed that only a man could be an apostle. As a historian, I knew why the women in Paul’s letters did not match the so-called limitations that contemporary church leaders place on women. I knew it was because we have read Paul wrong. Paul isn’t inconsistent in his approach to women; we have made him inconsistent through how we have interpreted him. As Romans 16 makes clear, the reality is that biblical women contradict modern ideas of biblical womanhood.
I knew all this. Yet I still allowed the leaders of my church to go uncontested in their claim that women could not teach boys older than thirteen at our church. I still remained silent. [The irony of course is not lost: This is precisely what “power over” compels victims to be; in this case with a quote from Paul (seemingly) commanding it!3 Thankfully, Barr now is declaring to the world how wrong it is to keep women silent–and why! She has gloriously broken her silence!] (emphasis added; Barr, Beth Allison. The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth (pp. 66-67). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.)
The traditional story of the birth of Christianity is dominated by men. It is often thought that Jesus only chose men to be his disciples and apostles, but evidence suggests that this is really only half the story.
Were female disciples in fact crucial to the Jesus movement? Profoundly scandalous at the time, the idea remains highly controversial 2,000 years later.
Two distinguished early church historians present research that shows as many as half of Jesus’ disciples were women. They say the evidence shows that women were integral to his mission and only if we see men and women working together do we see the whole story, revealing the early church as far more radical than we thought.
And they will also explore what this means for us today. Can it teach us new things not only about women and men’s ministries and roles, but also about the radical, transformative way of Jesus?
A note about some of their assessments of the “authentic Pauline letters,” in terms of Paul’s views on women. They need not have included Ephesians as Deutero-Pauline, because, they indicate in their reading (somewhat disingenuously), that it teaches subordination of women. Joan Taylor specifically mentions Philip Barton Payne‘s scholarship. While she does not have the evangelical sense of scripture (“Jesus is the Word of God to whom scripture gives witness,” she says), Payne contrary to the two professors accepts Pauline authorship of Ephesians, but in What About Headship? 1 Corinthians 7 and Ephesians 5 he writes:
Mutual submission is the explicit context of Ephesians 5:21–33.
Origen (Heine, Origen and Jerome, 231-32), Jerome (PL 26: 654), and Chrysostom (Homily XIX on Ephesians, NPNF1, 13:142) teach that the wife’s submission is one facet of mutual submission. Mutual submission is mutual “voluntary yielding in love” (BDAG 1042).
The earliest Greek manuscripts, !46 and Codex Vaticanus B, show no verb “submit” in v. 22. Its omission is confirmed by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata 4.8.64), Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Jerome’s commentary and assertion that in Greek manuscripts verse 22 never repeats the verb “submit” from verse 21.
Virtually all editions of the Greek NT have no verb submit here: NA28, NA27, UBS5, UBS4, Nestle, Westcott and Hort, Tasker, Souter, Alford, Tischendorf, and Goodrich and Lukaszewski 2003.
After “submit” first appears in Codex Sinaiticus ca. AD 350–360, every surviving NT manuscript includes “submit” in 5:22. Since no manuscript after AD 350 removed it, removal can’t reasonably explain why all the earliest manuscripts and citations omit it.
…
1. . . . Christ as savior “loved the church and gave himself up for…nourishes and cherishes” her. Christ as “head” is the church’s savior, its source of love and nourishment.
Husbands “love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Husbands are not told to have authority over their wives, but “to submit to one another” by loving his wife, giving himself for her, nourishing her, and cherishing her, vv 25–33.
2. Eph 4:15–16 head means “source”: Christ is the “head … from whom … the body grows.” This prepares readers to understand “head” as “source” in ch. 5.
The context of mutual submission 5:21 is incompatible with interpreting “head” as “authority over” in which only the wife must submit to her husband, not vice versa.
3. “Source” makes good sense in 9 of Paul’s 11 metaphorical uses of kephalē, including Col 2:19, “the head, from whom the whole body … grows” and all five uses in 1 Cor 11:3–5.
All 3 principles show “head” in Eph 5:23 means “savior,” “source of love and nourishment.” Is Christ the model only for husbands? No. Eph 5:2 commands the whole church, including wives, “walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us.” Eph 4:13 expresses the goal that we all attain “to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”
Does Paul command only the husband to love his wife, not the reverse? No. Titus 2:4. Does Ephesians 5 teach that as Christ has authority over the church, a husband should have authority over his wife? Chrysostom vehemently denies that husbands have authority like Christ, stating “And who will endure this?” Hom. in ep. 1 ad Cor. 26.3 in NPNF1, 12:150.
1 Tim 5:14 calls wives to “rule their homes,” literally “be house despots” (oikodespotein). Paul affirms the equal standing and mutual submission of wife and husband.
I prefer this account of Ephesians on women to Ms. Taylor’s, though I too juxtapose Jesus as the Word of God over against “Scripture,” upper-cased and wrongly claimed (my view) to occupy that divine place. I’ve for decades treated as meaningless (having been raised fundamentalist) the notion that the Bible is the infallible written Word of God–in the original manuscripts–which are of course completely lost to history!
Hodge recognized that the Bible must be always true. Although not a textbook in science or history, its statements in those areas are true. This must follow from its divine inspiration. As the Word of God, the Bible cannot lie. He wrote:
“The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and are therefore infallible, and of divine authority in all things pertaining to faith and practice, and consequently free from all error whether of doctrine, fact, or precept.”
“Inspiration extends to all the contents of these several [canonical] books. It is not confined to moral and religious truths, but extends to the statements of facts, whether scientific, historical, or geographical. It is not confined to those facts the importance of which is obvious, or which are involved in matters of doctrine. It extends to everything which any sacred writer asserts to be true.”
Princeton (up until 1929) was widely known as a bastion in the defense of biblical inerrancy. Hodge claimed that this tradition did not start with him, but was biblical and catholic. He clearly defined and defended biblical inerrancy. (See: Charles Hodge, Inspiration, Textual Criticism, and The Princeton Doctrine of Scripture, January 10, 2009, by John A. Battle.)
We read elsewhere:
Hodge was a leading exponent of the Princeton Theology, an orthodox theological tradition in America during the 19th century. He argued strongly for the authority of the Bible as the Word of God. Many of his ideas were adopted in the 20th century by Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.[1]—Wikipedia.
A little more about such an outlandish belief:
It often has been stated that Hodge and the other Princetonians held a “rationalistic” view about the Bible. They regarded its truth as a fact provable in the same way as natural scientific theories were proved—by observation and induction. This approach placed great confidence in the “scientific method.” This method assumed that the mental processes of all people, Christian and non-Christian alike, would lead to proper conclusions if the relevant facts were known. This confidence in the senses and in human reasoning from them has been called Scottish Common Sense Realism; it had already been popularized among American Presbyterians by John Witherspoon, who had come from Scotland to lead the College of New Jersey in the eighteenth century. (ibid)
My novel, Chrysalis Crucible, a coming-of-age work of fiction about a young evangelical in part finding his way out of such ideas, may be of interest.
One of the real-life co-evangelists in West Berlin–an experience that gave rise to the novel, Larry Dixon, has remained an entrenched evangelical. Sadly, he cut off communication with me many years ago. Years ago also, I reviewed his book, The Other Side of the Good News, which in the end argues like a character in my novel does about the “Good News,” in quoting a once-popular evangelistic booklet, The Four Spiritual Laws, thus:
During a coffee house evening the previous summer, Andy had gotten into a long discussion with someone who could not understand why he should become a believer. Andy finally told him there was a dark “other side” to the Good News he should consider. He proceeded to indicate the biblical teaching that there is everlasting conscious torment for everyone who fails to bow the knee to Jesus.
The guy was a thoughtful senior philosophy student. After Andy finished, he responded quietly, barely above the din of the evening’s activities, “If that is really what you believe, Andy, then all I can say is, your God is worse than the worst human tyrant who has ever lived. Whereas what human tyrants can only undertake to do on a temporal finite scale to their enemies, the God you believe in will do on a cosmic scale without end!” At that, he glanced again at The Four Spiritual Laws booklet Andy had pulled out at one point in the conversation. “What was that First Law you said?”
“God loves you, and has a wonderful plan for your life,” Andy replied.
“There’s a part missing there, according to you,” said his dialogue partner.
“What’s that?,” Andy queried, taken aback.
“Well, the next part, the corollary about hell, sounds like you’re saying just the opposite about God. I think that is closer to what I always thought Satan was supposed to be according to you Christians…”
Andy was utterly shocked about how his own sharing about hell had been turned back against him. Imagine, his God a cosmic hateful tyrant on a par with Satan! Andy was speechless. He told the guy he would really need to do some more thinking on that, but that somehow God’s love and God’s holiness in the end were not incompatible, he was certain. The guy thanked him for their talk, not a little disdainfully, and shortly afterwards left. Andy felt a horrible failure.
That conversation, as well as his more recent one with Hans in West Berlin, flooded his thoughts. God, the Ultimate Cosmic Tyrant?
I grew up in a loving Christian home where Dad was the head of the house. But something happened in 1973 that made me examine what Scripture teaches about man and woman. When I was beginning my PhD studies in New Testament at the University of Cambridge, I was shocked to hear a lecturer state: “There is no passage in the New Testament that limits the ministry of women.” I almost shouted, “That’s not true!” I determined to prove him wrong. But after months examining the New Testament in Greek, I had to admit he was right: the New Testament never clearly limits women’s ministry, but clearly affirms women’s ministry many times.
Even after this discovery, however, I still thought the Bible gave husbands final authority in the home. I insisted that my wife include submission to me in her marriage vows. I thought I was justified in this for two key reasons, both from Ephesians 5. First, Ephesians 5:24 teaches, “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” Second, Ephesians 5:23 says, “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior” (NIV). The meaning of these seemed obvious—that a wife must submit to her husband in everything and that a husband is the head with authority over his wife.
Closer investigation of Scripture, however, led me to discover that these passages do not support male leadership in marriage, but teach mutual submission and self-giving in marriage. Part of the problem is the legacy of translations such as the NIV, RSV, NRSV, and ESV, which conceal how Paul defined “head” in verse 23 and incorrectly split the sentence including Ephesians 5:21–24 into two separate paragraphs. Another issue is failing to interpret Scripture as a united whole and instead picking and choosing verses to fit one’s favored view. As we consider together the original language of the New Testament, we will discover clear affirmations of mutual submission in marriage.
And yet a little more about the outlandish belief in the infallibility of the written text of the Bible. It was a kind of theological Positivism, derivative in that context from Scottish Common Sense Realism3, which eventually went the way of all flesh:
I might add that my contrary belief is much to the chagrin of one of my siblings, who, like Francis Schaeffer (See my book review of Francis Schaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical America by Barry Hankins.), actually insists that, had one been there with a stopwatch, one could have measured the time gap between Eve’s first gazing at the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil, and her reaching out to pluck its fruit, then her sharing it with Adam. My brother also insists on the “scientific and historical” accuracy of the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis, etc. Then for good measure, sadly enough, he tells me I cannot be a Christian if I do not believe that, since not accepting it is tantamount to rejecting the Resurrection of Jesus . . .4
Try as I might, I find nowhere in Jesus’ teaching, in the New Testament, in the entire Bible, any such gateway belief into the Kingdom! I do find, however, much about doing justice: The Sermon on the Mount for starters . . . In fact, in the Sheep and the Goats passage (Matthew 25:31 – 46), I find nothing about belief of any kind as prerequisite to finding favour with the Son of Man. It’s all about doing justice to the least of these . . .5
The written text of the Bible is not God’s Ultimate Divine Living Word: Jesus is–so clearly stated in John 1 and Hebrews 1.
Nor is the Bible . . .
a scientific textbook by current scientific standards;
a work of history by modern-day historiographical conventions;
a law book, to be studied, parsed and interpretations added to through case law, like a set of state legal codes or The Talmud.
If the Bible is considered any of the above, it suffers a similar fate to that of the Church, which, when married to the spirit of the age (any age), will know a divorce in the next.
True enough, though, to my brother’s contention: I cannot be (that kind of) a Christian! I might however legitimately ask him (if he would pause to respond): Who of us is taking Scripture more seriously?
One of the most mysterious aspects of the Transfiguration [Mark 9: 2-10] is the appearance of Moses and Elijah — these two giant figures from the Old Testament — conversing with a glorified Christ. Of course Moses the Lawgiver and Elijah the Prophet are representative figures signifying the Law and the Prophets. On Mount Tabor, Moses and Elijah are summoned from the Old Testament past to give their final witness.
The goal of the Law and the Prophets was to produce a just and worshipping society. Jesus and his kingdom is where that project finds its fulfillment. The new society formed around Jesus was what the Law and the Prophets were aiming for all along. The Transfiguration is where Moses and Elijah find their great successor. The Transfiguration is where the Old Testament hands the project of redemption over to Jesus. The Transfiguration is where the old witness (testament) yields to the new witness (testament.)
But initially Peter misinterpreted what the presence of Moses and Elijah meant.
Peter’s first impulse was to build three memorial tabernacles on Tabor, treating Moses, Elijah, and Jesus as approximate equals.
But Peter’s idea received a strong rebuke when the voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, listen to him!”
Jesus is the true and living Word of God. Jesus is what the Law and Prophets point toward and bow to. Jesus is what the Old Testament was trying to say, but could never fully articulate. Jesus is the perfect Word of God in the form of a human life. God couldn’t say all he wanted to say in the form of a book, so he said it in the form of Jesus. Jesus is what God has to say!
The Law and the Prophets were the lesser lights in the pre-Christ night sky. They were the moon and stars. Israel could grope forward by their soft light; the Hebrews could navigate through the pagan night by constellations. In a world of Stygian darkness, the moonlight and starlight emanating from the Torah and the Prophets made all the difference.
But with Christ, morning has broken, the new day has dawned, the sun of righteousness has risen with healing in its rays. Now the moon and the stars, Moses and Elijah, the Law and the Prophets are eclipsed by the full glory of God in Christ!
The Old Testament is not on par with Jesus. The Bible is not a flat text where every passage carries the same weight. This is why Jesus says, “You have heard it said, but I say to you…” When the church tries to embrace Biblicism by giving the Old Testament equal authority with Christ, the Father thunders from heaven, “No! This is my beloved Son! Listen to him!”
So if Moses says to practice capital punishment, to stone adulterers and other sinners, God says, “Listen to Jesus!” And Jesus says, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.”
If Elijah calls down fire from heaven to burn up his enemies, God says, “Listen to Jesus!” And Jesus says, “Love your enemies.”
The Pharisees in their desire to condemn sinners to death can quote the Bible and cite Moses. But Jesus says something else.
James and John, in their zeal to go “shock and awe” on the Samaritans and call down fire from heaven, can quote the Bible and cite Elijah. But Jesus says something else.
Moses says this. Elijah does that. But Jesus says and does something completely new and different.
And what does God say? Does God instruct us to find a “healthy balance” between Moses, Elijah, and Jesus? No! God says, “Listen to my Son!”
If we want to rummage around in the Old Testament and drag out Moses or Elijah or Joshua or David to “balance out” what Jesus teaches about peacemaking and enemy-love, we are trying to build an Old Testament tabernacle on the holy mountain of Christ’s glory and God says, “No!”
The role of the Old Testament is to give an inspired telling of how we get to Jesus. But once we get to Jesus we don’t build multiple tabernacles to “balance out” Jesus. Jesus is greater than Moses. Jesus is greater than Elijah. Jesus is greater than Biblicism. Moses can stone sinners and Elijah can burn up enemies, but for a Christian that doesn’t matter. We follow Jesus.
It’s not “Biblical principles” that we seek, but the truth of Christ.
It’s not “Biblical justice” that we pursue, but Christlike justice.
It’s not “Biblical manhood” that men should aspire to, but Christlike manhood.
It’s not “Biblical womanhood” that should inform women, but the light of Christ.
Wars of conquest, violent retribution, the institution of slavery, and women held as property are all “Biblical.” But when placed in the light of Tabor they must be renounced. What was once acceptable in the dim light of Moses and Elijah is now rejected in the light brighter than the sun shining from the face of Christ.
Today Moses and Elijah (the Law and the Prophets) do one thing: They point to Jesus!
I’m a Christian, not a Biblicist. Yet I love the Old Testament. I read it every day. I call it Scripture. Sacred Scripture. But I never read it without Jesus. Jesus is my sponsor for admission to the Old Testament. (Why else would a Gentile read ancient Jewish Scriptures?) I don’t read the Law and the Prophets by the light of Moses and Elijah; I read the Law and the Prophets in the light of Christ. So if Moses instructs capital punishment and Elijah models violent retribution, I remember Mount Tabor…
“A voice came out of the cloud, ‘This is my beloved Son, listen to him!’ And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but Jesus only.” –Mark 9:7, 8
The final testimony of Moses and Elijah is to recede into the background so that Jesus stands alone as the full and true Word of God.
Jesus is what God has to say!
Finally: a little about Diana Butler Bass from her website:
Diana Butler Bass, Ph.D., is an award-winning author, popular speaker, inspiring preacher, and one of America’s most trusted commentators on religion and contemporary spirituality.
Diana’s passion is sharing great ideas to change lives and the world—a passion that ranges from informing the public about spiritual trends, challenging conventional narratives about religious practice, entering the fray of social media with spiritual wisdom and smart theology, and writing books to help readers see themselves, their place in history, and God differently. She does this with intelligence, joy, and a good dose of humor, leading well-known comedian John Fugelsang to dub her “iconic,” the late Marcus Borg to call her “spontaneous and always surprising,” and Glennon Doyle to praise her “razor-sharp mind” and “mystical heart.”
She holds a doctorate in religious studies from Duke University and is the author of eleven books. Her bylines include The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN.com, Atlantic.com, USA Today, Huffington Post, Spirituality and Health, Reader’s Digest, Christian Century, and Sojourners. She has commented on religion, politics, and culture in the media widely including on CBS, CNN, PBS, NPR, CBC, FOX, Sirius XM, TIME, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, and in multiple global news outlets. In the 1990s, she wrote a weekly column on religion and culture for the Santa Barbara News-Press, which was distributed nationally by the New York Times Syndicate.
Her work has received two Wilbur Awards for best nonfiction book of the year, awards from Religion News Association for individual commentary and for Book of the Year, Nautilus Awards Silver and Gold medals, the Illumination Book Award Silver medal, Books for a Better Life Award, Book of the Year of the Academy of Parish Clergy, the Frank S. and Elizabeth D. Brewer Prize for Church History, Substack Fellowship for Independent Writers, and Publishers Weekly’s Best Religion Book of the Year.
She and her husband live in Alexandria, Virginia, with their dog and their sometimes-successful backyard garden.
She shall have the last word. She explains her faith journey thus:
And, by way of full introduction, I am a Christian (even though that label is more than a bit awkward these days) and I write from that perspective, with a generous heart toward wisdom wherever it is found. The “creed” that guides me most closely aligns with these 1,000 year old words from the mystical poet Ibn Arabi:
There was a time I would reject those
who were not of my faith.
But now, my heart has grown capable
of taking on all forms.
It is a pasture for gazelles,
An abbey for monks.
A table for the Torah,
Kaaba for the pilgrim.
My religion is love.
Whichever the route love’s caravan shall take,
That shall be the path of my faith.
Or, in the simple words of Jesus: “Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
Wherever you are on your journey, I’m glad your route has led to The Cottage.
Footnotes
A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.–see CODE OF CANON LAW[↩]
We read in the Wikipedia article of its influence on fundamentalism and evangelicalism:
Scottish Realism greatly influenced conservative religious thought and was strongest at Princeton Seminary until the Seminary moved in new directions after 1929. The Princeton theologians built their elaborate system on the basis of “common-sense” realism, biblicism and confessionalism.[16] James McCosh was brought from Queen’s College, Belfast, to Princeton College’s Chair of Moral Philosophy and Presidency because of his book “The Method of Divine Government,” a Christian philosophy that was precursory to Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” (1859). Several Princeton Theologians followed McCosh to adopt a stance of theistic evolution. It was his goal to develop Princeton as a Christian university in North America, as well as a forefront intellectual seminary of the Presbyterian Church. The faculty of the college and seminary included both evolutionary thinkers and non-evolutionary thinkers. Much evangelical theology of the 21st century is based on Princeton theology and thus reflects Common Sense Realism.[17] New Testament scholar Grant Osborne concludes that Scottish Common Sense Realism influenced biblical hermeneutics, that the surface level understanding of Scripture became popular, and individualistic interpretations abounded.[18][↩]
Listen to this article
July 18 2022
Book Review of: Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation by Kristin Kobes du Mez:
My novel, Chrysalis Crucible, a coming-of-age work of fiction about a young evangelical in part finding his way out of such ideas, may be of interest.
argues like a character in my novel does about the “Good News,” in quoting a once-popular evangelistic booklet, The Four Spiritual Laws, thus:
Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters.
He also wrote a paper, What About Headship?: From Hierarchy to Equality, chapter 7 of Mutual By Design: A Better Model of 
Christian Marriage, edited by , in which we learn:
(See my book review of Francis Schaeffer and the Shaping of Evangelical America by Barry Hankins.), actually insists that, had one been there with a stopwatch, one could have measured the time gap between Eve’s first gazing at the Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil, and her reaching out to pluck its fruit, then her sharing it with Adam. My brother also insists on the “scientific and historical” accuracy of the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis, etc. Then for good measure, sadly enough, he tells me I cannot be a Christian if I do not believe that, since not accepting it is tantamount to rejecting the Resurrection of Jesus . . .4
You may wish to read further on understanding Jesus to be the infallible Word: A More Christlike Word: Reading Scripture the Emmaus Way, by my friend, Brad Jersak.
See my book review with an evangelical response to this, of: The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, by John H. Walton.[↩]
Gustavo Gutiérrez and the preferential option for the poor, November 14, 2020.[↩]
