(written with Cora Howell)
Have you ever heard someone say that you should follow the Golden Rule? Even if you don’t follow the Bible or its teachings, I bet most of you would know that rule as being something along the lines of loving your neighbor as yourself or treating others how you want to be treated. This is a line that is so fundamental to the Christian view point, and the modern view of Christianity, that you almost can’t avoid knowing it anywhere dominated by Western culture. Even more so, it is a rule whose importance is agreed on regardless of whatever sect or denomination of the wider religion that a person belongs to. There are other verses as well that most, if not all, modern Christians agree on in terms of meaning and importance. For the sake of this episode we will call these the golden verses and today let’s examine these verses in detail and try to get a better sense of why they occupy the central role that they do in the religion.
For reference, there are 31,102 verses in the standard Christian Bible, Old and New Testaments. That’s going to vary somewhat as one looks at different versions of the Bible as they exist in, for example, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox churches such as those of the Ethiopian and Eritrean traditions, and so forth, but whatever the tradition, there is a wealth of verses to draw from. But not all of them receive equal attention. Anyone living in the modern Christian West has probably heard John 3:16 and may even know the text even if they’re not Christian. But how about Ezekiel 23:20: “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.” Or how about Deuteronomy 15:1: “At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts.” Now, both of those verses, hilarious as they are and contradicting as they are of modern Christian orthodox belief, you’re not likely to hear them mentioned in your average Sunday sermon. So, how is it, and why is, that particular verses have come to occupy a central space in the religion while others are neglected?
Perhaps the best way to answer this question would be to take a look at a few of the more popular verses and look into the history of their usage and translation to better understand the role they occupy in the broader religion.
Let’s begin with 2 Timothy 3:16-17. For context, 2 Timothy is one of two letters in the New Testament believed to have been written by the Apostle Paul to an unknown church leader named Timothy. While many Christians still accept Paul as being the authentic author of these two letters, it is now commonly accepted among historians that both 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy are pseudoepigraphic, that is, that they were written in Paul’s name by someone else sometime after his death, probably in the early 2nd century.
The text of the verse in the King James Version of the Bible reads as follows:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
This verse is commonly cited by those who assert that the Bible is divinely-inspired and infallible. Christians do not typically believe that the Bible was directly authored by God but instead believe—based in part on this verse—that the human authorship of the Bible was written with divine inspiration and is therefore free from error. This is a doctrine of central importance to most of the Christian world: it establishes the text as carrying the authority of God. The verse was originally written in the language of Koine Greek, and the translation in the King James is, in our opinion, fairly in keeping with the spirit of the original Greek. If anything, the Greek is more emphatic, using θεόπνευστος (theopneustos, God-breathed), a more active adjective which is usually rendered in English as “inspired by.” But one must keep in mind when this text was written: the early 2nd century. Even if one believes that it was written earlier, by Paul, that would place it in the late 1st century, and both of those datings place it prior to many of the other works of the New Testament. What we understand today as the New Testament is the result of a process of canonization that occured over centuries. Many of the included texts, such as the Book of Revelation, were not written until after the Epistles to Timothy. In fact, if we look to the Codex Vaticanus, dating to the early 4th century, we find that it is missing several of the books we now consider to be canonical, including the Book of Revelation, the Epistle to Titus, the Epistle to Philemon, and even 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy themselves!
It cannot be the case that the author of 2 Timothy was referencing his own text or any of the other texts of the New Testament when he was discussing the inspiration of scripture. This brings us to the key point we would like to address in this episode: the deliberate, social, and political processes of canonization which have established the contents of the modern day Bible have enabled an interpretive adaptability which can be applied in different ways in different time periods to systems of social control. As stated earlier, 2 Timothy was written in the early 2nd century and only gradually came to be accepted as part of the canonical scriptural base for the new religion of Christianity. The Synod of Hippo in 393 and the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419 affirmed the inclusion of 2 Timothy in this scriptural canon, but it wasn’t until the 16th century at the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholic Church officially confirmed the modern version of the New Testament canon, including 2 Timothy. This text in particular was selected, along with the other texts now accepted as part of the New Testament canon, from a wealth of gospels, epistles, apocalypses, and other writings available in the 1st and 2nd centuries. The matter of why particular texts were selected over others likely warrants an entire episode in itself, but we can see how 2 Timothy and in particular verses 16-17 from chapter 3 could serve a political purpose for those authorizing the canon. Once it becomes canonical that anything designated as scripture is either God-inspired or God-breathed—regardless of the original intent of the author—anything politically desirable can be included as well and given that presumption of infallibility.
With that in mind, let’s see how this interpretive power manifests in other verses.
Deuteronomy 22:5 in the King James translation states, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” It’s easy to see how such a verse can be weaponized in contemporary discourse surrounding drag shows, transgender people, and the general politicization of gender.
Looking at this verse in the context of the time period in which it was written (likely around the 6th century BCE, although that is uncertain and disputed), we have to keep in mind that it refered to the specific clothing of the Israelites of that time period: simple tunics and cloaks for men, simple dresses and shawls for women, commonly with some kind of head covering. The textiles were linens made with flax and wool. Is the intended interpretation of the verse referring specifically to the clothing of the time period, or is it intended to refer to gendered clothing as it exists in any time period? The halug, a kind of tunic, was worn by both men and women of the time period; gendered differences in clothing of the period mostly pertained to undergarments, jewelry, and head coverings. And these styles persisted over many centuries, indicating that biblical verses pertaining to clothing were meant to enforce their specific fashion norms. We have to ask, if we are no longer adhering to ancient Israelite fashion in the first place, does this verse even pertain to us in the modern era? But beyond that, we can also see another potential political use for this kind of verse: Deuteronomy 22:5 considered as part of the Old Testament canon, along with the authorization given by 2 Timothy that all scripture is inspired, convey a power to dictate fashion and gender norms over time. The original intention of the verse is ambiguous but the potential is there for it to apply to the gendered fashions of any time period. Observing the action of this verse over time, we can imagine a kind of a priori justification for gendering new fashion trends as they emerge, with the ultimate authority behind this justification being the Church. This gives the Church a kind of blank check for dictating fashion and gender norms over the centuries, another method of control over society authorized by scripture.
Another famous verse from the old testament comes from Exodus, chapter 22, verse 18: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Take a moment to think about what the word “witch” means to you. For most of our audience, it likely is understood, in itself, as referring to Wicca or other forms of modern neopaganism. One is likely also familiar with the usage of the word in the early modern period as a term of persecution in witch hunts and witch trials. These two understandings are quite different, but let’s take a look at how this verse has been translated at different times in history. In the original Hebrew, the word translated as “witch” is mechashefah, from the root kashaph which might best be translated as “sorcery” and which likely referred at the time of authorship to the magical practices of ancient Mesopotamian religion, which is quite a different matter from how witchcraft came to be understood in later eras. When the Hebrew Bible was translated into the Greek Septuagint, the translation took on a much different character. The word mechashefah is translated there as pharmakous. You’re likely familiar with the Greek root pharma- as it appears, for example, in pharmacist and pharmacology: it pertains to drugs and medicines. The Greek concept pharmakon is a complex one. In the Phaedrus, a dialogue of Plato written about a hundred years prior, the term is used to refer in an abstract way to something which may be helpful or beneficial but which also can take on a harmful character. Given the relation of the root to drugs and medicines, we might loosely interpret pharmakous as “poisoner,” but “healer” is also possible.
Here we have another ambiguous verse which can be interpreted in different ways in different eras in order to serve political aims. It’s unlikely that any women in England in the 15th century were practicing ancient Mesopotamian magic, but with the paired ambiguity of the verse and the authorization of scripture as infallible, we can see how a person in a position of religious authority might apply it to any women they don’t like or want to control or get rid of. The witch trials of the early modern period were often economically motivated. In some cases, accusations were used to remove women, particularly widows, who possessed property or wealth that others desired. The witch trials didn’t end until the 19th century but we have to wonder whether that’s the result of rational, enlightenment thinking or whether it simply became too much of a threat to the authority of the state (for example, the Salem witch trials were halted by the governor of the colony only after his own wife was accused of witchcraft). The paranoia hasn’t entirely gone away. In a sermon of February 13 of 2022, pastor Greg Locke of Tennessee invoked the verse as part of a claim that witches had infiltrated his congregation, claiming that three of them were in the very audience of that particular sermon. At present, the state does not permit citizen violence on this sort of religious foundation, but that hasn’t always been the case throughout history and it’s not impossible that such times would eventually return.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” We can read this alongside 1 Timothy 2:11-15: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
Let’s first consider the context of these verses: the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians and the First Epistle to Timothy are letters written to specific congregations in the ancient world to address their problems and questions concerning the practice of the new religion of Christianity. Historians believe that 1 Corinthians was indeed written by Paul the Apostle; 1 Timothy is, as mentioned earlier, likely written in Paul’s name so as to assume his authority. The presence of these verses in scripture as canonical and infallible authorizes the control of women; however, the application of these verses as universal within Christendom is in direct contradiction to the role played by women throughout the Bible. We have, for example, several women throughout the Old Testament venerated for their authority, their teachings, or their prophecies: Abigail, wife of David; Rahab, who saved Israelites during the siege of Jericho and who is praised by name in the New Testament in Hebrews 11:31; Esther, persuaded a Persian king not to commit genocide against the Israelites; Ruth, who is considered a paragon of faith; Judith, who saved Jerusalem by assassinating an Assyrian general; Miriam, sister of Moses and Aaron, a prophetess; Deborah, one of the biblical judges, a leader of the Israelites during the pre-monarchic era; and Phoebe, who is mentioned by Paul in Romans 16:1-2 as a church leader.
But regardless of these contradictions, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 made into canon and can now be used by anyone wishing to silence women, especially anyone willing to ignore the context of the verses and other biblical narratives that contradict them.
Next we’ll look at Jeremiah 29:11, translated in the King James as “For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.” We’ll also be looking at the New International Version translation: “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'” This verse is at the root of the modern prosperity gospel, the doctrine which states that earthly wealth is a sign of heavenly blessing and that one should therefore accumulate as much wealth as possible as a sign of those blessings.
Once again, we have to consider the context of the verse. The Book of Jeremiah is a book of prophecy written likely in the 7th or 6th century BCE, although it has likely seen extensive editing over its history. The book in total is a warning to Israel of coming punishment and destruction from the Neo-Assyrian and Babylonian empires; taken as a whole, it is not an assurance of peace and properity, and in fact the word jeremaid came into the English lexicon as a term describing a polemical lamentation. Verse 11 in chapter 29 does assure the Israelites that they will eventually be delivered from these empires, but to take the verse as being a bare assurance of prosperity is to rob it of its meaning and intent. Let’s take a quick look at another verse, Malachi 3:8-10:
will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
Reading this alongisde Jeremiah 29:11, we can get a picture of how a religious authority might be able to weild scripture for financial gain, Jeremiah justifying the individual accumulation of wealth and Malachi justifying the transfer of much of that wealth to the Church or to other religious authorities and leaders.
This leads us to what is widely considered the crown jewel of Bible verses in Christianity: John 3:16, translated in the King James version as “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Christians often take this verse as being a pithy summation of the entire faith, and it is indeed quite striking. What is consistently absent from discussions and presentation of the verse is its context in the third chapter of the Gospel of John. At the beginning of the chapter, Nicodemus, a pharisee—a member of the religious caste responsible for administrating the Jewish religion in Roman Judaea—comes to speak with Jesus, having heard that he has performed miracles. Nicodemus wants to understand what Jesus is up to, but Jesus says that it will be impossible for him to understand until he is “born again” (John 3:7) of the Spirit. This only serves to confuse Nicodemus further, and Jesus scolds him, asking how someone could be a religious leader and not know these things (3:10). Jesus makes an interesting reference to the Old Testament, specifically Numbers 21:4-9, saying, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” The section in Numbers tells a story of the Israelites from the time after the Exodus when they were wandering in the desert. God punishes them for questioning the wisdom of Moses by sending down fiery serpents to assail them. The Israelites ask Moses to appeal to God on their behalf and he does so. God then tells Moses to create a statue of a fiery serpent out of brass, which will heal those who look upon it. It’s quite a bizarre narrative for a number of reasons. One, God seems to be encouraging idolatry; two, the choice of a serpent as an idol contrasts with the usual symbolism in which a serpent is something to be feared or hated (such as with the Garden of Eden narrative). It’s interesting as well that Jesus chooses in John chapter 3 to compare himself to an idol of a serpent.
We’ve never heard any sermon or discourse discussing the verse which also mentions this important context. When we return to John 3:16 with this context in mind, we can understand better what Jesus means by believing in him. The Israelites following Moses in the desert did not have to believe in the serpent idol in the sense of endorsing the proposition that it exists. Obviously it existed—it was right there for them to look at. In John 3:16, the word “believeth” is translated from pisteuó, which comes from the root pístis, which can be translated as “faith” but which also more precisely means “trust.” Jesus is not saying that people will be saved through propositional belief. By making this comparison, he’s saying that people will be saved through an encounter with Jesus—perhaps not necessarily with the person of Jesus; we might extend this to include his teachings or message—based in a kind of trust that such an encounter would be redemptive. What we don’t see in this passage is the message that one needs to, for example, “ask Jesus into their heart” or “accept Jesus their as lord and savior.” There are various statements made outside the Gospels in the rest of the New Testament that adhere more closely to those imperatives, but they’re not anything that Jesus himself ever said, and in fact Jesus seems to be implying something quite different in these verses. Jesus makes other comments throughout the Gospel of John as to what it means to be saved, but none of them quite line up with modern Christian teachings on the matter. He does imply, in John 5:46 for example, that proper belief in him—”belief” again from a Greek root meaning “trust”—entails accepting that he is a prophet of God, but taken in context, John 3:16 seems to mean that a base level of trust in Jesus is all that is required for salvation.
Again, there is support in the New Testament for the more mystical language involved in modern Christian conversion experience, “asking Jesus into your heart” and so forth. But when John 3:16 is presented out of context, and when it is further authorized by 2 Timothy 3:16-17, one can spin the meaning of the verse out into any number of interpretations based on whatever the presenter wants “belief” to mean. In presenting a key verse of the religion in this way, the Church creates a hermeneutical need, a need for some medium of interpretation to say what it is exactly that is meant by “belief in Jesus.” The Church itself can then step in to fill the very need that it created in the first place.
These are just a few of the verses that we looked at for this episode. What we see here, when we take these verses together with the way that they’ve been presented and interpreted by religious authorities over the centuries, is an ingenious system of social control. By picking and choosing what got included in the New Testament canon, and then by picking and choosing particular verses to emphasize and present out of their original context, the Church has given itself an authority over every domain of human life. The verses we’ve looked at authorize religious control over clothing, over women, over capital punishment, and even over the very nature of faith and belief themselves. We’ve seen how this political authority has been weilded over the course of history. When it became politically and economically convenient to persecute women, Exodus 22:18 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 became convenient justifications for such persecution. A 10th century text, the canon Episopeli, stated that belief in the existence of witchcraft was heresy, as it implied a power in the world other than God’s. Centuries later, when such an understanding was no longer politically convenient, religious authorities dragged out Exodus 22:18 and recontextualized them for the purposes of persecuting women. Women had played a significant role in the Jewish religion of the Old Testament and in the early Church; when that ceased to be politically convenient, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 was weaponized to ensure male headship.
This process continues to this day. Arguments about, for example, drag queens and transgender people, are contextualized by verses such as those we’ve discussed here. Other verses which might contradict such an understanding—such as Matthew 19:12, which implies a kind of sacred status for eunuchs—are conveniently left out. We can see how a kind of sub-canon of the existing biblical canon can be created ad hoc to justify whatever argument or cause, whether or not such interpretations are supported by the text as a whole. This sub-canon, which we have referred to here as the golden verses, has become more important than the full meaning of the canon of which it is a part, a canon which, as we’ve described, is in part itself politically constituted, selected for the express purpose of authorizing certain powers and matters of authority for Christian religious leaders. It’s important that we keep this in mind, because this is a process that will continue into the future, with other verses being authorized to support particular viewpoints on new issues as they arise, and we want to be prepared to understand such verses for what they really are.