Theology for the Masses

Friday we looked at how Thecla began her journey from the standard Roman passive feminity on through standard Roman active masculinity toward the early Christian ideal of nongendered activity.  Today, we will look at the second arc of the Acts of Thecla and see how she completes her journey.

The second arc begins in much the same way the first one does, but with a furthering of the themes presented at the conclusion of the first arc. Instead of merely passively watching Paul, Thecla is now actively following him. Paul, and therefore the branches of Christianity that claim him as an authority, claims to not know Thecla when Alexander asks about her, receding farther into femininity by becoming even more passive. When she is accosted by Alexander, “the first man of Antiochenes,” instead of tacitly rejecting him as she did her fiancé, she explicitly rejects the advances of this male, going so far as to “rip off his chlamys, an imperial or military mantle,” to “denude him of his crown, making him appear as one conquered,” [1] and to humiliate him in public. She effectively steals his honor at this point in the narrative.  We need to mention that power in antiquity was always taken from someone else, not earned or obtained by any other means.  In addition, she finally gains her voice. Up until this point she has been silent in the narrative. This rejection of male dominance enrages Alexander, the symbol of male and state dominance, at which point he hauls her in front of the governor demanding justice.

In the second episode of the second arc, the 2^nd trial of Thecla, maintains the same structure as the first trial, but continues add agency to Thecla and to further critique the standard notions of family and civic values. Queen Tryphaena becomes her replacement mother, Paul is nowhere to be found, and the female crowd comes to her defense against the absurd accusations of the court.

The climax of the second arc in the third episode is the most dramatic yet. Everything is aligned against Thecla. She is stripped naked, attacked by a lioness, an assortment of wild beasts, and almost pulled apart by the legs by two bulls that have fires lit under the “appropriate spot[s]”. Through each of these attacks on her honor and body, she is delivered by god or its agents. A cloud of fire reminiscent of the cloud that hid the glory of god during the 40 years of Israel wandering in the desert hides Thecla’s nakedness from the crowd. The lioness sent to attack befriends her and saves her from the assortment of wild animals. The cloud of fire burns the ropes connecting her to the bulls. Thus Thecla is saved once again. During the course of all of this and fearing for her life, Thecla performs the ultimate act of Christian agency, she baptizes herself. In doing so, she fulfills Paul’s foreshadowing speech in chapter 25. This climatic episode serves to signal the complete and utter victory of Thecla over her opponents.

The fourth episode brings resolution to the second arc and to the story as a whole. After her deliverance from her execution, she dresses like a male and finds Paul again. Paul still is concerned with her temptation, even though she has remained steadfast through incredible trials. Yet, perhaps because of the numbers of people who were thronging around to hear Thecla speak, Paul relents and commands her to go forth and preach. She, though her transformation, has won over that which she became enamored with at the beginning of the story.

On Wednesday we will sum up the effects of the rhetoric.  Stay tuned and tell me where I am wrong!

1. Ibid., 268. [↩]

One of the more disconcerting passages in all the Bible is the rape of Tamar, David’s daughter, by her half-brother Amnon (2 Samuel 13). As the narrative goes, Tamar is “loved” by her brother because he was tormented by her beauty. He feigns an illness to be alone with Tamar. When she brings him food to eat, he seizes her and rapes her despite her fervent resistance. After the rape, Amnon loathes his sister more than he ever “loved” her. He thrusts her away as a slave, a piece of property which was expended and now retains no value. To Amnon, she is no longer “Tamar,” she is now “this woman.” She is no longer a person who is “loved,” she is chattel to be discharged. [1]

Amnon learned this behavior from his father – that is, he learned to treat people, especially women, as property instead of humans created in God’s image. Just in the previous chapter David is finally confronted about his rape of Bathsheba and his clandestine execution of Uriah. People and their lives were mere objects to be consumed to David. He cared little for love, for family, for holiness. He cared only for consumption, and people are just another thing to be procured, retain, owned, and conquered.

What I find interesting in this whole matter is how intercourse and economics relate. As the narrative advances, we find Solomon, in the climax of his rule, with infinite wealth and thousands of sex-slaves. Women are objects to be owned – he too learned this from his father. Relationships, love, or devotion have no place in his world. Only objects exist, objects which are bought and sold, owned and operated, controlled and dominated. [2]

When economics and power become the chief agenda of a people, the objectification of others comes to dictate the landscape. This is particularly the case with sex. Sex becomes nothing more than, in our world, two consumers devouring one another, envision the other as an item whose individual purpose is to satisfy my desires without regards to the consequences of this behavior. That’s what consumerism is at its nastiest – a inexhaustible sport of stockpiling objects for one’s own agenda without considering the consequences of that consumption either for the earth, the other person, the community, or the world. It’s all about the ego.

Intercourse and economics – isn’t staggering how a person’s view on one stimulates certain assumptions about the other? When one views economics as merely a means of consumption and gaining wealth, power, and property, one will perceive sex the same way. But if economics is principally about honoring God through the giving away of one’s possessions, one will see sex differently as well. It is not about my desires, it is not about my consumption; it is about the other person, their will, their enjoyment, their desire. People are no longer objects to be owned and dominated (such as in pornography), they are people made in the Image of God! The denial of the ego in economic areas translates into the denial of the ego in the bedroom. This is why Paul lists greed right along side a bunch of sexual sins in Colossians 3. He realized the connection!

Its seems, then, that if we yearn for holiness, maybe our deity of covetousness and wealth ought to go first. If economics is linked to intercourse, imagine what else it is relates to – violence, anger, division, quarreling, pride! Maybe dispossession isn’t only about abnegation, [3] but about sanctification in all areas of life.

1. there is some credence to the thought that this objectification of women is inherent within the Torah. After all, women are listed among the property not to be coveted in the 10 Commandments. [↩]
2. Solomon’s disregard for others in favor of his own economic advancement is well documented among biblical scholars. This actually ends up splitting the kingdom after he dies, if you remember. [↩]
3. Thanks Theotica! [↩]