Hidden Transcripts in the Bible

This post has been inspired by my Romans professor Dr. Douglass Campbell.  I am sharing his insights on the Romans text I am analyzing, and I am making these connections with I Peter.

When we approach Scripture, when we sit to read the Bible, we must understand a few points that are essential to healthy reading:
1. We cannot remove anything from the Scriptures.  They contain 66 different 'books', some of which are truly books and others which are letters, poems, etc.  All of Scripture is Christian Scripture and must be understood as such for a healthy reading.
2. Areas of problem within Scripture, specifically paradoxes, are areas of particular opportunity!  When we see something that doesn't add up, we are forced to dig deeper within to find God's wisdom, which means we are close!
3. We must not assume that we can interpret Scripture fully on our own.  We must read Scripture in community with other Christians--theologians and scholars, pastors and deacons, along with people of different races, backgrounds and social class.  No one person will see everything correctly; all of us together will see something much more profound than any one of us.
4. We affirm the high value of Scripture as "God-inspired".  This does not, however, mean that Scripture is "inerrant" as is defined by fundamentalism.  But liberal Protestantism, fundamentalism's opposite, also employs some poor methods--Scripture is not merely a reflection of human thought and universal morals.  We cannot say Scripture is "inerrant" because doing so we destroy its context and assume that we know what it means; we cannot say Scripture is merely a reflection of humanity because we affirm the divine inspiration of its contents.  Therefore, we approach the Bible in a "moderate" fashion, as most Christians through most of history.
5. Scripture must be read in context.  No two texts should be approached in exactly the same way because each is unique and is in a unique context.  The words, paragraphs and expositions are in a particular order for a reason, to communicate a particular message.  All of Scripture is in conversation with all other parts of Scripture; this means that all Scripture is in context with all other Scripture in diverse and varying ways.
6. There are multiple interpretations in different Scriptures, some of which are good, and others which are less good.  Good Christians of all types interpret Scripture in many ways, and we need to accept that we are never perfect with our interpretation nor are those with whom we disagree "evil" or "lacking" in faith.

Romans 13:1-7 is an excellent example of a problem text for Christians.  This text tells us to obey earthly authorities as if instituted by God.  Taken on the surface only, we would assume that this Scripture wants us to revere earthly authorities as if God.  But something smells fishy here...let's read further.

If we read Romans 12:9-21, we see Paul making a transition.  In 12:9-13, we have a short list of items that Paul exhorts us to undertake--"let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good, love one another with mutual affection", etc.  Then in 12:14-21 we see a change of vocabulary.  In each sentence, Paul is urging us to "repay" evil with good.  He lists those who might rise against us: those who "persecute", those who would make us want to "avenge" ourselves, and "enemies".  Paul is drawing division between two types of people: "we" who do good and "they" who do evil to us.  But who are "they"?  Who are these people upon whose heads we are called to heap burning coals?!  "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."  What is the "evil" we are to overcome?

Then Paul immediately shifts gears, suddenly and surprisingly.  He begins: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."  Paul is using language of "them" vs. "we", but now "we" have switched places with "them", and we are now the targets of judgment, should we resist authority!  Something strange is going on here--verse 4 says "If you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain!"  Wait, isn't this the same God that brought the Messiah who was to beat swords into plowshares?!  Why all of a sudden has God changed his mind about so much, acting against his people with a swift and mighty sword at the hand of Caesar?!

Dr. Campbell claims that what Paul is writing in this section is a strategy in his letter-writing against the authorities he claims to uphold.  Paul, who is creating upset in the Mediterranean and is soon to be imprisoned for his strange new gospel, is seeking to ensure that the authorities who censor the mail for the empire are not suspicious of his work.  Much like people writing from jails today, or like those whom the government deems dangerous, his letter would possibly have been intercepted, which would have put himself and the congregation at Rome in jeopardy.  This is especially true given that the city of Rome was the heart of the empire.  This paragraph, Dr. Campbell proposes, was inserted in order to divert the attention of authorities, while functioning as a subtle, underlying resistance to the same authorities.

Think about people of the lower class in any society and the ways they speak their language.  Often, people of the lower and/or servant classes speak very differently than those who are wealthy, educated and powerful.  This was true in Victorian England (Downtown Abby anyone?!), this was true among African-American slaves, and the same is true today among modern-day gang members and drug traffickers.  These people develop a subtle "subtext" with their language in order to divert the attention of the ruling class, especially by making them believe that they are supportive of the current order.

So when Paul is telling the Romans to be subject to the governing authorities, they would have understood that this is not in his character, and he does not actually want them to act in this way; rather, as early Christians who were primarily of lower-class and servant-class people, they would have understood that this insertion of text was functioning both to protect them against the government and acting as a mini-resistance to the authority.  Dr. Campbell's theory can easily be supported by a closer look at the evidence.

The last part of 13:4 reads: "It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer."  But out of the entire Old Testament, Paul cites this particular verse back in 12:19: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'"  Here Paul is citing Deuteronomy 32:35.  Now, if you were a Roman Christian receiving this letter, you might be clever to go back to your Bible (which was still only the Old Testament) and look up the context of that verse.  Here is a selection of the passage from verse 28 through 38:

28 They are a nation void of sense;
    there is no understanding in them.
29 If they were wise, they would understand this;
    they would discern what the end would be.
30 How could one have routed a thousand,
    and two put a myriad to flight,
unless their Rock had sold them,
    the Lord had given them up?
31 Indeed their rock is not like our Rock;
    our enemies are fools.[k]
32 Their vine comes from the vinestock of Sodom,
    from the vineyards of Gomorrah;
their grapes are grapes of poison,
    their clusters are bitter;
33 their wine is the poison of serpents,
    the cruel venom of asps.

34 Is not this laid up in store with me,
    sealed up in my treasuries?
35 Vengeance is mine, and recompense,
    for the time when their foot shall slip;
because the day of their calamity is at hand,
    their doom comes swiftly.

36 Indeed the Lord will vindicate his people,
    have compassion on his servants,
when he sees that their power is gone,
    neither bond nor free remaining.
37 Then he will say: Where are their gods,
    the rock in which they took refuge,
38 who ate the fat of their sacrifices,
    and drank the wine of their libations?
Let them rise up and help you,
    let them be your protection!

Fascinating!  "They" are a nation void of sense, and the LORD alone will vindicate his people.  God is not apt to use Sodom and Gomorrah as his source of judgment upon his own people, as the Lord vindicates, not Rome.  This connection of texts is critical for understanding the background, underlying current which Paul is subtly conveying to the Christians in Rome.

Romans 13:7 and 13:8 are possibly the most convincing pair of verses, however, for us to examine and compare with this claim.  Read them together, without the paragraph break found in most Bibles: "Pay to all what is due them--taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.  Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law."  Either Paul has a multiple-personality disorder, or is using his language to subtly communicate his gospel which rejects authority of Caesar in favor of God's singular authority.  Suddenly, Paul returns in verse 8 to the "they" vs. "we" language, with "they" being sources of evil or wrongdoers.

The key message here is how Paul uses his words not to merely advise or convince the Roman Christians to act in a certain way; rather, his language is powerful through its subtleties and its hidden transcript.  The language he is using would be foreign to those outside of the Jewish/Christian world, those who did not possess the Scriptures and therefore had no context to base his letters from.  You see, lacking in context when reading Scripture is very misleading indeed!  But to the Christians at Rome, this small paragraph would have been a red flag for this secret way of speaking that would have been common among them before authorities.

Now let's look at the Book of I Peter.  This is another epistle, attributed to the apostle Peter, (probably) written after Romans to churches in another part of the Roman world.  In I Peter we find more troublesome texts with similar issues to the text we found in Romans.  However, this language use will be much more subtle and complicated!  We are lucky indeed to be studying such a complicated and rich set of texts.

First, read I Peter 2:1-12.  We see typical language of an epistle, addressing the Christians that they might act in new ways now that they are in Christ.  The language of comparison between "they" and "we" returns in a dichotomy.  "But you" (not them) "are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness" (like "they" are in) "into his marvelous light."  But now look at verse 13 and forward: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme..."  Wait, Peter--is this the same God who gave the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?!  How is it possible to consider the emperor as supreme is God is supreme, and we cannot serve more than one master?!  He continues: "...or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."  Like in Romans, we have language here of submission to authorities, who are apparently given the authority to enact God's will upon others.  And just like in Romans, Peter is using subtle language which would raise a red flag for the reader, indicating that he is subverting his own text with a deeper message.

But Peter's use is a bit different from Paul's language.  Peter doesn't just insert a simple paragraph of clear falsehood: he interweaves the subversive text naturally with the truth, and the reader would be expected (reasonably!) to differentiate.  Verse 16: "As servants of God, live as free people, yet do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil."  A Roman authority might interpret "evil" to be that against the Roman emperor; a Christian would likely understand the phrase "live as free people" to mean that Roman authority is nothing before God.

But Peter is not stopping with governmental authority; his gospel is going to target social structures that are a foundation for the Roman empire.  In verse 18, he writes: "Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference"!  But Peter just said to "live as free people"!  This, to a people who claim the story of the Exodus as God's word and Scripture!  Our God is a God of liberation, a God of freedom, a God who frees slaves from the grip of slave masters, a God who hears!  This text was never meant to imply that slavery was a righteous institution; this text radically proclaims its absurdity before our God.  The Scripture Peter quotes in verse 22 is from Isaiah 53, which is a prophetic text, proclaiming the coming of the Messiah; it speaks about how the Messiah will suffer for us, and Isaiah 54 speaks about how God will not bring his wrath against us!!  If Christ suffered for us, then why would Peter insist that we must suffer for Christ as he does in 21?  Christ does not suffer so that we suffer in his footsteps; he suffered out of his undying love for us, as a God who will go to any length to save and rescue us, and our suffering, although something we can count on in this life, is not necessary as a condition of our covenant with God.

I Peter 3:1a reads: "Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands"!  "In the same way" is clearly speaking in relation to the preceding verses which talk about slavery!!!  This section deals with the similarities between slavery and wifehood!  So if we have thoroughly understood slavery to be evil, and Peter's use of language to be clever and a deceptive subtext for the truth, then we understand him to be using the same types of language about wives.  Without going into great detail, I like to go to verse 6: "Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him lord."  If there was any doubt, then the Christians who received this letter might flip through their Old Testament Scripture to Genesis, to find.....that there is no instance where Sarah calls Abraham her lord!  In fact, Sarah appears to wear the pants in the relationship!  Why on earth would Peter cite Sarah as an example of female submission, given that just about any other woman in the Bible would have been more appropriate for the example?  Because Peter is drawing from this irony to make the point that such relationship dynamics are absurd.

The Roman Empire thrived for hundreds of years due to an incredible detail of bureaucracy, social stability and eliminating all enemies of the state.  The Roman pantheon of gods was critical in the social stability of the empire, as was the institution of slavery, as was the patriarchal society in which men were considered fully superior to women.  Peter's problem is that his teachings are in direct contrast with this society.  Again, as his mail would possibly have been intercepted, either upon first delivery or as it was circulated throughout the Christian world, he needed to ensure that those intercepting his mail would read it and be assured that Christians are nothing to fear.  This deception is not a form of wickedness; it is a mechanism for survival, not so much for Christians' sake, but for the sake of the gospel!

I Peter 3:8 appears to revert to a "typical" language, language and assertion which does not contradict Roman values directly and therefore poses no threat to Roman stability.

What we see in these two examples is the harm of losing context in reading Scripture and the importance of reading all of Scripture in conversation with all other Scripture.  It does indeed appear that in these two texts we have a problem reconciling Paul and Peter with other Scripture; but deeper within, we see a much more powerful subversion of the society at large which seeks to harm God's people and God's creation.  Social justice was not invented by liberal Christians, and social holiness was not invented by John Wesley; all of this is built into Scripture directly!  How cool is that?!

I love and covet your comments and questions.