If you believe, as I do, that God is sovereign in all of life, then what are the implications of the fact that He ordained that women be the first witnesses to the resurrection? Apostles to the Apostles if you will.I'm not sure the weight of this reality has been sufficiently felt by modern evangelicalism, especially Reformed types like myself. It would have been an apolegetic liability to the early church, and yet, there it is, in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
6 comments:
I think that this point in our story operates on (at least) two levels:
1.) It attests to the historicity of the resurrection event. If the first Christian had decided to concoct a story about their Rabbi coming back to life, they undoubtedly would have chosen first witnesses of different social grouping. The early attacks on the truthfulness of the Christian story had to do with woman being the first witnesses. To the 1st century world, this fact was a liablity. Yet, the fact that the Gospel writers unanimously record the first eyewitnesses as women shows that they are simply telling the story as it actually happened.
2.) Women in the first century were treated as second (or lower) classes humans. They were not trustworthy. Jewish men prayed three bendictions a day; one of which was a prayer of thanksgiving that he was not made of women. Yet, for the early Christian community, women were treated with integrity and worth.
I believe there is both a historical and pedagogical reason for why God chose to have women be the "apostles to the apostles"
Jason... i think it means that you are not as reformed as you think you are... because i think that you know some of those implications.
Matt... I don't think that the gospel writers had a their first intention a maintenance of historicity. They were writing to people that had first had experience with the resurrection who did not need an apologetic of the event. If it "attests to the historicity of the resurrection event," which i think it does, it is only a secondary imposition from us the removed reader. Exegetically, i think it would be a misreading of the text.
I think your second assertion is much more in line with the trajectory of the gospels. I wanted to add that I think it is important because it puts in as the initial PROCLAIMERS to the central event in the christian story. How many women do we have proclaiming that event in our current church communities (i.e. jason you are not THAT reformed)? I think it does more than just give them worth i think it places women in to a central position in the dialogue between himself and his creation... it is God's interjection for creating the new heavens and earth and he starts it of in our face by using nobodies... maybe the nobodies experience God in a way that we will never know... and that experience is going to help them usher in the kingdom of God?
i am sorry i missed your birthday... i heard it was great.
Garret,
You have presupposed that I have numbered my responses in order of importance. You have also misunderstood and inserted your own words into my first point. You have also presupposed that my comment was an attempt at exegesis, as opposed to historical analysis of ancient literature.
The first priority of the Gospel writers (I believe) was to tell what actually happened. Their first intention in writing this particular narrative was to communicate that the Jesus story "places women in to a central position in the dialogue between himself and his creation... it is God's interjection for creating the new heavens and earth and he starts it of in our face by using nobodies".
We are in agreement on the Gospel writers first [pedagogical] intention. However, their primary priority was to tell what had actually happened within time, space, and history (Luke 1.1-4). Priority and intention are not synonymous.
We are also in agreement (I think) on the implication for modern evangelicalism.
I appreciate your thoughts, Garret.
Jason, now I (and perhaps ... we) would like you to weigh in on your own question.
ML
Matt,
Your are right i did impose my thought that they were in level of importance... but with out specification their if freedom on behalf of the reader, and I do have a tendency to jump to conclusions (I even have a "jump to conclusion" mat).
I also don't think that doing "historical analysis" will help answer the theological question that jason is asking. So, once again i did assume you were attempting to derive some exegetical meaning from this event (though not specific because we are not dealing with any particular text but a group of texts). So once, again I am sorry :)
As far as the "first priority" of the gospel writers i think that the text you refer to (and this is picky) only refers to the intention of the writer(s) of luke/act story not necessarily all the gospels. Let me clarify that i think that it was their first intention to record the events that happened or as they came to understand (through oral tradition or q or whatever). But i don't think it was a simple historical account, an even handed portrayed writing of actuality. To put it another way, they were not writing a history as we have come to know it (i.e. a science of history developed in modernity). They had a theological agenda in writing what they were writing. The ordered their experiences to make certain points about the who they thought God was and how they experienced him (aka theology). All that to say I do not think that they were trying to apologetically defend the resurrection as actual history in as much as try to make sense of their experience and share that experience with their community (and that experience does just happen to take place within history). Further, I do think that this event does show a "historicity of the resurrection" but only in a removed sense.
The gospel writers were not trying to justify a certain account of metaphysical reality but more make sense of an experience of a certain group of people. Which i think is just semantics... but i think semantics matter. If the gospel writers were simply trying to justify something that "happened" it kind of takes away from what is "happening." Are we experience and living in the resurrection's happening or trying to defend its happenedness. I do see that it is important for a first order of events... i.e. things happened so now their can be a happening. And i guess that is why i making a big deal of the semantics of it all. The way we view the resurrection accounts affects how we live... and i think that the gospels have a bigger imagination than a historical reality (though it does include it). The gospel writers are inviting us into a continued conversation that is saying: how are you experiencing what we did... how are you experiencing the what happened and happening of the resurrection?
But matt... i think we are agreed more so on where it matters (and i think even where it doesn't :)...) and that is putting women more so in a central place of evangelism. Here is to women and here is to having a sense of humor about the tid bits.
and we also agree that jason needs to chime in.
Garret,
I am hesitant to dialogue over the internet, since you cannot hear my tone of voice. However, please understand that tone is loving and thrilled to diacuss these issues with another so excited and interested in New Testament study.
I appreciate your comments. It seems that we actually agree on just about everything, just preferring to highlight some different aspects.
I am a big proponent of narrative criticism ("Mark as Story" is one of my favorite books ... I'va read it a handful of times), so I do believe in the theological agenda of the Gospel writers (even Luke/Acts). I also agree that the pedagogical implications of John's resurrection account is for us to ask, "Is new creation/resurrection HAPPENING among us?" As a matter of fact, that was my main idea in my Easter message this year.
However, Jason asked about the implications of this fact of women as the first witness. I was merely saying that ONE of the historical implications is that the historical data for the resurrection is bolstered by these texts, based on the application of the criterion of embarrassment. You have assumed (and perhaps rightfully so) that Jason meant only the pedagogical implications.
My other point is that while the Gospel writers have a theological agenda to promote, they still have to tell the story as it actually happened. There is leniency in the way that they tell the story but the guiding parameter (or priority) is that actually tell what actually happened.
If I tell a story about Jason and Jenny's wedding, I can chose to add or subtract hundreds of details based on the message I want to convey and the impact I hope my story to have. However, I must only tell things that have actually happened at Jason and Jenny's wedding, or else I am a liar.
Perhaps where we differ in opinion on the role of history and theology. You said, "I also don't think that doing "historical analysis" will help answer the theological question that Jason is asking [i.e. what are the implications of the fact]. I must disagree with you. History can never be divorced from theology (at least not Christian theology). Based on the wording of Jason's question and your response, you have either presupposed that Jason is referring to pedagogical implications (again, perhaps rightfully so) or you have a slightly divorced view of history and theology.
Garret, I have really enjoyed this dialogue. It was been helpful for me to think through these issues. Thanks for journeying through this with me.
AND AGAIN, We would both like Jason to voice his thoughts (at least once you get back from the Pacific rim).
Peace,
The main reason that i say that history can be divorced from theology is because it happens in the university. There are many who study the historicity of the gospel claims, parse it down to it most basic levels and never feel the wait of the theological claims. I think that i agree with what you are saying however... that historical circumstance leads to theological discovery (well perhaps exegetical, then hermeneutical and then theological?) But I totally agree that christian theology cannot be devoid of christian narrative. done done... come on now jason.
Post a Comment