Daughters and Sons

But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, that he might redeem them who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons [Galatians 4:4-5, Douay-Rheims Bible (1750), ed./tr. by bishop Richard Challoner].

As I have mentioned within these weekly meditations on several occasions, I’m part of an active Bible Study that meets each Wednesday at 11 a.m., via Zoom. I haven’t cleared this with the group, but if anyone outside the Carolina Arbors community is interested in joining us online, I think we can accommodate you. In any event, we’re currently in Matthew 12, taking turns each week reading and discussing portions of the Gospel text. As any of us shares the Scripture, we try first to identify the translation from which we are reading. That way those listening can compare their translations for any shifts in wording or context.

And so, in any given week, we often hear verses read from the NKJV, the NRSV, the NIV, the Common English Bible, and sometimes—just for fun—I throw in the text from a more innocuous translation, such as the Douay-Rheims, an English translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible. In most instances, it makes little difference which translation the reader uses. There are, however, exceptions to that rule.

Take, for example, the Epistle reading assigned in the Lectionary for New Year’s Day—Galatians 4:4-7 [Revised Common Lectionary, Year C]—a portion of which I included above. This is one of many passages that was “corrected” by the inclusive language police working on several 20th century revisions to various translations.

As you know, the problem lies—at least some say—in the fact that the original Biblical text, particularly the writings of St. Paul, is chocked with pesky masculine terminology. One can go to a fine seminary like Duke or Princeton to hear and learn all about it. Particularly in recent years, they teach there that it’s all part of that great patriarchal bias so visibly exhibited by the original biblical authors. How dare those ancient authors fail to exhibit our modern sensibility when it comes to language and/or customs!

In Paul’s communication to the Galatian Church, the apostle seems—at least to many in our so-called modern time—to be particularly careless and heartless in his use of language. In this week’s Epistle lesson, for example, he writes that because of and through the redemptive actions of Jesus Christ, we might “receive the adoption of sons” [4:5]. What about the daughters, we might legitimately say?

What about the daughters, indeed? And so, the Common English Bible—one of the most highly respected, recent translations—adds “daughters” to Paul’s exclusive reference to “sons.” Many of us, particularly those of us who carefully include pronouns in our email signatures, think to ourselves, “Paul didn’t say “daughters,” but if he was as caring and erudite as we are, he would have!”

The NRSV politely changes “sons” to “children,” so as clearly to include both boys and girls. Alas, the NKJV keeps the less-than-inclusive masculine reference to “sons.” The NIV changes the phrasing just a bit, saying that through Christ’s actions, “we might receive adoption to sonship [emphasis added]—more about that later.

I can hear your comments now. “Tom, what’s the harm in adding “daughters” to Paul’s text, or in changing “sons” to “children? Paul clearly didn’t mean that Christ’s actions were salvific only with regard to men!” Well, believe me or not, in most instances in which “modern” translators change the words just a bit to make them more inclusive, I’m all for it. I was “trained” at Duke Divinity School, after all.

I think that here in the Galatians text, however, changing the words waters down the original meaning. Paul isn’t trying to convince us that through Christ, men have the same status as women. That might be equitable, but it isn’t what Paul has in mind. For Paul, it isn’t that through Christ, sons are now to be treated like daughters; it’s rather that through Christ, daughters are now to be treated as sons. Run with me here for just a bit. We need to remember that in the time of Christ and St. Paul, sons had important inheritance rights!

Those of you who studied ancient history may recall that one of the several problems of being a woman in the Greco-Roman patriarchy was that, generally speaking, women couldn’t inherit property. That was even more the case within the Jewish community. To be sure, a woman could acquire property during her lifetime. Many within the early church had done so. But the means of transferring property from generation to generation was almost exclusively left for sons, not daughters. Sons—even adopted sons—could inherit. Daughters—particularly those that were adopted—could not.

Paul recognizes that with regard to the inheritance laws of his time, he could do nothing. Paul, however, was concerned with an altogether different sort of inheritance, the sort that comes to us as redeemed brothers and sisters of Christ. And so, Paul, who was familiar with the legal implications of “sonship,” advises the Galatian church—a group who also would have been familiar with those same legal practices—that through the efforts of Christ, all humanity can inherit the Oneness that comes through being in communion with Him. Women are included every bit as much as men, in Paul’s eyes, because through Christ’s actions, the distinctions between men and women are gone.

Recall Paul’s words that appear just a few verses earlier:

There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus [Galatians 3:28, Douay-Rheims Bible].

This is why, for my money, the NIV translation committee gets it right in its use of “sonship.” Through Christ’s activity, we—whether we are male or female—might receive adoption to sonship. It would be equitable if, through the action of Christ, we all became daughters. But in the context of Paul’s day, daughters couldn’t inherit, and Paul wanted to assure the Galatian daughters—and the daughters of today—that they, like their brothers, have been adopted by God.

Contrary to what some within the church have said, Paul’s use of masculine terminology here in the Galatians text demonstrates just how far from first century patriarchy the church had actually moved. That movement wasn’t through some sort of global “search and replace” word processing activity, where we “correct” every instance in which an improper pronoun or masculine reference is used in Scripture.

When we blindly change the wording of our translations to suit modern mores, instead of speaking truth to the patriarchs, we run the risk of watering down the message. For Paul, the notion of “sonship” had a clear legal meaning, a meaning that was to be extended to all, not just a favored group. In Christ, “sonship” meant full inclusion for everyone, no matter what one’s age, gender, or social status. All have been adopted and all, therefore, since they share the same “sonship,” are now part of God’s great Kingdom.