Book of the Month/February 2017

Sharing Options

I am going to be praising this book highly, so let me get just a couple of criticisms out of the way at the very front. This book is a “reimagining” of the apostle Paul, one that defends him from some very common modern misunderstandings. It undertakes this task on the basis of a very wide and deep knowledge of the classical world, with which Paul was so often in conflict. Sarah Ruden, in short, is someone who is able to listen to both sides of the phone conversation, and who is able to rescue Paul from the misunderstandings of moderns, only able to listen to Paul’s side of it, and who wildly underestimate what he was actually dealing with.

My two criticisms are these. Ruden tends to accept what current scholarship (all rise) wants to say about Pauline authorship, and so this limits what she is able to draw on as she reintroduces the apostle to us. This cavalier approach to the inspiration of Scripture also results in her willingness to be critical of what she sees as Paul’s foibles—sort of tetchy, ill-tempered, kind of splenetic—while staunchly maintaining that he was among the good guys and was fighting the good fight. I grew up wanting to be more respectful of apostles than that. She respects him in the main cause—indeed, that is what the book is about—but she also makes a little bit too free.

The second criticism is that she uses Puritan interpretations of Paul as kind of a foil, not realizing that the Puritans need to be understood contextually, just as she does for Paul. Not only so, but when the Puritans are read in context, and more widely than she does, much the same thing happens as happened with her and Paul. So if you read this book on my recommend, just tiptoe past her observations on the Puritans. The good stuff is up ahead.

Now the praise. Sarah Ruden’s knowledge of the classical world is wide-ranging. She is intelligent, honest, and informed. Not only does she have this knowledge, she has the courage to simply put what it was like on the table. I mean this. She interprets the first century in first century terms, without trying to make their customs and outlook fit into contemporary norms. Moreover, she sees very clearly that it was the apostle Paul’s opposition to those perverse norms that helped get us to the world we now inhabit—from which vantage we perversely turn around to critique the apostle.

She tackles genuine hot button issues. There is a chapter on Paul and homosexuality. There is another chapter on Paul and women. And then she also treats Paul’s instructions to slaves. But unlike so many modern commentators, Ruden actually knows what first century sexual ethics were like. She knows the actual status of women back then. She also knows what the institution of slavery was like. In support of her observations, she quotes extensively from the literature of the period, and for the average Christian today, few experiences will be as eye-opening as reading this book. Sure, Paul was a first century curmudgeon. But then you get a glimpse of what he was being curmudgeonly about, your natural response will be omigosh.

When you get into the meat of this book, you find arguments that you can respect. Even when you don’t agree, or if you suspect that she would allow for some things today that you would not, what she provides is real substance for real discussion.

Her chapter on homosexuality ends this way:

“All this leads to a feeling of mountainous irony. Paul takes a bold and effective swipe at the power structure. He challenges centuries of execrable practice in seeking a more just, more loving society. And he gets called a bigot. Well, it’s not a persecution that would have impressed him much” (p. 71).

And I will offer this as a teaser. Her provocative treatment of head coverings inverts the whole question, and is at least worth thinking about. In that day the women without veils were not the liberated women, but rather quite the reverse. Slave women, who were frequently forced into prostitution, were not allowed to wear a covering. Paul’s requirement for the Christian worship service may have been a staggering promotion for the women with pasts—as though it were the height of the Victorian era and he required all Christian women to wear white at their weddings.

I will finish with an observation that I have made before, and it is one that needs to be made over and over again with regard to the kinds of issues addressed in this book—e.g. sexual ethics, the role of women, and slavery. Often evangelical expositors are less to be trusted with the meaning of the text than liberal expositors. This is because an evangelical is necessarily stuck with the results of his exegesis. The liberal can say that Paul taught xyz about women, ho, ho, ho, but the evangelical, if he comes up with xyz, has to defend it himself. This has led in the past to no small measure of exegetical creativity on the part of Bible “believers.” Ruden is in an odd position. She clearly inhabits the liberal academic world, but shows Paul a great deal more actual respect than he often gets from evangelicals. The evangelicals have to pretend respect while at the same time passing over such ignorables as his teaching on head coverings, returned slaves, and the problem of the silken boys.

I don’t agree with everything Ruden argues for. But it was one of the more worthwhile books I have read in some time.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
21 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jigawatt
jigawatt
7 years ago

1 Tim 2:12 in 3 … 2 … 1…

Kilgore T. Durden
Kilgore T. Durden
7 years ago

It is on my reading list…

Thanks for the review.

Quick question for you, Reverend Wilson. Since it came up in the comments a few days ago, how does your church out there in Moscow practice the head coverings? Our OPC congregation teaches that this is a woman’s hair and expects it to be feminine, which implies that men are to have shorter hair. We tend away from the case that it was only for the Corinthian culture, but rather that it applies to us today.

Kilgore T. Durden
Kilgore T. Durden
7 years ago

After reading several reviews of this book on Amazon, a number of reviewers note that she makes some kind of claim that Paul does not condemn homosexuality as we know it. I haven’t read this, obviously, but there were several people noting that she claims that Paul was condemning rape and not loving, consensual homosexual relationships. If this is true, I am not interested. Her deep knowledge of the Roman world might be impressive, but to make a case as stupid as this more or less discounts her in my mind.

Reverend Wilson, is this true?

ME
ME
7 years ago

“….a number of reviewers note that she makes some kind of claim that Paul does not condemn homosexuality as we know it.” Well, something to just keep in mind, homosexuality as we know it here in the Western world, is not really the whole story. So in the West we have this idea of two consenting adults having a monogamous relationship and everything is allegedly all rainbows. But in most of the world, including the ancient one, homosexuality is really tightly entwined with pedophilia and religious worship. So in the Middle East right now, especially Afganistan, they will send out… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Kilgore T. Durden
7 years ago
Reply to  ME

First things first, we simply cannot fall for the lie perpetrated by Hollywood that “two consenting adults having a monogamous relationship and everything is allegedly all rainbows.” This is a fiction. If you can find me one gay or lesbian couple under 40 who are currently monogamous, I will buy you something expensive. Secondly, whatever perversions may exist in other cultures surrounding homosexuality, we have something just as bad or worse to compete with it. The complete and total perversion of this lifestyle brings with it numerous depraved acts. One look at Hollywood and Washington DC shows just what comes… Read more »

ME
ME
7 years ago

Well, you’re not hearing me. You’re doing what a lot of reviewers did with the book, missing the greater point and believing she was somehow condoning or perhaps even advocating homosexuality. Last night in Portland they finally arrested a gay activist. It’s not that I believe homosexuality is a good thing, it’s that I’ve really been wanting to see this guy get popped simply because he’s a violent, convicted, child sex predator who has also managed to become the darling of gay rights and lefty causes. Often our enthusiasm for condemning homosexuality works against us because people start to act… Read more »

Kilgore T. Durden
Kilgore T. Durden
7 years ago
Reply to  ME

My apologies. I didn’t think that you were advocating for it. I thought you were defending her argument. Now, I am not sure. The argument is that Paul was not even addressing loving homosexual relationships, but something else, because things were awful in Rome. Therefore, goes this rubbish argument, Romans 1 cannot be used to condemn homosexuality. I don’t know if she actually used that argument, having not read the book and all, but if she did, I would now have lost respect for her position, since that is a really bad case to try and make. As you note,… Read more »

ME
ME
7 years ago

Oh, no apologies needed! I am just trying to say things really were awful in Rome and things are awful today.

Whatever Sarah Ruden’s intent was, she did lead me to see a whole darker side to homosexuality then what lurks on the surface in the modern world.

JL
JL
7 years ago
Reply to  ME

ME,

Do you think that today’s homosexuality is divorced from religion? It’s something I’m still pondering.

I view Hollywood as their kingdom, with actors being the temple priests and priestesses, and Madonna is the head priestess, “Like a vestal virgin, sacrificing for the very first time.” Maybe gays are their outreach program! :)

ME
ME
7 years ago
Reply to  JL

Good question! I really don’t know, but it often seems very religious. Just consider the issue of identity, as in my identity is in Christ, but to follow the LGBT “religion,” your identity must be in your sexuality, that is the very thing that defines you. So, a kind of idolatry really.

Steve Perry
Steve Perry
7 years ago

Pastor Wilson teaches long hair also (in his book For A Glory And A Covering). But is not adverse to sisters wearing a hat.

ME
ME
7 years ago

I’m so glad you read this book. I just loved it. This made me laugh though, “sort of tetchy, ill-tempered, kind of splenetic—while staunchly maintaining that he was among the good guys and was fighting the good fight. I grew up wanting to be more respectful of apostles than that.” LOL! Welcome to the world of women, “tetchy, ill-tempered, kind of splenetic,” perceiving men as they actually are, not as they wish to be. It’s all good though, we tend to love men all the more when we can see their imperfections. I am the same way, you could tell… Read more »

"A" dad
"A" dad
7 years ago
Reply to  ME

When do you have time to read? ????????

Antecho
Antecho
7 years ago

Hey Doug (or someone else),

Since (or if) you enjoy reading, you can read Gorsuch’s case-decision opinions at this website shown below.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinion/...
…search/results?query=gorsuch
Note: the elipses isn’t really part of the web address, so just delete them and then concatenate the remainder.

Ian Miller
7 years ago

I have put this on hold at the library.

Ian Miller
7 years ago
Reply to  Ian Miller

Just finished the book tonight. There are an awful lot of goofinesses, such as “We know that Paul didn’t write Timothy or Ephesians.” But it also moved me to tear consistently with its exposition of a man, who I see inspired by God, but stumbling about in his brilliance and flawed self, spreading God’s message of agape between all – slaves, women, abused, free – everyone.

Wendy Dibble-Lohr
Wendy Dibble-Lohr
7 years ago

(From Andrew, husband of Wendy) Peter Leithart said similar things to Pastor Wilson about this book, and so did National Review magazine, a couple/few years ago.

Jack Bradley
Jack Bradley
7 years ago

Very helpful review, Douglas. I look forward to borrowing your copy…