The Christian Bible is the most read book in the world. And the impact of the Bible’s wide readership can be seen everywhere—in history, in modern day, in politics, in culture. Even in the United States, which does not consider itself a Christian nation, Judeo-Christian values have often been cited as integral to its political foundations. The pledge to the flag describes a nation under God, hopeful officials running for office use their faith to build credibility, and God or the divine is mentioned in every single state constitution (Sandstrom). It is fair to assume that something so involved in the justification of establishment, and that something so widely consumed and accepted, is pro-establishment. But the reality is more complicated than that. Jesus’s teachings, and the other content of the Bible, though seemingly preaching passivity and reinforcing the existing hierarchical structure, express revolutionary sentiments that attempt to support and uplift the most oppressed parts of society.
In the First Letter of Paul to Corinthians, Paul, Apostle of Jesus, uses metaphor to describe the purpose of God’s people and convey the teachings of Jesus. He describes a body, symbolic of God’s larger purpose, made up of body parts, symbolic of people of different status, that compose the larger purpose (Henebry). Some of the body parts are seemingly more esteemed than other parts, hands better than feet, eyes better than ears. However, Paul enumerates that “those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor,” implying that those of lower status still should be
treated with respect (New International Version, Corinthians 12-13). In a time of strict hierarchy and slavery as a commonplace institution, Paul’s statement could easily be read as radical. In this metaphor, Paul puts the slave on the same level as a king. Not only does he put the slave on the same level as the king, but by also insisting on the lower strata of society being deserving of a “special honor,” he, in some ways, puts the slave as above a king (New International Version, Corinthians 12-13). Paul’s ideas about the necessity of every part of society, from servant to monarch, is a threat to most institutions because it disrupts power dynamic and hierarchy. When arguing that each group is inherently equal, it implies an equal necessity, further confirmed by Paul’s support of treating certain groups with “special honor” (New International Version, Corinthians 12-13). And when asserting equal necessity, Paul is also implying that people of different status’s groups deserve equal treatment. Rhetoric that emphasizes equality and equal treatment of all groups undermines authority, and Jesus’s teachings could easily be read as a separation from establishment.
However, rhetoric of equality is not necessarily inherent in Paul’s metaphor. Though each part of the body has worth, they should not attempt to change the body as it is (Henebry). Paul argues that “God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be,” and that if there were only noses or ears, there would be no body (New International Version, Corinthians 12-13). Most subjugated people want the rights and privileges of those above them, hence, within the metaphor, people would prefer to be a different body part. The slave would most likely prefer to be a king, as a nose may prefer to be a hand. However, Paul is not in favor of this line of thinking. People who are of a lower strata should not attempt to disrupt hierarchy or demand better treatment, because their worth is already inherent in the eyes of God. And, as Paul explains, “if they were all one part, what would the body be,” furthering that God’s
purpose is within the existing social order (New International Version, Corinthians 12-13). Pragmatically, the body, or society, could not function without the hierarchy it is built on, so the nose cannot become a hand. Paul justifies hierarchy as part of God’s will, by explaining that there is a greater reason why certain groups are subjugated. The grander purpose of God that Paul explores through the metaphor of the body upholds institutions, and suppresses a radical want to disrupt commonplace hierarchy. In Paul’s metaphor, to improve one’s station and disrupt social orders, is to go against the will of God.
How can these two stances from the same text be reconciled? Is the inherent worth of the oppressed negated by the fact they are discouraged to change positions in society? Perhaps Paul is trying to create a sense of complacency that keeps society functioning as is, supporting the highly stratified societies of the time. Or maybe there is a radical sentiment in the idea that people who are of lower status do not have to change their position to have worth, a threat to the monarchs and nobles who often undermined and exploited their worth. Though Paul does advocate for existing structures, this does not necessarily take away from his metaphor calling for reform. Dismantling a system is not the only form of radical change. It can exist incrementally and through reshaping values. There is nothing inherently wrong with a toe or nose, only in the way society treats the toe and nose. What Paul argues for may seem like maintaining an oppressive system, but this is not the case. When advocating for the equal treatment of all, he is doing something more transformative. He is reshaping values. A slave becoming a king, as a nose becoming a hand, serves no function to anyone. It simply perpetuates a cycle. Reshaping values, honoring the work of the oppressed, giving them a “special honor,” does more to fix an unjust system than to wreck and rebuild (New International Version, Corinthians 12-13). In many ways, reshaping values disrupts the cycle.
Often, when radicalism comes to mind, it has a connotation of violent upending action. It is bloody and destructive. Radical reform is so deeply associated with violence that it seems to be mutually exclusive with pacifism. However, this is not always the case, as clearly seen with Jesus’s teachings. Radicalism can be peaceful, slow, and progressive. Paul’s sentiments about oppressed peoples resemble a very real progressivism, one that happens slowly and with growing respect. It is a radicalism rooted in community and mutualism. It is one that acknowledges the work of the oppressed. Jesus’s teachings do not intend to destroy the body and bloody it, but rather treat it with the honor it deserves. At the heart of Paul’s letter is the value of respecting the body, understanding the necessity of each part, and reshaping and upending cycles without destruction. And though it may not be concurrent with modern ideas of radicalism, it deeply reforms societies.
Works Cited
Henebry, Charles. “The Politics of the Body.” 2022, Boston University, Boston University.
New International Version. Excerpted by Charles Henebry ed., Zondervan, 2011.
Sandstrom, Aleksandra. “God or the Divine Is Referenced in Every State Constitution.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 27 Aug. 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/17/god-or-the-divine-is-referenced-in-every-state-constitution/