Women, men, and queer in the just world of God

The just world of Go’d.

The Apostle Paul testifies to the invisibility of Go’d in the First Letter to Timothy: “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen (1Timothy 1:17 New American Standard Bible (NAS)).” Paul addresses Go’d using biblical tradition and speaks of “king”. “King” is regularly used in the New Testament as faith term, but also as a historical term. Salomon is a king, there is king Herod and there are the queen of Saba and the kandake of Ethiopia (Martin Leutzsch. Basileia. In: Bibel in gerechter Sprache. 2007. Editors: Ulrike Bail, Frank Crüsemann, Erhard Domay, Jürgen Ebach, Claudia Jannsen, Hanne Kohler, Helga Kuhlmann, Martin Leutzsch und Luise Schottroff. 2336-37. Gütersloh: Verlagshaus Gütersloh). Kingdom - Greek basileia - means the exercise of real and unlimited power by a king who reigns with absolute powers (ibid.). In an absolute monarchy – such as the Roman Catholic Church -, these powers are not balanced by any kind of laws, constitution or legally organized opposition.

In the Hebrew Testament the faith terms “the reign of Go’d” or “the kingdom of Go’d” exclude the powers of the world such as kings and Caesars (ibid.). When Jesus takes up the term “reign of Go’d” it is used for contrasting worldly monarchs (Matthew 20, 1-6; 21, 28-32). Violence, humiliation, exploitation, and suppression must not characterize the social choices of the followers of Jesus (Mark 10, 42-45) and Jesus’ own power is limited by the universal “kingdom of Go’d” (1 Corinthians 15, 23-28) (ibid.). Go’d will put the enemies of Jesus under Jesus’ feet, Go’d will raise Jesus Christ and her followers from the dead (1 Corinthians 15, 23-28).

A king usually possesses a kingdom. In the case of Go’d this is called “kingdom of Go’d” or “reign of Go’d”. My use of the word Go’d does not pretend showing whom I mean but what I mean. “The way you use the word ‘God’ does not show whom you mean – but, rather, what you mean” (Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1980. 51e. Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology. Vol. 2. Edited by G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell). Wittgenstein’s sentence is true for all who write about Go’d. According to official Roman Catholic teaching, that is from a Christian faith perspective, Wittgenstein’s sentence is valid for the authors of the Hebrew Bible as for the authors of the New Testament. In article 11,1 of the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum there is indeed one affirmation that the Sacred Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit and that Go’d is their author. Then follows in the same article the new teaching of the Second Vatican Council, where the chosen men who wrote down the Bible are called “true authors” of the Sacred Scriptures. At this point we must remember that the Bible is not about empiric facts, but about faith.

Dei Verbum 11,1 refers to John 20:31; 2 Timothy 3:16; and to 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16. All refernces speak about the faith in Go’d having patience to save, to help living upright, for guiding people’s life and not about destroying them. The second letter of Peter is very clear on the fact that interpretation of the Scripture is a matter of the community of the believers in Jesus Christ: “At the same time, we must recognize that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual” (2 Peter 1:20). It is a sad fact that Christians are not consensual on the interpretation of the Scripture and rather exclude one another from the Christian community than trying to get to an common understanding. It is the Christians who killed each other, it is the Christians who repent and search unity and peace with each other.

From a logical point of view, the question of Go’d’s or Yahweh’s violence, warrior behavior, or chaos fighting does not make sense, because the way we use the word Go’d does not show whom we mean anyways. The use of the word Go’d in connection with predications of commanding to kill, to destroy people, enemies, and foes, to exercise violence and make exercise violence, to fight wars and behave like an invincible warrior, show what the authors of these predications mean. In other words, these predications express the convictions, mind sets, and precariousness of the authors. Therefore, there is no logical or epistemic profit engaging in vehement polemics against the violent Go’d Yahweh of the Old Testament and contrasting violent, omnipotent Yahweh to the loving father Go’d of the New Testament. Religious science documents the uncountable predications about Go’d in a multitude of religions and writes about the development of religious believes over time and history. The science of history reconstructs and interprets the deeds of women, men and queer throughout history.

In the 21st century CE I do not want to mean that Go’d is to be seen as the most powerful of all historic kings of earth. I believe in Go’d as creator and sustainer. “Go’d”, “Kingdom of Go’d”, and “creator” are faith terms. Faith terms are used according to a three valued logic; I cannot empirically prove these terms as right or false, logically I have to say, “I do not know” and “I cannot know” about the truth values true or false for these terms. I believe in “Go’d” or I do not believe, I do not care, I do not think about faith or I do care and culture faith terms in order to express spiritual aspects of my personal experiences.

When Jesus announces in Mark 1, 15a that “the kingdom of Go’d has arrived” it is for me the announcement of the hope that Go’d makes announce Jesus the “just world of Go’d”, that is the hope and promise that everything will come to a good end, and everybody will be ok and safe and secure. Speaking of the “kingdom of Go’d” or speaking of the “just world of Go’d” means a confession of the faith that Go’d is the Lord of creation and will care for a good end of creation: “then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power (1Corinthians 15:24 NAS).”

When I speak of “the just world of Go’d” I make use of the translation of the Greek term basileia tou theou - that literally translates “kingdom of Go’d” - according to the German Bible in just language (Bibel in gerechter Sprache. 2007). How do I justify the use of the faith term “the just world of Go’d” as synonym of the central faith term of Jesus that is the coming of the “kingdom of Go’d”? It is a sad fact that although a faith term, the term “kingdom of Go’d” is associated with the patriarchate, the structural oppression of women by men. The patriarchate constitutes the physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural, and spiritual setting for discriminating women in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. This setting structurally violates the integrity of the women, it is a setting of violence, devaluation, and suppression. The association of the term “kingdom of Go’d” with the term “patriarchate” leads to the instrumentalization of the name “Go’d” for justifying the patriarchate. I want to make this association impossible, and this is why I prefer the term “the just world of Go’d” expressing the central prophecy of Jesus Christ (Mark 1, 15).

The “just world of Go’d” and Human Rights

In the empirical world of the two valued logic with the truth values true and false, human persons must be regarded according to a conjunction of physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural, and spiritual aspects of their existence. I describe the integrity and health of human persons, women, men and queer with the help of a holistic view on the physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural, and spiritual aspects of their lives. Like everybody, I like enjoying my integrity, my physical, psychic, social, economic, cultural, and spiritual integrity. Reciprocally, I respect and care for the integrity of the persons who interact with me. Mutual respect and care socially realize the equal dignity, liberty and rights of the interacting women, men and queer. Rather than the letters LGBTQI* as acronym, I use the expression “queer” to include all non-heterosexual and gender variant people on the grounds of their non-normativity. The struggle and fight for identity, integrity and dignity is a daily task.

“Justice” is a central term in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament. There is no doubt about that. Go’d is called “justice”, “just” or “the only just” and these predications tell what the authors mean. Just as the term “the kingdom of Go’d” contrasts the kingdoms of the empiric world of history, the term “justice” contrasts the justice institutions of the world that often do not serve justice, that are unjust, corrupt, and oppressing the rights of the individual persons. Since the beginning of written testimonies, we read stories about unjust judges, governors, and state officials. One of the oldest stories about doing injustice and restoring justice was written between the twentieth to eighteenth century BCE and tells the story of the peasant Khunanup from an oasis near Cairo (Jeffers, Chike. 2013. “Embodying Justice in Ancient Egypt: The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant as a Classic of Political Philosophy.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21 (3): 421–442. doi:10.1080/09608788.2013.77160. 422). Khunanup is on his way to the capital to trade his goods, when Nemtinakht, a subordinate of the High Steward Rensi robs Khunanup of his animals and trading goods. After non stopping complaining about the endured injustices Khunanup is getting justice in the end (ibid. 424) (See my posting “Ethics and Discourse Theory”).

We lack for the faith terms “justice of Go’d” and “the just world of Go’d” any method, algorithm, or analytical instrument to empirically prove something like the existence or non-existence of what we call “justice of Go’d” and “the just world of Go’d”, we must assess the use of these faith terms by individual persons (See the category “Sense, truth, and belief” of my BLOG).

I am responsible for the use of my terms, and I am held accountable for what I am saying. It is not that I want to convince someone to believe. I want to show my validity conditions for my faith terms and in discourse I want to show that my claims to validity for a faith term meet the validity condition for the claims. With the help of the philosophy of religion, we conclude that three validity conditions must be fulfilled by the religious expression of spiritual experiences, beliefs, and faith-sentences to assess a claim to validity:

The first validity condition for a speech-act on belief or faith is identical with the validity condition for any speech-act or sentence, namely the sentence must make sense as a language game in the institutional setting of language. The second validity condition for a speech-act on belief or faith demands that it be expressed in the first person singular. The third validity condition for a speech-act on belief or faith is the validity condition for any claim to validity by a speech-act. It is the condition that the speech-act realizes the dignity of the persons who participate in the speech-act. Equal dignity, freedom and rights are the foundation of the Human Rights of the individual, as they are spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Since the spiritual aspect of the individual is part of the integrity of the whole person, the social realization of equal dignity, freedom, and rights for all individuals (see Article 1 of UDHR) is also part of the validity condition for every religion and religious institution (See the category “Human Rights” in my BLOG).

What is the state of affairs of the effective rule of Human Rights law in the world? According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s measure of democracy, in 2022 almost half of the world’s population live in a democracy of some sort (45.3%). Only 8% reside in a “full democracy”, compared with 8.9% in 2015. More than one-third of the world’s population live under authoritarian rule (36.9%), with a large share of them being in China and Russia (https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2022/). Looking at the real-world Amartya Sen has a point arguing that the vote on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 is “an ethical assertion – not a proposition about what is already legally guaranteed” (Amartya Sen. The idea of Justice. Penguin Books Ltd, London 2009. 325).

Women discrimination still is a sad fact in the Western liberal democracies and the fight for basic Human Rights for women has been fought and is fought by women all over the world. I would like to remember Anita Augspurg (1857-1943) a leader of the historic feminist movement and restless fighter for the rule of equal rights law for women. Since women are not allowed to study at University in the German Reich, Anita Augspurg does her doctoral studies at the Juridical Faculty of the University of Zurich (Ingvild Richardsen. Anita & Die Avantgarde. 88-100.97. In EMMA. Nr.4 (369) Juli/August 2023. Alice Schwarzer (Editor). Emma Frauenverlag: Köln). In July 1897 Anita Augspurg is the first German woman to be awarded a doctorate in jurisprudence. Her thesis on the praxis and emergence of parliament in England argues that the forming of a nation state needs the will of the whole people; from this follows that since women form a necessary part of the will of the whole people, women participate in the leadership of the nation state (ibid.). 125 years later the Roman Catholic Church is not capable to adapt this argumentation for her government, teaching and worshipping. There are no free elections for a parliament in the Roman Catholic Church anyways, the Roman Catholic Church is an absolute patriarchal monarchy. For the first German National Assembly of the Weimar Republic there were 300 women candidates and 37 got elected on January 19, 1919; 386 assembly members were men (ibid.). Till 2022 the percentage of women in the German Bundestag grew to 38, 6 %. It is still a long and burdensome way for women to reach the 50% parity.

Despite the very serious shortcomings of the implementation of the UDHR as effective rule of law in this world, the UDHR speaks of concrete rights: Civil and political rights (right of assembly, right of petition to governance), legal rights (due process of law), economic (right to work), social (right to health) and cultural rights (right to take part in cultural life), collective rights (peoples’ right of self-determination), declaratory rights (right of development), and for all categories (right of nondiscrimination) (Gibson, John S. 1996. Dictionary of International Human Rights Law. The Scarecrow Press: London Gibson 1996: 7). Implementation of human rights law by international conventions was realized in 1976 with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Ever since the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties was signed, a state has been obliged by its commitments in a human rights treaty to comply with the provisions of the treaty in good faith (ibid. 17). (See my Posting “International Human Rights Law”).

In 2023 Sen is still right to point at the fact that the UDHR is not yet established as a legally guaranteed law of rights and duties in the whole world. It is important to insist on an egalitarian view on justice and to focus with Sen on justice as assessments of social realizations, “that is, on what actually happens (rather than merely on the appraisal of institutions and arrangements)” (Sen. 2009. 410).

Wanting to see one day the social realization of justice and peace, wanting to assess one day the realization of the rule of Human Rights law on earth is a kind of hope. Yet, there is a difference to the hope for the “just world of Go’d”. The hope for the “just world of Go’d” is a belief, a faith in that hope that everything will be ok and good. The hope for the effective rule of Human Rights law in the world is a hope in concrete rights, the UDHR speaks of concrete rights. The UDHR is the policy for a polity and politics is the way to realize the polity. Human Rights need to be established as a legally guaranteed law of rights and duties in the whole world. Human Rights need to be constantly developed according to the needs of the people and are always claiming concrete rights.

Feminist Theology

“Feminist theology arises from a recognition that traditional theology in Christianity (as well as in other major religious traditions) has been done primarily by males. Women until recently have been excluded from the study of theology at the advanced level in seminaries and universities and also excluded from the professions that flow from advanced theological studies; namely, the ordained ministry, public preaching and teaching at the advanced level” (Rosemary. Radford. Ruether. 1987 “Feminist Theology” 391-396. 391. In: The New Dictionary of Theology. Editors: Joseph A. Komonchak. Mary Collins. Dermot A. Lane. The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, Minnesota).

For two thousand years Roman Catholic theology had suffered from a male bias. Women were excluded from study, teaching, and ministry. The Roman Catholic Church still discriminates married men, women and queer who are not receiving priestly ordination, preaching the Gospel in the Eucharist, and presiding the Eucharist, and are banned from the Church government. The normativity of theology came from white males from the dominant classes who suppressed female theological expression and systematically and institutionally subjugated and discriminated women as being inferior to men (ibid.). This bias against women produced “a falsification of the authentic religious message, not a genuine expression of the nature of women in relation to men or as an authentic expression of the will of God” (ibid. 391-92).

In 2000 we learn from the European Values Study (https://europeanvaluesstudy.eu/): Especially in Europe and in North America the religious institution Roman Catholic Church is not any more an unquestioned authority for guiding the lives of the Catholic women, men and queer. Religion has gotten personalized, and the individual realizes freedom, dignity, and the right to responsible social choices. Today, there is a huge gap between the Catholic Church’s hierarchy and the believers, Catholic women, men and queer. From the point of view of this analysis, one can claim that the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) is the transition from the obedient Catholic congregation to the individual Catholic man and woman, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, intersexual, lesbian, and queer. Individual Catholics leave the Church but continue to live their beliefs and convictions as Christians, as believers, as individuals developing an individual spirituality. The male and female theologians who tried to join the transition and published on the importance of the individual, in the last 25 years were systematically denied teaching at Catholic Faculties by the central Church authorities in Rome. Writing on possibilities of divorcing, on married men and women priests, on an appreciation of lust and sexuality as mutual experience of intimacy, on gender questions and Human Rights within the Roman Catholic Church led to censure, repression, and the loss of the job in the Catholic institution.

“There are some feminists of Jewish or Christian background who have become convinced that these religious traditions cannot be reformed to admit women fully in leadership or to rethink their theology sufficiently to be freed of their sexist bias. They believe the Jewish and Christian religious have been patriarchal from their inception in such a way as to make the sacralization of male domination fundamental to their purpose. These women have opted to leave the Jewish or Christian traditions and to seek a religion or spirituality that authentically affirms women’s humanity as image and expression of the divine” (Rosemary Radford Ruether 1987. 395).

The European Values Study (EVS) 2018 (https://europeanvaluesstudy.eu/) confirms that the Roman Catholic Church has lost the young, educated women in Austria. Young, educated women are not interested in an institution that discriminates women, men and queer. The theologian Regina Polak who collaborates for 30 years at the EVS tells this fact Clara Akinyosoye in an interview on May 14, 2019, on Radio Austria ORF (https://religion.orf.at/v3/stories/2981198/). I presume that the Roman Catholic Church has not only lost the young, educated women in Austria but has lost the young, educated women in large parts of Europe and North America.

Critique of the patriarchate of the Roman Catholic Church

There are many definitions and uses of the term patriarchate. Since I am primarily concerned with the Roman Catholic Church, I am sadly allowed to use the simplest and most cruel definition of the term patriarchate: Patriarchate is the systematical discrimination, suppression and silencing of women in a society. The institution of the Roman Catholic Church has institutionalized the patriarchate by law, the so-called Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church.

Canon 204 §1 of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church assesses that the Christians constitute “the people of God” for “the mission which God has entrusted to the Church” (ibid.).

Canon 204 §2 says how discrimination works:

“The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each” (https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/cic_index_en.html).

The legitimation for discriminating women, men and queer simply but brutally reads: “in accord with the condition proper to each”. What does “proper condition to each” mean? There are two classes of Christian faithful, there is the ruling elite of celibate men and there are the faithful women, men and queer called “lay persons”:

Can. 207 §1: ”By divine institution, there are among the Christian faithful in the Church sacred ministers who in law are also called clerics; the other members of the Christian faithful are called lay persons” (ibid.). The sacred ministers, the priests are only men. The priesthood is open only for men, women are excluded. Can. 1024: “A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly” (ibid.). In fact, the faithful women, men and queer are silenced and stripped of their priestly, prophetic, and royal function by the male celibate hierarchy of the Church. The faithful lay are oppressed by the clergy, they are made silenced in the liturgical service, they are invisible in developing the teaching of the Church and non-existent in the government of the Church. The patriarchate of the Roman Catholic Church oppresses men, women and queer.

The patriarchate of the Roman Catholic Church ignores the rights of the women over their body, their emotions, their expressions, their social, economic, and cultural realizations in the Church and their spiritual experiences. Women are silenced in the Roman Catholic Church by patriarchal structure, power, and dominion. Canon 204 §2 legitimates discrimination and oppression of women in the Church but cannot but concede that: “The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God.” How is it possible to have injustice, discrimination, oppression, domination of women in the people of Go’d? The power structures of the patriarchate are the only reason for this discriminating crime against women in the Church.

The New Testament has been written in the cultural, social, political, economic, and spiritual dominating structure of the patriarchate. There is the patriarchate of the Roman Empire and there is the patriarchate of the Jewish public and private religious institutions. The authors of the Gospel lived in that patriarchal structure of male dominance over women, excluding them from autonomous decision making in many spheres of life. There is patriarchal discrimination of women in the New Testament, but there is no legitimation for women discrimination in the Bible.

The ruling Codex of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church defines the “people of God” as being constituted by the Christian faithful, that is those who “have been incorporated in Christ through baptism” (Canon 204 § 2).

In the Letter to the Galatians 3, 28 the Apostle Paul claimed: “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female—for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. This sentence constitutes one of the strongest messages of Paul (Plietzsch, Susanne. 2018. „Rhetorik der Differenz und der Gleichheit im Galaterbrief“ In Durchblicke. Horizonte jüdischer Kulturgeschichte, edited by Susanne Plietzsch and Armin Eidherr, 50–74. 57. Berlin: Neofelis).

All who are “in Christ”, are “all one in Christ Jesus”, that is the Christian faithful are all equal in Jesus Christ and there is no discrimination of men or female, there is no patriarchate of male dominance, control, and exclusion of women from equally participating in their liturgical, prophetic and governmental functions; by baptism all share the same Holy Spirit. Susan Mathew points at Galatians 5, 22 where the community of sisters and brothers are shown the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and trustfulness (Mathew, Susan. 2013. Women in the Greetings of Romans 16.1–16. A Study of Mutuality and Women’s Ministry in the Letter to the Romans. 153. London: Bloomsbury).

The patriarchate and the Hebrew Bible

How about the patriarchate and the Hebrew Bible? Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are called and venerated as patriarchs in three religions: The Jewish, the Christian and the Muslim. Well, the Quran speaks of prophets and Imams and not of patriarchs. The Biblical patriarchs possess their wives and live in polygamy. The women take their dignity from giving birth to a male infant. Not only gender-specific experience such as childbirth, most of women’s experience in patriarchal society “are socially appropriated into a system of subordination of women” (Rosemary. Radford. Ruether. 1987. 394).

The venerated wife of Abraham was Sarah. Sarah was infertile. Sarah could no longer bear her shame and gave Abraham her Egyptian slave Hagar as wife. Abraham fathered with Hagar Ishmael. The pregnant Hagar felt pride over the shamed Sarah, her master. Women are discriminated in the patriarchate, and discriminate each other, and possess women slaves. Sarah and Hagar started a violent conflict over shame and pride, dominion, and subordination. It is allowed to see in this conflict of social status something of an ambivalent experience of power and powerlessness of the two women. Hagar gets upgraded from slave to wife of the patriarch. Sarah gets devaluated as infertile wife of Abraham and restores the order of dominion by treating badly her slave Hagar. It is hard to describe the conflict as a successful journey of liberation. Both women are victims and agents of violence and suppression. Sarah gives birth to Isaac, Yahweh restored the fertility of Abraham and Sarah and the honor of Sarah, well withing the limits of a patriarchal society (Genesis 16-18). To end the conflict between Sarah and Hagar, Abraham sent Hagar and her son Ishmael away (Genesis 21, 14).

The venerated wife of Isaac was Rebecca. Her possibility condition for becoming the wife of Isaac in the patriarchal culture was her willingness to serve the slave of Abraham and the camels of his caravan water (Genesis 24). Under patriarchal domination there is not much chance for “her own journey of liberation” (ibid.). Her marriage was not forced, it was matched, she consented to go with the slave of Abraham. When she first saw Isaac, she fell off her horse (ibid.). It is male fantasy to take this accident as a sign of consent to marry the man. Rebecca does not give consent to marry Isaac, she does not protest either. The patriarchate expects from her to obey the will of the men. For some sad period, Rebecca was exposed to devaluation because she bore no children. With the intervention of Yahweh, she finally gave birth to twins. The patriarchate honors the first born as heir to all patriarchal powers of the father. The first of the twins was Esau. Esau was loved by his father Isaac, but Rebecca loved the second twin that is Jacob. “Her own journey of liberation” was not finished with the birth of two sons from Jacob, she was able to experience the transition of patriarchal powers of the first born to her beloved son Isaac. Esau changed the right of the first born for food he got from Isaac. We do not know of Rebecca’s part in this change of power. Be it as it was, she needed not take care of a potential bad conscience because Yahweh had told her long ago that this change of power was to come (Genesis 25, 23). Yahweh legitimates disturbing the rules of the patriarchate.

Theologians insist that the Biblical story of the patriarchs is a story about Yahweh founding his covenant with Abraham and all the following patriarchs till Moses. If Yahweh’s covenant was communicated to patriarchs and not to women, we must speak of women discrimination. Further we have to say that the covenant did not change the patriarchal control of men over women of the people of Go’d. The covenant of Go’d with his people was not about women’s full humanity, dignity, equal rights, and freedoms.

Miriam and her sisters

There are two very old verses in the Hebrew Bible that show me that the patriarchate in the Hebrew Bible is a thing of men and has nothing to do with the presumed will of Yahweh.

“And Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took the timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dancing” (Exodus 15:20 NAS).

“And Miriam answered them” (Exodus 15,21a NAS) “Sing to Yahweh, for he has covered himself in glory, horse and rider he has thrown into the sea” (Exodus 15, 21b The New Jerusalem Bible).

I take the translation “Yahweh has covered himself in glory” because I like the theology of this expressions. Miriam says according to this translation that Yahweh is invisible, and realized something very, very great: the Exodus. The message is: That the Exodus is, is the mystical; not how Yahweh brought the Exodus about. We shall sing “because Yahweh has covered himself in glory”. I am no specialist in Hebrew language and literature, I trust that the Hebraists of The New Jerusalem Bible (The New Jerusalem Bible. Standard Edition.1999. Doubleday: New York) produced a legitimate translation. “He has covered himself in glory” translates an infinitivus absolutus, an absolute infinitive, together with the same verb in perfect active (in Hebrew Grammar qual) 3rd person masculine singular. The verb is gah and means “to rise up”. The infinitivus absolutus of that verb has the function to reinforce or to increase the following verb (Dr. F.J. Mehr. http://www.instructioneducation.info/Hebsub/hebr4.pdf). The perfect active 3rd person masculine singular from gah is “he has risen up”. What do I want to say, when I say, “Go’d has risen up”? I think about an expression like “Go’d in heaven”, or “the Highest”. What does the absolute infinitive do to that expression? How can I increase the meaning of “the Highest”? I think it to be a legitimate interpretation to say Yahweh “covered himself in glory”, because covered means I cannot see. Indeed, I cannot see anybody who rose up and is in heaven. The expression “glory” reminds me of the term “majesty” for Go’d, gawh - which is the noun of the verb gah -, that we find in Deuteronomy 33,26, where the majesty of Go’d is in the sky and we find gawh in Psalm 68, 34 where we read about Go’d: “His majesty is over Israel” (Psalm 68, 34 NAS).

The French ecumenical translation of the Bible titles chapters 12-15 of Exodus “The Exodus from Egypt” (Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible. Édition intégrale. Ancien Testament. 1980. 151. Les Editions du CERF: Paris) (TOB). The TOB explains that the chapters 12,1-13,16 do not present a narrative of the Exodus from Egypt but a collection of liturgical texts from different epochs. The collection tells how to celebrate the memory of that exodus from Egypt (ibid.). Concerning the chapters 13,17-15,21 that narrate the passing of the sea and the song of Moses, the TOB speaks of three sources that contributed to the text: The Yahwist, the Elohist and the Priestly source. The Yahwist uses the Tetragrammaton (Yahweh) as the name of Go’d and dates to the 10th century BCE; but who knows? The Elohist writers call Go’d Elohim. The Priestly source writes a lot about Moses and Aaron and the priests, ritual matters, and laws. The Priestly source is the youngest source and dates after the end of Babylonian captivity in 537 BCE; but who knows for sure? In the Yahwist tradition a windstorm dried the sea into land, in the Priestly source the hand of Moses divided the waters and the short Elohist source tells of an angel of Go’d that changed the light of the cloud from the front to behind the Israelites (ibid. 156). Yahweh “threw the Egyptian army into confusion” and he blocked the wheels of their chariots (Exodus 14, 24, 25a). The Egyptians understood and said: “Let us flee from Israel, for Yahweh is fighting on their side against the Egyptians” (Exodus 14, 25b). They understood but did not react to save their lives, instead “the sea returned to its bed. The fleeing Egyptians ran straight into it, and Yahweh overthrew the Egyptians in the middle of the sea” (Exodus 14, 27). If Exodus 14, 24.25.27 are verses from the Jahwist source – the TOB claims -, Yahwe is quite a violent warrior who does not hesitate to kill the enemy of his people to save Israel. Many Rabies and the Apostle Paul commented on the violence of Yahweh. It is true that neither the Yahwist nor the Priestly sources make Yahwe rejoice over the death of the Egyptians. The priests make sing Moses “Yahweh is a warrior” (Exodus 15, 3), and make Moses describe how the monster warrior Yahweh destroys the Egyptians with strength and terror (Exodus 14, 4-12).

Miriam praises in her song that Yahwe “threw horse and rider into the sea” (Exodus 15, 21c). Who would not rejoice and give thanks if she or he escaped the deadly attack of a ferocious and cruel enemy? I do not doubt that the people of Israel had to fight deadly battles for her liberation from Egypt. It was not necessary to encourage Miriam and the women to fight for their liberty, they fought, and they had all right to fight for their freedom. Praising Yahwe for He “threw horse and rider into the sea” is a legitimate expression of a legitimate fight that was a successful self-defense. Miriam and the women celebrate their capability to successfully fight for their liberation. They celebrate their power, just as the men had done.

Miriam is recognized as a prophet, but at the same time she is subdued to the patriarchate by being made a sister of Aaron, the priest and brother of Moses. There is a genealogy of Moses and Aaron – Exodus 6,14-27 -, there is no genealogy of Miriam. So why not simply accept that she was an independent woman prophet, who was so important to the community of the Israelites that the men of the Priestly source could not allow themselves to make her disappear. Biblical scientist dispute over whose song sang Moses and whose song sang Miriam? When Exodus 15, 1 tells that “Moses and the Israelites sang this song”, there is no word that Moses sang his song. The experts will decide the question.

When did the historic Exodus of Israel from Egypt take place? Experts date the historic events of the Exodus to the 13th century BCE. I do not know about the historic events of the Exodus. Nevertheless, the Exodus is a fact of history. Freeing oneself from the domination of the Egyptians certainly necessitated an enormous investment of energies, force, and strength.

“The sea returned” (Exodus 14, 27), unfortunately the Egyptians did not return. The English word “return” translates the Hebrew word “schwb” which means “turn”, “return”. Many times, we find this verb in the Hebrew Bible. Unfortunately, the Septuagint - the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible by the 70 Wise Jews – translates the Hebrew “schwb” with the Greek “metánoia” which means something like “changing one’s mind”. “schwb” could be translated as “changing one’s way”. Unfortunately, Christian theology could not resist choosing the moralizing translations “repent”, “reform”, “conversion”. I take the opportunity to correct the many narrowing translations concerning Jesus’ first public appearance. The moralizing translations read: Jesus says, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15 NAS). I would interpret Mark 1, 15b: Change the way of your life by getting on the way with Jesus from Galilee up to Jerusalem and belief in the gospel.

The TOB explains that the chapters Exodus 12,1-13,16 present a collection of liturgical texts from different epochs that tells how to celebrate the memory of the exodus from Egypt. There are so many celebrations and feasts for commemorating Go’d liberating his people from the slave-house of Egypt. In Judaism commemorating the salvation from Egypt inspires and prefigures the hopes for salvation at the end of times (Plietzsch, Susanne. 2005.56. Kontexte der Freiheit. Konzepte der Befreiung bei Paulus und im rabbinischen Judentum. Verlag W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart). The celebration of the Exodus as the liberation of creation creates a state of equilibrium between the beginning and the end of times. This equilibrium embraces the certainty about Go’d’s saving agency in the presence to help Israel cope with existence (ibid.). There is no alternative to the confession of the Exodus for Israel because this confession ensures that each member of this confessing community accepts her or his obligation to live a life with the responsibility for freedom and social choices (ibid.: 59).

These sentences of Susanne Plietysch and the dancing scene inspires me preparing a meditation: What we see and hear is a liturgical play. Miriam and the women who followed her, apparently do enjoy something like a secure space for their performance. The women played the tambourines, hand-drums, they sang and danced. The movements of the dance were coordinated, the performance interconnected the women. There was no fear, there was no threatening, no devaluation of their dance. They sang and danced secure and save and the dance and the singing created attachment security and secure bonding among them. There was no need for any of the women defending herself, all energy could flow augmenting the active stream of solidarity with each other. Bonding security enables getting involved together in the praise of the glory of Go’d and the liberation from Egypt. The sea of movements and the sound of melodies, the dancing game and the tambourines mobilize an equilibrium of an active state. There is no drive for battle or flight movement. The rhythmic drumbeats augment the growing state of energy to the optimum attention for receiving the information of the song and the inner resonance of the courage to fight integrated the liberation into one’s integrity. This state of balance and energy does not tolerate the patriarchal suppression, neither leads the stress of devaluation by men to the stagnation of the movements that interconnect the women with each other. The celebration empowers the women for their women’s experiences of life (This meditation of Exodus 15, 20-21 follows the choreography of the games offered by Frauke Nees (Frauke Nees. Den inneren Kritiker zum Lachen bringen! Selbstliebe und Selbstmitgefühl gewinnen. Betz Verlag: Weinheim, Basel 2021).

The women accompanying Jesus.

“And it came about soon afterwards, that He began going about from one city and village to another, proclaiming and preaching the kingdom of God; and the twelve were with Him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses: Mary who was called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others who were contributing to their support” - Greek “diaekónoun”, which literally translates “they served” – “out of their private means” (Luke 8, 1-3. NAS).

Form criticism teaches that the list of women followers in Luke 8, 1-3 is comparable with the disciple catalogues in Luke 6, 12-16, Acts 1, 13, Mark 3, 13-19 and Matthew 10, 1-4 (Bovon, Francois. 1989. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Lk 1,1–9,50. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament III/1. Neukirchen-Vluyin: Neukirchener Verlag). For the disciples there is a vocation. Jesus calls them to follow him. This vocation legitimates the disciples to preach “the just world of Go’d” in the synagogues, whereas the service – Greek diakonía – of the women for Jesus and the Twelve gets legitimated by their miraculous healing by Jesus (ibid.). This patriarchal exegesis makes the women serve Jesus and his apostles – only Luke uses this term for the Twelve -, and only the male followers of Jesus were allowed to preach and speak about the “just world of Go’d”. The women are silenced, and their function is serving, that is the diaconia. Acts 6, 1-6 documents that the Twelve evidently started excluding women from the diaconal office, that is of caring for the poor, the widows, and orphans.

In Acts 9, 36 we find for the first and last time in the New Testament the female term for a follower that is a disciple of Jesus, Tabitha is a woman disciple. The Greek uses the female form “mathaetría” and not the masculine “mathaetáes” (Robert C. Tannehill. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts. A Literary Interpretation. Volume two: The Acts of the Apostles. Augsburg Fortress 1990). In Acts 1, 13-14 the eleven Apostles – Judas had not yet been replaced -, sat in prayer “together with some women, including Mary, the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers”. A few verses later, at Pentecost, the women are excluded from addressing the crowd, “Peter stood up with the Eleven and addressed them”, that is “the men of Judaea”, the women were absent, invisible as speakers and as listeners (Acts 2, 1-36). It seems to me that in Acts 2, 1-4 “all” who were sitting together in prayer had received the Holy Spirit. Luke does not take notice that he excludes and silences the women (ibid.). In the suppressing cultural context of the patriarchate, where women were controlled by men and not allowed to speak publicly in the synagogue, I understand that the women disciples of Jesus could not preach publicly the “just world of Go’d”. I do not understand that women and men faithful were not treating each other as equals in the first Christian communities.

The New Testament shows that the women disciples who accompanied and served Jesus and the other disciples lost their egalitarian and self-determining capabilities and got silenced, controlled, and dominated by men in the first Christian communities. The Patriarchate gets installed and defended in the Christian communities. Jesus’ solidarity for the liberation of women, healing them, taking them into his company on the way from Galilee up to Jerusalem ended in the Christian communities of Acts. Thanks to Go’d there is another Apostle who will again take up the way of egalitarian freedom and rights for women, in the Christian communities that he founded around the Mediterranean.

For legitimizing the discrimination of women from the offices of teaching, celebrating liturgies and governing communities in the patriarchate, there was one argumentation very successful: Men were chosen disciples and followers of Jesus, women were not followers and were no disciples of Jesus. The theological term that is used for following is “akoluthéin”, and there is numerous uses of that verb in the Passion narrative of all four Gospels. The male followers of Jesus did not follow him to the cross, the women followed Jesus and were present under the cross. Mark 15, 40 tells of women, Matthew 28,1 tells of women and Luke 24,1 tells of women who had followed Jesus from the time in Galilee and who had served him. In John 19, 25-17 we hear of the women who are at the cross and we hear from the only man at the cross, the beloved and favorite disciple. Leaving the patriarchal household and following alone a strange man was already a death threatening enterprise for a woman at Jesus’ time. The courage to follow Jesus to the cross shows the importance of this way for the women.

Most important is the presence of the women at the empty tomb in all four Gospels. The first at the empty tomb are the women. There are no men, there are women at the empty tomb (Luke 24, 10; Mark 16, 1; Mathew 28, 1-8). Mary of Magdala is present at the empty tomb in all three synoptic Gospels. In John 20, 1-9 Mary of Magdala discovers alone that the tomb is empty, and she is the first to see the risen Jesus Christ. Mary of Magdala was weeping, because the tomb was empty. Jesus came and called her by name and speaks to her:

"Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren, and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God'" (Joh 20:17 NAS). Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord," and that He had said these things to her (Joh 20:18 NAS)”.

It is a woman, Maria of Magdala, who announces the Apostles that Jesus Christ has been risen. The most important announcement, message, teaching, confession, conviction, and prophecy of Christendom has been realized by a woman. But the patriarchate took possession of the resurrection of Jesus in the Roman Catholic Church and Catholic tradition worked for centuries to make disappear from the memory of the faithful that Mary of Magdala announced the Apostles the resurrection. Jesus Christ asked Mary of Magdala to bring his brethren the good news, the central message of Christian hope, but the male priests of the Roman Catholic Church silenced her memory and the voices of millions of devalued women faithful.

Women were serving, they were not speaking, they were not deciding nothing, they were not leading prayers and therefore women are not allowed to preach the Gospel, to lead liturgies and to take part in the government of the Church. The Roman Catholic Church developed a tradition of discriminating women by ordering them to serve. At the same time the patriarchate of the Roman Catholic Church negates the worth of the work of the women, their service is not worth very much, they serve the men. The men are teaching, leading liturgies and government, the women serve them. There is a second discrimination that legitimates the exclusion of women from the functions of priest, prophet, and governor. This discrimination works by saying: Because the women know only to serve, they are excluded from the higher functions in the Church.

Before the festival of the Passover - the central memorial of the Exodus of Israel out of the slave house of Egypt -, Jesus got up from table “and laid aside His garments; and taking a towel, He girded Himself about. (Joh 13:4 NAS) Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. (Joh 13:5 NAS)”.

This service of Jesus for his Apostles does not describe or prescribe the service as an ideal behavior for the Christian. The importance of the service of Jesus is the experience of the disciple. The disciple experiences Jesus, the washing of the feet is not an objective fact, it is a subjective experience, it is not a historic fact one can meditate, it is the evidence of Jesus for me, it is not a liturgical performance, it is only visible in the consequences for me (Bultmann, Rudolf. 1964. 362-63. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

From this follows that verses 14 and 15 do not speak of a moral imperative:

"If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. (Joh 13:14 NAS) "For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. (Joh 13:15 NAS)”. The meaning of verse 14, John 13, is the same as the meaning of Luke 22, 27: "For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table, or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves. (Luk 22:27 NAS)”. Jesus realized serving others with love because his mother Mary and his father Joseph were loving parents who empowered Jesus to love. We must not forget the love of Mary and Joseph for their son Jesus, including all the troubles, sufferings, sorrows, and pains that their love and solidarity for Jesus brought unto them.

The women who followed Jesus from Galilee up to the cross in Jerusalem did not need to turn their way of life learning to serve the others. The women had received the healing love of Jesus and were ready to love and serve Jesus and the apostles. The apostles needed much time to learn to love and serve. Jesus loved them, but this experience did not lead them to turn away from oppressing the women faithful in their communities. The Gospels are full of stories of unbelief, misunderstanding, tries of instrumentalization, conflicts between male power of the disciples and Jesus’ patience with all of them. The Gospels talk not much about the constructive relations of mutual trust and understanding between Jesus and his women disciples. The women’s inner life mostly disappears in the Gospels. The few sparks of female desires, deeds and thinking that the Gospels remembered of the female disciples’ experience on their way with Jesus invite to suspect the richness of that mutual bond of walking together in the just world of Go’d.

All through history the patriarchal Roman Catholic Church was not capable of turning away from oppressing women and sacralized male domination without scruples to their purpose. No wonder that women have opted to leave “Christian traditions and to seek a religion or spirituality that authentically affirms women’s humanity as image and expression of the divine” (Rosemary Radford Ruether. 1987. 395). Authentic female spiritual movements develop “across religious as well as cultural lines. Dialogues of Jewish and Muslim feminists and Buddhist and Christian feminists are also developing” (ibid. 396).

Only the one who is loved is empowered to love. Being loved, the experience of receiving love is the foundation of giving love to others (ibid.). If I can receive the serving love of Jesus Christ, I am capable of serving and loving. When will the Roman Catholic Church turn her way away from fundamental patriarchy to a loving together of women, men, and queer faithful? “Fire and ice cannot be joined; Either the fire dies, or the ice melts. But by Your mercy, O God, You can make up for all that is lacking.” (Maria Faustyna Kowalska. Diary “Divine mercy in my soul”. 2005. Number 1229. Marian Press: Stockbridge, MA. https://liturgicalyear.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/divine-mercy-in-my-soul.pdf).