GENDER, POWER, AND JESUS’ IDENTITY

IN THE GOSPELS
Diane Jdcobs-Malind

Abstract

In this presentation, the author offers some considerations of the meaning of Jesus in the light of the patriarchy of his time and place. The

essay begins with a consideration of the domestic domain as the root of patriarchal culture. The domestic domain provides the first experiences
of power and control, of male and female gender roles. Individual identity is initially formed within the family, which reflects the prevailing
social system. The Gospels share the patriarchal perspective of the first-century Mediterranean world. It is in this world that the gospel tradition
tells of Jesus’ introducing a family based on belief, not on blood. In the light of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and presuming the patriarchal
understanding of what consatitutes power and control, the evangelists tell how Jesus introduced the kingdom of God. His life and teaching
reflect the perspective and values which reflect the family where God is father and the Kingdom in which God rules. The outcome is a new
identity that his followers are called to emulate in both their private and their public lives.

Men and women first experience power in

The mother who conceives a child is invested with the
a woman.
power of life and death. Once the child is born, society
assigns the mother roles that make her the dispenser of
to
life-sustaining necessities, the first protector, the primary
shaper of personality, the architect of identity, and the first
judge of ability. These are the roles that patriarchal social
systems have assigned to women because of their reproduc-
tive system.
Jean Lipman-Blumen defines power as &dquo;the process
wherein individuals or groups gain or maintain the capacity
fo impose their will upon others, to have their way recur-
rently, despite implicit or explicit opposition, through invok-
ing or threatening punishment, as well as offering or
withholding rewards&dquo; (6). This definition presumes a per-
son’s experiences with power that arise at a stage when the
individual is old enough to experience &dquo;a conflict of wills&dquo;
and to understand the threat of punishment and the lure of
rewards. But an adequate understanding of power must take
into account the very earliest human experience of &dquo;power
as female.&dquo; For all human beings, power-as-female is abso-
lute, often unchecked, and extends not only to all facets of
life, but to life itself. Infant and child experiences of pure
emotion arising from psychic pain and physical distress are
far more potent experiences of weakness than the battle of
wills highlighted in Lipman-Blumer~s definition. From these
first, personally &dquo;prehistoric&dquo; experiences of power and help-
lessness, emerge each child’s own &dquo;instinctive&dquo; under-
standing of females-in-power.
Gender and power are experienced as inseparable cate-
gories from the beginning of life. At odds with what
very
patriarchies want people to believe, the male role is not the
only role infused with power. From the archaic origins of
each individual’s life, the mother-as-all-powerful-female
continues to influence both men and women. It may be
unnecessary for world historians to prove how and why
patriarchs rebelled, replaced the female gods with male gods,
and then assumed power. But it is important to observe the
struggle that ensues in each individual life to diminish the
omnipotence of mothers who are frequently the primary
directors of human destiny.
In the same book, Lipman-Blumen further describes
what she believes to be the roots of power.
the uncertainty of life is the basis of the human need for
power and control. Because the future is unforeseeable, we
experience a sense of existential helplessness and anxiety.
Neither our fortune nor our fate is ultimately within our
control. Uncertainty and awareness of the inability to con-
trol even one’s own life and environment are the essence of
the human condition. We respond by seeking ways to relieve
this sense of helplessness and anxiety, this feeling of not
being in control [Lipman-Blumen: 7].
If this statement took into account human development
and the inevitable formation of perception as the result of
infancy/childhood relations and experiences, it would read
as follows:
Abuse and neglect in childhood are the basis of the human
need for power and control. Because the past was frequently
Diane Jacobs-Malina, M.A. in Religious Education, B.F.A.
(Creighton Univerrsity), is author of Beyond Patriarchy: The Images
of Family in Jesus (Paulist Press, 1993). Her focus on the Mediter-
ranean social world began ten years ago when she and her husband
Bruce Malina became the adopted parents of two Palestinian
brothers from Beirut. She has lived and travelled extensively in the
Middle East, Italy, and Spain. She now resides in Omaha, NE.

158
 intolerable, we experience a sense of existential helplessness
and anxiety. Neither our fortune nor our fate was within our
control. Memories of uncertainty and an awareness of the
inability to have controlled one’s own life and environment
shape one’s perception and expectations of the future. We
respond by seeking ways to relieve this unexplored sense of
helplessness and anxiety, this feeling of not being in control.
Lipman-Blumen’s previous statement reflects childrearing
that was &dquo;not good enough&dquo; to form healthy relations with
the self, others, and the environment. J. Konrad Stettbacher
maintains that if the primal needs of a child are not met, if
calls for help, tears , and distress are not relieved, the child
becomes a helpless prey to fear and pain (Stettbacher: 8-12).
The child will interpret this situation to be the result of
his/her own inadequacy and not that of the one who &dquo;moth-
ers.&dquo; Nevertheless, failure to meet the primal needs of the
child points to a disturbance in those charged with the
child’s care. Such disturbance manifests itself in defective
reactions that confuse, inhibit, and endanger the self and/or
others instead of securing the comfort and sense of well-be-
ing that arises from the satisfaction of primal needs.
All injuries to, and overloads of the infant human being’s
primal integrity arise from the negation of its needs. Neglect,
disregard, and unreasonable demands~ombined with the
recurrent experience of receiving too little good, and too
~ much bad, treatment-will overload and disturb the young
person’s system. Usually this is not done intentionally. It is
simply passed on blindly from generation to generation
[Stettbacher: 12].
Nancy Chodorow expresses support for the more traditional
patriarchal viewpoint when she notes that &dquo;women by and
large want to mother, and get gratification from their moth-
ering ; and finally ... with all the conflicts and contradic-
tions, women have succeeded at mothering&dquo; (7).
But babies do not come into the world with an instruc-
tion manual or aguide interpreting their behavior and
to
sounds. From birth, those who care for infants interpret their
sounds and movements. This interpretation follows the
options that are available within the social system regarding
nature, babies, and human development. The new infant
has no similar access to the social system or to previous
experiences from which to draw as s/he begins to interpret
the words and actions of those surrounding him or her.
Human development is characterized by the infant/child’s
gradual assimilation and embodiment of the group’s percep-
tion of the surrounding world. This assimilation allows for a
shared interpretation that makes communication possible.
Communication facilitates human relation. Human devel-
opment is a lifetime project that requires cooperation and
coordinated support for each sequential stage by a know-
ing/caring person(s) who has already successfully passed
through that stage. In sum, perception that interprets hu-
man behavior is a process central to human development,
communication, and identity formation.
Mother-as-World
The birth of girls in strongly patriarchal societies elicits
ambivalent feelings in families (Sir 42:9-14) . Frequently
there is hostility, and in the most extreme cases, abandon-
ment and death. Mothers are often the first to express and
reflect society’s hostility to the female. This begins with
childrearing practices. Girls are not nursed as long as boys,
and are given a smaller share of the necessities of life. They
are accorded a lower status and rarely allowed access to
opportunities available outside the domestic domain. Fur-
ther frustrating a sense of well-being were/are the authorized
traditions passed on by both men and women, that females
are not to be trusted. Women have often been excluded from
the world of men except for the various services they perform
there. Women are thus often alone if not in the company of
females and children. While male children are more prized,
yet the mother might also want &dquo;someone like herself.&dquo; This
desire can be as ambivalent as the responses just described.
The daughter can be alternately desired and despised,
trusted and mistrusted.
Females are led to compete for male favor because of
the security such favor promises. This competition sets
mother against daughter, wife against mother-in-law, sister
against wife, sister against sister, and so forth. Little girls are
initially damaged by the mother’s response to having a
female child, and further diminished by their group’s nega-
tive estimation of women accepted as authoritative within
the family and in society at large. They are inevitably struck
by the unfairness of the &dquo;advantages&dquo; that are ascribed to
males merely by virtue of their gender. Such are the girls who
grow up and are expected to be &dquo;natural&dquo; mothers, &dquo;natural&dquo;
nurturers, &dquo;natural&dquo; caretakers of children. Pregnancy and
childbirth are the rites of passage that make a girl into a
woman. These rites are not a once only event, but occur
repeatedly with the same risks, pain, and often enough,
death. The stigma of having been born a female is mitigated
to some extent only after the woman bears a son.
For the fact of successfully bearing and giving birth to a
son did not mean that woman was in peaceful possession of
adulthood. It was only the beginning of the process. The age
disparity between a mother and her infant son gave her
power and advantages which she did not enjoy with any
other male: not her father, not her brother, and not with her
husband. The mother/son relation is one of physical inti-
macy. It is often more satisfying than the wedding night
when the woman was expected to go from modesty main-
tained under the threat of death for sexual misconduct, to
complete sexual intimacy with a male whom she may not
159
have met until the wedding day. The disadvantages that
characterized her relation with every other male were con-
spicuously absent in the relation between the mother and
her infant son. This relation brought status, power, and
intimacy to the woman on any terms she cared to set without
a negative female image or the multiple conflicts created by
rigid gender roles (Klein).. I
Mothers saw daughters as extensions of themselves in
much the same way that fathers thought sons were exten-
sions of themselves. But in terms of positive psychological
development, it was the mother who had to support both
males and females so that they might internally separate and
see themselves as independent and autonomous from the
mother, as individuals in their own right. This early stage
cannot be successfully managed without the support and
encouragement of the mother. When individuation is not
achieved, and the child is unable to establish his/her sepa-
ration from the mother internally, the child’s identity and
internal space are overridden, totally permeated and
usurped by the primal-mother-as-world initially experienced
by the infant. Perhaps addictions are recreations of this time
when no psychological boundaries existed between the
mother and the infant. Alcohol and drugs elicit feelings of
total dependency in a world where boundaries disappear and
where emotions, physical sensations, and perceptions are
dramatically altered. Possibly additions retroject individuals
back to that place in time where a crucial stage was not
successfully completed.
Gender Roles
The male role in patriarchal societies is defined in
opposition to the female role. Since the successful fulfillment
of the female role depends on childbearing and childrearing,
the male must necessarily be defined in terms of separation
from children and the growth process. Not surprisingly, the
emotional anchor for the little boy was solely his mother and
other women who cared for him. However, even this refuge
was not secure (Pilch 1991; 1993). The little boy would
eventually discover that while being a female was an unal-
terable condition given at birth, such was not the case with
being a male. Patriarchy declared that certain actions, emo-
tions, and desires were unmasculine and could call a boy’s
masculinity in doubt. It would then become apparent to
everyone that he was &dquo;like a girl&dquo; or that he might grow up
and become &dquo;like a girl,&dquo; particularly if he was around women
too much. &dquo;Being a man&dquo; was something that was not
securely given (Gilmore).
One of the son’s (and daughter’s) first experiences of
separation is in his/her relations with the father, the man
who was frequently absent. When he was home, he was
often detached or aloof from the activity within the house.
160
Ordinarily the male’s interaction with family members was
limited to requests, demands, and orders that carried some
penalty unless they were fulfilled. Perhaps the emotion that
was most evident and most frequently displayed was anger.
Hence separation, detachment, and power manifested by
anger characterized the male (Lew: 73). This is not to say
that children did not also experience these characteristics
in their mother. The main difference was that social pressure
made it morally impossible for even the worst mother to
abandon her children. The woman’s identity, self value, and
total existence was as firmly attached to the home as the
male’s identity was dependent on his separation from it. As
a result, the female was unable to flee domestic relations
with the attendant responsibilities. However, the male
(whether father or son) could increase the separation and
distance as a legitimate response to stress and conflict within
the household. He (as well as the mother) could also respond
to conflict with a display of anger meant to control or coerce
by physical force. While this may not have resolved any
conflict, the suppression of conflict validated the father’s
ability to maintain control within his family and confirmed
his masculinity.
While the male was more highly valued than the fe-
male, it was not for himself. The male was valued for what
he could do, first for his mother, then for his family as well
as for the larger social group. The eldest son (and other sons)
provided social security for the parents in their old age. The
male was expected to protect the honor and interests of his
family unless that duty conflicted with what the larger group
expected of him. By insisting that separation from females
and detachment from the &dquo;softer&dquo; emotions are central to
the male role, elites could enlist men to work as well as to
fight battles that rarely benefited anyone but the elites.
Institutionalizing violence and aggression as part of the
male’s &dquo;nature&dquo; gives patriarchies the edge they need to
splinter the male psyche until it is left with just those
elements which can be controlled by male leaders for their
own personal goals. The male role is brilliantly deceptive. It
purports to give the man &dquo;everything,&dquo; while in fact nothing,
including his masculinity, is ever securely his. The cost of
this &dquo;everything&dquo; is the male’s surrender of an emotional
spectrum necessary for satisfying relations between males
and females that could promote security and a sense of
well-being in both sexes (see Malina 1989; 1990; 1992).
Mothers have kept patriarchy in place by failing to
support the individual value of their daughters and sons
each in his and her own right. Traditional interpretations of
the &dquo;nature&dquo;of males and the &dquo;nature&dquo; of females were cre-
ated, authorized, promulgated, and maintained by patriar-
chies. Gender division lies at the base of the ranking and
separation that are integral to the understanding and display
of power in males and females whether in the private or the
public domain.
Diverse Perceptions in the Gospels
Like every other infant, Jesus too did not come with a
book that explained the meaning of his social system. He
had no reflexive explanation of his culture. He left no
instruction manual on how to write a gospel document or
what to include within it. Jesus relied on this most funda-
mental human activity of social interpretation without con-
trolling it himself. The gospel narratives likewise attest to
the difficulties Jesus’ disciples experienced as they tried to
interpret his actions. Adding to this confusion, Jesus chose
parables as the teaching form he used most often. He knew
that this form was open to diverse and even conflicting
interpretations. The spectrum of opinions that exist today
about Jesus’ life and words continue to reveal different
perspectives of the past as overlaid by contemporary agen-
das.
Interpretation, then, arises from perceptions that are
first shaped and supported by the social group. Jesus and his
followers were located within the people, Israel. This people
lived within the broader Eastern Mediterranean culture
area. Israel’s sriptures witness to the constant interplay of
influences that shaped its own identity in relation to its
neighbors. Israel shared and accepted the sharp patriarchal
distinctions that the broad social world established between
male and female roles. It shared this separation and disparity
as the underpinning for its perception of the universe. The
Gospels clearly demonstrate that first-century Mediterra-
nean society formed the social system in which they were
rooted. Israel’s scriptures were interpreted in the light of
Israel’s cultural experiences within this social system. The
frequent citation of scripture, the use of gender-specific titles
for Jesus (e.g., prophet, messiah, son of David), and the
underlying premise that Jesus was &dquo;fulfilling scripture&dquo; illus-
trate this link between social perception and subsequent
interpretations of Jesus’ life and death.
At every level of gospel development, socially shared
conceptions shape perception. The most basic level of the
gospel tradition has been described as the level located at
the time of Jesus’ activity and in the context of his ministry;
it dates directly to what Jesus said and did. Of course reports
of what Jesus said and did even at this basic level bear all the
hallmarks of the cultural context. Human perception is
more complicated than the mere witness to &dquo;what is out
there.&dquo; Perception is selective. One invariably perceives
objects only according to already existing categories. This
means that perception is not a passive recording of stimuli
but an active concern of the mind. In principle, there is no
difference between percept and concept (Arnheim: 28-37).
First of all, this means that perception is selective and
dependent upon already existing categories. There is no
simple perception of what one sees and hears. All percep-
tions depend upon already existing conceptions. The fact
that only certain sayings or events of Jesus are recalled
witnesses to a selection process based on something larger
and more inclusive. Second, Jesus said and did many things
that were probably recalled but never found their way into
a gospel. One reason for this exclusion was simply that not
everything about Jesus was relevant or appropriate to the
overall language form known as &dquo;gospel.&dquo; The gospel(s)
proclaim that the kingdom of God was inaugurated in the
person of Jesus with the expectation of change and belief in
the listener. As a literary form, gospel is proclamation with
the expectation of ongoing change.
Given the premise that there is no perception without
a guiding social conception, and that the literary form of
gospel is neither modern history nor psychological biogra-
phy, perhaps it is impossible to answer that most basic
question, what did Jesus actually say and do? The Gospels
can yield perspectives only on those areas that come within
the interests and concerns of what the literary form of gospel
sets out to proclaim. In other words, it might be more helpful
to talk about the diverse perspectives in the extant docu-
ments rather than to seek levels or strata in the Gospels as
though the earliest level somehow transmits more of the
history or biography of Jesus. Yet information about what
Jesus said and did would remain unknown to us except for
the Gospels in their present form. And within those four
writings, he is described only in relation to God, to believers,
to non-believers, and to various manifestations of nature.
He has no independent or separate identity apart from these
relations.
Jesus as the Normative Male in the Gospels
Patriarchal societies have long regarded the male as the
normative human being. The public domain,
fully formed,
considered to be the proper arena for men, was likewise
given preeminence over the domestic domain, considered to
be the proper arena for women. All respectable women were
attached to the households of some male relative, usually
fathers, brothers, or husbands. This made unsupervised
women off-limits to non-family men. According to the pre-
vailing social script, Jesus chose male disciples because he
taught and worked in public. With regard to gender roles in
first-century Mediterranean patriarchy, there are two ques-
tions that require a closer look. First, did the role that Jesus
exemplified suggest the superiority of the male role over the
female role? Second, does the fact that Jesus was a male who
chose other males to be his core grourp replicate the patri-
archal principle that men are superior to women?
161
 Only as the gospel narratives unfold does one begin to
see that the kingdom of God is not based on external force,
power, control, or public legislation, but on God’s favor. In
society, power usually manifests itself as control, the ability
to havc one’s own way repeatedly despite opposition. Such
power gives one status. Status is &dquo;normally and actively
protective of itself, does not allow of being mistaken for what
is lower, insists on being acknowledged for what it is and
makes vigorous and vigilant assertion of itself&dquo; (Cragg: 30).
Status continues to depend on control, and control reaffirms
power. According to the Christian witness to the word and
example of Jesus, proper interpersonal relations are the
central feature of God’s kingdom, not power. Power, status,
and control do not foster the kinds of relations that reflect
God’s way with human beings. Thus all relations, with God,
with the family, ethnic group, males, females, outsiders,
enemies, sinners, etc., are the concern of the Gospels. Proper
interpersonal relations are called righteousness (White).
The Gospels are expected to inspire change and belief that
establish interpersonal relations according to the heart and
mind of God.
Jesus’ understanding of how God fathered necessitated
that Jesus adopt a role that shared a greater affinity with
those whose status was earned in self expenditure on behalf
of others, in cherishing the other at one’s own expense. This
role was completely at odds with the demands of social worth
that required that the male remain actively protective of his
status, vigilant that he not be mistaken for one who is lower,
and vigorously insistent on being acknowledged for what he
is. Jesus embodied a role that attributed worth to the life-
giving and nurturing functions society expected the
wife/mother to perform. As God’s style of fathering necessi-
tated that he impose limitations on his own power, so did
Jesus’ style of being male necessitate that he accept a role
where he was quite literally poured out for others. Claims to
honor were now rooted in the worth of service: &dquo;The meas-
ure you give will be the measure you get&dquo; (Mark 4:24); &dquo;If
anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of
all&dquo; (Mark 9:35//Matt 20:2?//Luke 22:26).
Why speak of Jesus’ &dquo;mothering&dquo; as opposed to the more
generic &dquo;serving&dquo;? Unlike the slave or brother, the
wife/mother distinctively reflected and symbolized within
her person the household of her husband. The wife was
authorized by her husband to represent him to his children,
to the larger family, and when necessary to outsiders. Preg-
nancy, birth, and feeding intimately linked the woman’s
body with her role. In this role, suffering and for many
women even death were the outcome of giving birth (John
16:21 ) . Food, which symbolized bonds and relations, how
the family saw itself in relation to others, was the special
responsibility of the wife. Similarly Jesus’ body was intimately
linked with his life-giving, nurturing role. In addition to
162
feeding, teaching the uninitiated, and healing those sick in
the household were primary duties of the woman. Con-
cerned not to bring attention to herself, which would dis-
honor the male in whom she was embedded, the female
conducted herself modestly in public. Finally, the
wife/mother was prepared to give her life not only to bear
children, but to protect them against outside forces when
they threatened to deprive her husband of his children or
his belongings. A &dquo;mothering&dquo; intepretation of Jesus’ life
unifies his teachings and actions without sacrificing the
image of God whose fathering does not reflect the con-
straints that honor placed on male behavior.
The gospel norm for the &dquo;ideal male&dquo; is Jesus. He was
authorized to act on behalf of the Father in Heaven. Jesus’
response to that fathering transformed the male roles that
was controlled by the demands of the values associated with
ascribed honor and status created by society into a role based
on new values, where male status was earned through self
expenditure on behalf of others. Jesus chose men as disciples
because they had free access to public places. He then
expected them to act in public not as typical Mediterranean
males, but like himself. The Gospels do not endorse the
superiority of men. They require men to change the values
bound up with the traditional male gender role so as to
reflect the example of Jesus, whose focus was the acquisition
of honor through nurture and nature (see Jacobs-Malina:
11-74) .
The Experience of God’s Fathering
in Jesus’ Identity Formation
God’s unique way of fathering human beings as pre-
sented in the Gospels shaped Jesus’ attitude towards them.
Most notably these include those who were socially catego-
rized as enemies, sinners, the unclean, and outsiders. The
Father’s behavior sets the standard for his children: &dquo;You
therefore must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect&dquo;
(Matt 5:48). God’s perfection is manifested by making the
sun rise and set on one and all, on the evil and the good, and
by sending the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust
(Matt 5:45). The Jesus of Luke says, &dquo;Love your enemies,
and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and
your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most
High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. Be
merciful, even as your Father is merciful&dquo; (that is, giving out
of abundance, not out of obligation (Luke 6:35, 36). God’s
unique fathering was reinforced by Jesus in Matt 23:9: &dquo;And
call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father,
who is in heaven.&dquo; Such goodness as manifested by God was
likewise in its own category: &dquo;No one is good but God alone&dquo;
(Mark 10:18//Matt 19:17//Luke 18:19). This perception of
God is the unique revelation of Jesus and is not known apart
from his words and actions.
Sonship and Identity
The Gospels intimate that Jesus’ personal experience of
God’s fathering lay at the root of the two main terms used
to describe him: son of man and son of God. The meaning or
significance of these terms is to be found within the social
world. First, the term son of man has been described as a
translation of the Aramaic bar nasha: &dquo;[I]n this phrase ’son’
(or daughter) prefixed to a collective noun [man] indicates
an individual member of the species; the Gk and Eng trans-
lations are excessively literal, since the phrase means ’the
man’ or ’a man’ &dquo; (McKenzie: 831). The Gospels present
Jesus as using this term to describe himself. In so doing, Jesus
acknowledges that he is who he is because he is a member
of the human species. In a time and place where personal
identity was circumscribed by the family and group, Jesus’
perception of his family and group warrants serious atten-
tion. It likewise requires attentive explanation within the
context of his social system. In declaring that his mother and
brothers and sisters are those who do the will of God (Mark
3:31-35//Matt 12:46-50//Luke 8:19-21), Jesus introduced a
perspective that locates his identity outside his family of
origin.
Descendants as Possessions
Several cultural presuppositions be
must clearly
pressed relative Jesus’ membership in Israel. Time is one
to
of the foundations of power in a patriarchy (Sabbah: 72-73).
Chronology determines precedence based on who came
first. Precedence establishes a relation of possession,
whether with things or with people. God existed first, and
everything is his possession. He is owed submission because
he is first. The relation from which this application arises is
the relation of the father to his children. They are his
possessions, and they owe him submission. Descendants are
the property of their ancestors. The correct relation between
ancestor and descendant is one of submission. Romans
called their ancestors maiores natu, those greater by virtue of
birth; they could only try to live up to them as they observed
all the ordinances of the ancestors (Arendt). Christians, in
turn, underscored their obligation of submission to Jesus the
Christ because he was firstborn: of many brethren (Rom
8:29), of all creation (Col 1:15), from the dead (Col 1:18;
Rev 1:15). A person with precedence is, in effect, &dquo;lord,&dquo; a
person with power requiring submission by others. Consider
the use of Ps 110 in the discussion of whether or not the
Christ can be possessed or owned by David:
And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, &dquo;How can the
scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself,
inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, ’The Lord said to my
Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy
feet’ David himself calls him Lord; so how is he his son?&dquo;
[Mark 12:35, 36//Matt 22:41-46//Luke 20:41~4].
David himself acknowledges his submission to this &dquo;Lord&dquo;
who sits at the right hand of &dquo;my Lord [God]&dquo; while God
(not the Messiah) subjugates the Messiah’s enemies.
Precedence and Possession
If time determines precedence, and precedence deter-
mines power and possession, it would seem that Jesus does
not consider the Christ to be owned or possessed by David.
While the gospel narrative may include genealogies and
terms for Jesus such as son of David, the perspective attrib-
uted to Jesus fails to use the possessive pronouns &dquo;my&dquo; or
&dquo;our&dquo; when referring to Israel’s ancestors, law, or land. &dquo;This
generation&dquo; is used to refer to the people, Israel, his contem-
poraries. The various groups within Israel are referred to by
name (e.g., Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees) without implying
adherence to, or personal membership in any of them. In
each of the Synoptics, as mentioned above, Jesus abandons
his own immediate family of birth when he announces that
his mother, brothers, and sister are in fact only those who do
the will of God. So, while Jesus was born a member of Israel
(a perspective that is important to the gospel writers), in a
specific family, there is another voice in each Gospel that
maintains something quite different. This perspective main-
tains that as son of man, or as an individual member of his
ex-
species, no family or tribe &dquo;owned&dquo; Jesus.
The Johannine concern for precedence and possession
is expressed where Jesus claims to have existed before Abra-
ham (John 8:48-59), and was spoken of by Moses (John
5:46) and Isaiah (John 12:41). Eventually he makes refer-
ence to the life he enjoyed with God before the world was
made (John 17:5). Each of these passages exemplifies a
perspective that denies Jesus’ having been possessed by
Israel. This is reinforced when Jesus uses possessive pro-
nouns for Israel that exclude him: e.g., &dquo;your law&dquo; (John
8:17; 10:34) and &dquo;their law&dquo; (John 15:25); &dquo;your father&dquo;
(John 8:38ff); &dquo;your father the devil&dquo; (John 8:44); and &dquo;your
father Abraham&dquo; (John 8:56). John’s use of the title son of
God must likewise reflect the cultural belief that children
received from their father everything that made them to be
who they were. The identity and role of the child flowed
from this relation.
John’s &dquo;son of God&dquo; ties in with that other gospel
perspective that declares that Jesus did not receive his life,
his identity, or his role either from his family of origin or from
Israel. It seems that the title son of God takes up where his
163
self-designation as &dquo;son of man&dquo; leaves off. This &dquo;son of man&dquo;
received his &dquo;everything&dquo; from God and remained totally
dependent on God for his life, his identity, and his role. But
something more than this was being conveyed in the title
son of God, which arose within gospel situations where Jesus
repeatedly asserts that he does only what he is authorized to
do. So, while the social group surrounding him believed that
a prophet communicated information from God, Jesus de-
clared that he was more than a prophet (Matt 12:41//Luke
11:32). Where the temple was viewed as the location of
God’s presence, Jesus declared he was more than the temple
(Matt 12:6; in John 2:19-21 he referred to himself as the
new temple). Where wisdom was sought after, Jesus declared
that he had something more to offer (Matt 12:42//Luke
11:31).
This &dquo;something more&dquo; Jesus derives from the largess
and abundance that characterized God’s relation with his
creatures. This perspective contrasted sharply with the pre-
vailing social perception that no one is closer to God than a
prophet, priest, or king. In addition to this, from the patri-
archal perception of the universe, as man was above woman,
so was God above man. Gender roles allocated ruling to the
male and made nature and nurture the sphere of the woman.
The separation between these two roles was as absolute as
the disparity that reinforced the gender roles keeping both
man and woman in his and her respective places. Not
surprisingly, God was perceived as having a place that nec-
essarily limited both his availability and his access to the
created order, which ranked far below him. In a world of
patrons, mediators, and clients, the prophet and priest acted
as mediators between God and human beings. The perspec-
tive attributed to Jesus is quite different.
God’s Fathering Shapes His Ruling
’
Parables such as the great supper (Luke 14: 15ft) portray
a God whose essence requires largess. The stories of the rich
man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19) and the unforgiving steward
(Matt 18:23ffJ point out the relation between God’s largess
and the standards by which he judges others. Jesus’ example
not only witnessed to a God committed to nature and
nurture, but his parables reveal a God whose style of father-
ing determines how he rules. God relies on invitation,
change, and development. This curtailment of power is
more in keeping with the parent who supports the child
throughout the various developmental stages without the
need to be in control of that child. According to this model,
the parents support development by relinquishing more and
more &dquo;power&dquo; to the child. This relinquishment of power is
geared to the developmental pace of the child, not to the
schedule, agenda, or personal needs of the parent. God’s
response to a world characterized by varying types and
164
degrees of inequality was not to reserve himself and remain
aloof as society believed his status demanded. In a world
shaped by inequality and inequity, the proper posture is one
of bending over or stooping down to raise up those who have
less. Those who are healthy help those who are sick. Those
who have power relinquish power to those whom they
oppress.
This was Jesus’ experience of God because this was what
God was doing in Jesus, bending over, stooping down, giving
freely to benefit those who have less. Why? Because the
essence of God is abundance, superfluity poured out for the
nurture and growth of everyone. Within the Gospels, this
was Jesus’ experience of being a son of God as a human being.
Because this insight into God’s fathering was never articu-
lated in the social perception of Jesus’ world, his followers
depended on Jesus’ perception of God. Human beings ad-
vance from one stage to the next in relation to someone who
has successfully passed through that stage. Each of the
Gospels gives examples of something Jesus said or did that
his disciples did not understand until after the resurrection.
The Gospels do not present Jesus as uncomprehending
about what God was doing in him. Israel was uncompre-
hending, and more specifically, his twelve disciples were
uncomprehending.
God’s Fathering Shaped Jesus’ Identity
Jesus’ followers were initiated into another perception
of God during their daily relations with Jesus. It seems that
his willingness to die arose from his own experience of God’s
unlimited self-giving and not from the prevailing social
perception of God as one who demanded sacrifice to atone
for sins. Jesus declared that he alone knows God and reveals
the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22). This, then, is the
something more that the title son of God includes. The
gospel standpoint is that Jesus knows God, not as a prophet
but as a son. God was accessible to Jesus, and Jesus was
completely available to God. This was more than what wise
men experience (Matt 12:42), more than what prophets
experience (Matt 12:41 ) , more than what Israel experienced
in the temple (Matt 12:6) . While the best metaphor was that
of a son whose &dquo;everything&dquo; came from his father, Jesus’
degree of embeddedness in God and his dependence on God
were more like that of a woman with her husband than what
was expected of any son in relation to his father.
According to the Gospels, Jesus’ personal experience of
God’s fathering inspired him to fashion a role for himself and
his male followers that called them to directly participate in
God’s nurture and care for others, a role that had previously
been reserved for women. Those who received these over-
tures from the person of Jesus were taught to call God Father
because, in fact, God was fathering them. Human beings are
expected to forgive the failings of others because God has
forgiven them. This quality or perfection of God forms the
basis of righteousness. Such patient treatment by God of
those who thwart his designs is expected to have a ripple
effect in the lives of all human beings who at one time or
another miss the mark. God’s overtures that are manifested
in this style of fathering form the perspective that is both
unique to and characteristic of Jesus as presented only in the
Gospels. The uniqueness of God’s parenting manifests itself
in how God rules his Kingdom (or &dquo;world&dquo; in John). That
reign is established, maintained, and extended through the
free conversion and belief of each individual and the activity
of God’s Spirit. This kind of kingdom remains without
antecedent or successor. Indeed, this mystery of the King-
dom is also the unique revelation of Jesus.
God’s Kingdom and Jesus’ Identity
Thus, according to one perspective in the Gospels, the
polity that claims Jesus’ loyalty is not Israel, but the kingdom
of God. The way God fathers his creatures sets the standard
for those who acknowledge God’s involvement and receive
his care. Membership in the Kingdom is evident in the words
and actions of those whose lives reflect God’s fathering. This
perspective includes all those traditions in the Gospels
which promulgate values and behavior that are alien to
Israel’s religious perspective, as well as the normative cul-
tural expectations of Mediterranean society at large. Exam-
ples from the Gospels include establishing a family based on
belief rather than blood (Mark 3:33, 34), changing what
constitutes honorable behavior (Matt 5-8), advocating that
the leader should be the slave of all (Matt 20:24-28),
declaring that alL status is earned (Matt 23:11, 12), that
reconciliation has primacy over sacrifice (Matt 5:23-25),
that revenge should be abandoned (Matt 5:38, 39), that evil
should not be eliminated by force (Matt 5:44), that what
pollutes comes from the inside and not the outside (Mark
7:20).
The Gospels’ images of God’s &dquo;fathering&dquo; and Jesus’
&dquo;mothering&dquo; that establish a new understanding of gender
roles and parenting have been presented elsewhere (Jacobs-
Malina). The standards for parenting that arise in the Gos-
pels flow from Jesus’ revelation of God as both Lord and
Father. He is at one and the same time ruler of the Kingdom
and Father to those in his household. In many respects the
Kingdom can be called the central riddle of the Gospels.
&dquo;What lies at hand, is far from you, has come upon you, may
be entered, may not be entered, suffers violence, belongs to
children, those who are poor, and the persecuted?&dquo; Many
other versions of this riddle are possible. But who might rule
such a kingdom? The apparent answer is someone who does
not impose himself in this world through superior strength,
force, intimidation,or power. Instead, God is dependent on
the innocence and goodness with which each human being
enters the world, on the direction towards health and inte-
gration inherent in human nature, and on the ability of
human beings to evolve and to change.
Substantive internalized change requires security, time,
Creating an environment in which
support, and options.
people could feel secure was something Jesus did whether in
a boat during a late night storm (Matt 8:23ff), in the wilder-
ness where there was no food (Mark 8: Iff), in a house where
people were stricken with the death of a loved one (Luke
8:51 ft), in open spaces crowded with sick people (Mark
3:7ff), at a wedding where the wine had run out (John 2: ft),
at a public dinner where the host snickered at the reputation
of a woman (Luke 7:36ff), or in a public gathering where
another woman had been accused of adultery (John 8:lff).
Jesus created situations that allowed people to change. He
also told stories about men and women who searched for,
and welcomed the lost (Matt 18:12ff), satisfied the needs of
neighbors late at night (Luke 1 l:5ff), of farmers who waited
until harvest to sort the weeds from the wheat so as not to
destroy the good with the bad (Matt 13:36ff), of wealthy
patrons whose largess required guests even after those in-
vited refused to come (Matt 22: Iff), of landlords who bore
patiently the violent actions of tenants throughout repeated
overtures (Luke 20:9ff), of unscrupulous rulers who knew
how to reward those who served them (Luke 19: lff), and
of harsh judges who could be moved to action on behalf of
the powerless by persistence (Luke 18: Iff). Jesus revealed a
God who was at least as responsive as sinful human beings
could be.
When Jesus introduced God as Father, he made the
domestic world of needs and nurture the proper sphere from
which to draw analogies. In doing so, Jesus introduced
another perception of God that allowed new vistas and
options for human behavior. Jesus declared that there was
only one who should be called Father (Matt 23:9), and there
was only one who deserved to be called &dquo;good&dquo; (Mark
10:18). As Father, God inspred belief, trust, and confidence.
Jesus did not want him confused with, nor limited by the role
society created for fathers. Full human development de-
pends on satisfying basic human needs for security, food and
drink, clothing and shelter, for learning, self-respect, auton-
omy, and loving relations. Jesus introduced a Father whose
commitment to his children put him in the forefront of
acknowledging human needs: &dquo;Your heavenly Father knows
you need them all. But seek first his kingdom and his
righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well&dquo;
(Matt 6:33). This final admonition leaves no doubt that
basic human needs cannot be met until human beings
change their behavior and embody God’s vision of interper-
sonal relations. This vision of interpersonal relations, right-
165
eousness, necessarily includes changing both the domestic Gilmore, David D. (Editor)
world and the public or political arena. These changes must 1987 Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean.

begin in the domestic domain with parenting practices and Special Publication of the American Anthropological
Association, 22. Washington, DC: American Anthro-
the belief that children are owned by their parents. But it
polgical Association.
encompasses the traditional patriarchal understanding of
Jacobs-Malina, Diane
gender roles and power as well. 1993 Beyond Patriarchy: The Images of Family in Jesus.
Human beings live with a range of cultural perceptions, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
interpretations, and options that call for behavior contrary Klein, Carol
to the designs of God. Yet this is the world in which God Mothers and Sons. New York, NY:
1984 Houghton Mifflin.
chooses to invite and to inspire, rather than to rule by
coercion or brute force. Being a sinner has never halted nor Lew, Mike
1988 Victims No Longer. New York, NY: Nevraumont.
inhibited the flow of God’s largess. It can, however, make
one unwilling to receive, and unable to believe in anyone. Lipman-Blumen, Jean
Sin does not control God’s generosity, only the human ability 1984 Gender Roles and Power. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice-Hall.
to be the beneficiary of that abundance. God’s response to
sinners was not to send Jesus with more laws and new threats McKenzie, S.J., John L.
of punishment. Instead, he sent the one he called beloved 1965 The Dictionary of the Bible. Milwaukee, WI: Bruce
not to die but to live among sinners in order to be with them. Publishing Co.
Only then could God in Jesus teach, heal, feed, empathize- Malina, Bruce J.
in other words, nurture and care for his children. This gospel 1989 "Dealing with Biblical (Mediterranean) Characters: A
Guide for U.S. Consumers." Biblical Theology Bulletin
viewpoint receives its clearest articulation in John (1:14, 19: 127-41.
16): &dquo;And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full
of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the 1990 "Mary—Woman of the Mediterranean: Mother and
Son." Biblical Theology Bulletin 20: 54-64.
only son from the Father.... And from his fullness have we
all received, grace upon grace.&dquo; 1992 "Is There a Circum-Mediterranean Person: Looking for
Stereotypes." Biblical Theology Bulletin 22: 66-87.
Works Cited Pilch, John J.
1991 Introducing the
Cultural Context of the Old Testament.
Hear the Word, 1. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Arendt, Hannah
1958 "What Was Authority?" Pp. 81-112 in Nomos I: 1993 "’Beat His Ribs While He Is Young’ (Sir 30:12): A
Window on the Mediterranean World." Biblical Theol-
Authority (Carl J. Friedrich, ed.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. ogy Bulletin 23: 101-13.

Arnheim, Rudolf Sabbah, Fatna A.

1971 Visual Thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California 1984 Woman in the Muslim Unconscious. The Athene Series.
Press. Boston, MA: Pergamon.
Chodorow, Nancy Stettbacher, J. Konrad
1978 The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley, CA: Univer- 1991 Making Sense of Suffering. New York, NY: Dutton.
sity of California Press. White, Leland J.
Cragg, Kenneth 1985 "Grid and Group in Matthew’s Community: The
1985 Jesus and the Muslim. London, UK: George Allen & Righteousness/Honor Code in the Sermon on the
Unwin. Mount." Semeia 35: 61-90.

166