Student showcase 4: Delilah’s Criminal Mind

It wouldn’t be a true Auckland TheoRel student showcase without at least one piece of work on Delilah, our favourite biblical femme fatale. This year, we have not one but two essays to share, and each one offers us something a little bit different than our usual focus on Delilah’s explicit afterlives in popular culture. Starting us off, Katherine Sherliker considers a more implicit portrayal of a Delilah-like character in the hit TV series Criminal Minds. Katherine hails from Northampton, UK, and has been living in Auckland since 2008. She has just finished her first year of a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in linguistics, with a minor in education. She hopes to do a Master of Speech Language Therapy Practice after completing her BA. Katherine took our Bible and Popular Culture course because she thought it looked interesting, and was particularly drawn to the promise made in the syllabus that we’d be studying Harry Styles. It appears to have lived up to her expectations, as she describes it as her favourite course so far (and yes, Harry was the subject of one of our lectures).

So, if you are as big a Delilah fan as I am, you will enjoy this essay very much indeed.

Kat 2
Kat Adams in Criminal Minds (CBS)

A Game of Cat and Mouse

 Criminal Minds’ Cat Adams as an Implicit Portrayal of Delilah

Katherine Sherliker

Deceptive, vindictive, seductive and dangerous. This is how the biblical character Delilah is portrayed in popular culture, but it has no basis in the original text of Judges 16. This negative image of Delilah as a femme fatale, the fatal woman, is preserved in cultural retellings of the Samson and Delilah text, both explicitly and implicitly. The story of Cat Adams, a serial killer and hit-woman, from Jeff Davis’ crime drama television series Criminal Minds, is an implicit portrayal of Delilah from the Samson and Delilah story. Manipulation, selfishness and betrayal are common themes in both Cat’s and Delilah’s narratives, but can these characters be seen in more positive lights? This essay will explore how an implicit retelling of Judges 16 allows the Delilah character to be rethought in different ways that subvert the traditional tropes of the femme fatale.

In Criminal Minds, Cat is depicted as a manipulative femme fatale character, much like Delilah is in explicit retellings of the Samson and Delilah story. The femme fatale figure contains four common traits: she is seductive, she has power over men, she is deceptive, she is mysterious and therefore, she is dangerous (Clanton 2014, 1155). Hit-woman Cat specialises in seduction, and she acquires all information that she possibly can about the men she is hired to kill. In order for her victims to not foresee their death, Cat puts them in a compromised position by learning all there is to know about their physical, emotional and psychological state (“Entropy,” Season 11 Ep. 11, 2016). Extremely patient, she spends years studying her targets, so that her exploitation and manipulation has maximum effect, intending for them to commit suicide: “When I do it really well they pull the trigger themselves” (ibid.)

Kat gif2
Cat Adams and Spencer Reid (CBS)

Cat’s modus operandi is seen as outrageous and shocking, but it is also comparable to Delilah deceiving Samson, especially in explicit retellings. Despite not being as patient and insidious as Cat, in the Book of Judges (Judges 16:6-18) Delilah repeatedly asks Samson to tell her the source of his strength, eventually manipulating him by saying, “how can you say, ‘I love you,’ when your heart is not with me?” (Judges 16:15). This clever exploitation of Samson’s emotions is the statement that makes interpreters see Delilah as deceptive, as it appears that she had intent to instill guilt into him (Clanton 2009, 67-8). Smith argues that Delilah knew that she must get into Samson’s mind in order to overpower him physically (1997, 51). The characterisation of Delilah as a femme fatale stems from this perception that she knew of Samson’s lust for her, which is why she uses seduction and her sexuality to trap and weaken him (52).

Cat and Spencer (CBS)

Much like the cultural portrayals of Delilah, Cat also uses her sexuality to get what she desires. Cat, despite being heterosexual, uses the art of seduction to deceive fellow hit-woman Lindsey Vaughn by pretending that she is in love with her – this convinces Lindsey to frame Dr. Spencer Reid, who is Cat’s main rival, in order to fulfil her partner’s wishes (“Green Light,” Season 12 Ep. 21, 2017). However, Cat also uses her high intelligence and quick wit to eliminate her enemies. This is a stark contrast to the Delilah character, who is commonly understood and portrayed to have used only her sexuality to undermine Samson. Cat is a genius at solving problems and planning, for example, she assembled a group of criminals with their sole purpose being to punish Dr. Reid, all while she was incarcerated in Mount Pleasant Women’s Correctional Facility (“Red Light,” Season 12 Ep. 22, 2017). She also terminated an undercover operation almost immediately by identifying all of the undercover agents in the restaurant, knowing that it was a trap because of her clever researching and planning beforehand (“Entropy” 2016). Cool and confident, the fatal woman says, “I didn’t walk into your trap, you walked into mine” (ibid.). The use of intelligence as the ‘dangerous’ aspect of the femme fatale is a refreshing way to rethink the character, given Delilah’s beauty and seductiveness, rather than her intellect, are consistently emphasised as her fatal qualities.

Maeve and Spencer
Maeve and Spencer …

Another prevalent depiction of the Delilah character is one that is selfish and jealous. A common theme in Delilah’s afterlives is that she is jealous of another female in Samson’s life. In the original story of Samson, there is an allusion to Delilah being the exact opposite of the perfect woman (Smith 1997, 52). Judges 13-16 reinforces the virgin/whore binary by identifying the “good” woman and the “bad” woman – the good woman being maternal, plain and chaste, and the bad woman being openly sexual and a harlot (Exum 1996, 186). In the biblical text, an example of a good woman is Samson’s mother in Judges 13, as she fulfills the two main gender roles – being a mother and a wife, while Delilah is the bad woman, as she is provocative and unattached (ibid.). In Delilah’s afterlives, there is often a woman who is a foil to her, and this also appears with Cat in Criminal Minds. Maeve Donovan was Dr. Reid’s partner, and she was plain and modest in appearance, and demure and meek in her personality – a complete contrast to Cat (“The Lesson,” Season 8 Ep. 10, 2012). Cat, being in love with Dr. Reid, was excessively jealous of Maeve, and this sparked her rampage of manipulation and deceit against him (“Red Light” 2017). This obsessive love and jealousy compels her to want the destruction of the man she desires – “if I can’t have him, no one can” – a classic femme fatale quality.

…compared to Cat and Spencer

The betrayal of the men that she is involved with further reinforces the view that the Delilah character is selfish and jealous. It is obvious that Delilah betrays Samson’s trust by submitting him to the Philistines, which paints her as untrustworthy and sinful (Gervin 2017). The biblical text declares that Samson is “in love” with Delilah (Judges 16:4), which makes her betrayal much more malicious than if he did not care for her. Delilah’s actions also disrupt gender boundaries as she emasculates the man – a corrupt act, and a main trait of the femme fatale (ibid.). This act of deception is why Delilah has become the epitome of the femme fatale, as her unconcealed sexuality and seduction is what was dangerous and ultimately fatal to Samson (Exum 1996, 176). Again, Cat is similar to this, as she is known to betray some of her clients by killing them instead, especially men who ask her to kill their wives (“Entropy” 2016). This brings a grim meaning to femme fatale – a literal fatal woman.

Cat (CBS)

With the femme fatale character’s betrayal and manipulation of men, a question needs to be asked – why do they do this? Both the biblical Delilah and her afterlives may have legitimate reasons for their actions, allowing them to be seen in a more positive light. For example, it is made obvious in Judges 16 that Samson has great physical strength. As a woman, Delilah is less physically powerful than Samson, especially with his extreme strength. Delilah may have been fearful of Samson, and finding the source of his strength would be the only way to overcome him (Smith 1997, 55). Cat is also physically vulnerable. As a contract killer, she has to get physically close and personal with her targets, which could end badly as many of them were powerful men (“Entropy”  2016). Also, in terms of wealth, the Delilah character may have been dependent on others for money. In Judges 16:5, the five Philistine leaders offer Delilah “eleven hundred pieces of silver” each to subdue Samson. As the biblical text does not mention any of Delilah’s relatives or any ways she was earning money, it can be interpreted that she was alone and perhaps financially unstable. The money that the Philistines offered her may have been her only way to gain economic independence (Smith 1997, 55). Again, Cat is somewhat similar to this, as being a hit-woman is her job, and if she mishandled a situation her career, and even her life, could be over.

Cat and Spencer (CBS)

Most importantly, Delilah can be seen as socially and emotionally vulnerable – though this is rarely considered in her afterlives. Delilah may feel like an outcast, as it is often suggested that she is a foreign woman, possibly a Philistine among Hebrews (Exum 1996, 181). She also may be fearful of repercussions if she does not fulfill the Philistine lord’s wishes, as it is feasible that she has no political power to negotiate. Despite some of her unlikable femme fatale qualities, Cat can also be seen as emotionally vulnerable. Her backstory is tragic, as she was abused as a child by her father, who was jailed for killing her mother (“Entropy” 2016). She was then mistreated by her foster father (ibid.). After this, Cat spent the rest of her life trying to find her father who was eventually released from prison, all while taking her anger out on men who reminded her of him (ibid.). The emotional turmoil Cat experienced as a youth could have changed her into the manipulative and vindictive femme fatale character that she was in her adult life. This is an interesting way to look at the femme fatale character – these women are often vulnerable and act to protect themselves. Viewing the femme fatale as sensitive and possibly defenseless allows the original Delilah character to be seen the same way.

Cultural retellings of the Samson and Delilah story usually lack positive views of Delilah, instead depicting her as destructive and scandalous. It is important to realise that this has no basis in the original text, and is instead a result of these traits being preserved in cultural retellings. Criminal Minds’ Cat Adams is an implicit portrayal of Delilah, as she is remarkably comparable to Delilah’s afterlives and the overall femme fatale figure. These indirect retellings of the story and recreations of the character allow Delilah to be rethought in a new light. Portrayals of Delilah such as this one allow us to rethink why she may have betrayed Samson. Instead of automatically blaming it on her being malicious, we can speculate about her economic, social and physical vulnerability, and why this drove her to her actions. The limited description of Delilah in Judges 16 leaves a great deal to the imagination, so why not reimagine her in a positive light for a change?

Kat gif
Cheers, Cat!


References to the Bible are taken from the New Revised Standard Version.

Clanton, Dan W. “Trollops and Temptresses.” In Daring, Disreputable, and Devout: Interpreting the Bible’s Women in the Arts and Music, 65-77. New York: T&T Clark, 2009.

“Entropy.” Criminal Minds. Created by Jeff Davis. United States: CBS, January 13, 2016.

Exum, C. J., “Why, why, why Delilah?” In Plotted, Shot, and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women, 175-237. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd, 1996.

Clanton, Dan W. “Femme Fatale: III Film.” In Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, 1155-7. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014.

Gervin, L. “Women as Deceivers in the Hebrew Bible.” Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal 13, no. 2 (2017): 1-11.

“Green Light.” Criminal Minds. Created by Jeff Davis. United States: CBS, May 3, 2017.

“Red Light.” Criminal Minds. Created by Jeff Davis. United States: CBS, May 10, 2017.

Smith, Carol. “Samson and Delilah: A Parable of Power?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22, no. 76 (1997): 45-57.

“The Lesson.” Criminal Minds. Created by Jeff Davis. United States: CBS, December 5, 2012.



Student Showcase 3: Fishnets, Fetishes, and Faith – Religious Themes in The Rocky Horror Picture Show

From yesterday’s focus on the Bible and politics, we move to a most fabulous essay that considers religious and biblical themes in cult musical, The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975). The piece is written by another student from our Bible and Popular Culture course, Kate Bodger, who hails from New Zealand and is studying a Bachelor of Arts majoring in English and Classics. Kate doesn’t know what the future holds for her, but she hopes that it involves art, writing and traveling. She has always found religion fascinating even before she started going to church, and loves exploring its relationship to our everyday lives and culture. So she decided to take a few TheoRel papers as part of her degree, which she confirms was “an altogether good choice” as it meant she could put her excessive viewing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show to some use. Enjoy!

Rocky Horror poster
Images taken from TRHPS, dir. Jim Sharman, 20th Century Fox (1975)

Religion in Fishnet Tights

The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Religion

Kate Bodger

Ordinarily it would be easy to dismiss The Rocky Horror Picture Show (TRHPS) as having little in common with Christianity. But TRHPS dismisses the ordinary, and this 70s hit actually has numerous religious ties. The way fans have built such a following around the film makes it seem like its own seductive faith. Within this religion stands Dr. Frank n Furter, a contemporary messiah, saving those who feel like outsiders. In contrast to this a look inside the text exposes a different Frank n Furter who resembles more of a subverted bacchic messiah, bringing about the fall of humanity. It is clear that this midnight horror is not just dripping with blood and sex, but also religion.

TRHPS has spawned a particular following that can be likened to that of a religion. Popular culture can be seen as a religion when it displays parallels in form and function (Forbes 2005, p.15). TRHPS clearly mimics the form of a religion with the various traditions that have been created around the film. Audiences adorn the appropriate attire, fishnet tights and high heels, and head to their chosen place of worship, the cinema, to engage in various rituals, song, and dance. Fans of TRHPS do not just watch the film, they interact with it. Call and response techniques, just like in a Sunday mass, are used by the audience as they speak to the characters on screen. During the time warp audiences do the pelvic thrust with the Transylvanians, worshipping through song and dance.

timewarp gif

Props are also used with the audience throwing rice at the wedding scene, these props symbols of the Rocky-Horror-faith. TRHPS has birthed its own set of rites and routines, much like a religion. ‘Virgin Sacrifices’ are even a tradition with new comers or ‘virgins’ being initiated into the Rocky Horror family through challenges, or sometimes a pledge. This tradition references a sacrifice, something associated with appeasing or thanking a deity. These ‘virgin sacrifices’, also tie in with modern churches as they can be viewed as contemporary altar calls, or baptisms, with the ‘virgins’ saying goodbye to their old selves with this proclamation of faith. The crazy spectacle of TRHPS has led to it being described as a religious experience, and one writer called themselves “a true believer” (Berman 2015) after their first Rocky Horror experience. Aside from form TRHPS also mimics religion in terms of function. The enticing excitement of the cult classic has created its own community with a sense of security for outsiders and the marginalized. And at the center of this safe community is TRHPS’s very own seductive and sexy savior.

Frank 1
Frank n Furter

TRHPS attracts many outsiders, there is something welcoming about being told to be confident, and let go of any worries. The community that surrounds this cult classic feel they have been ‘saved’, in the sense they have been given a place where they can be themselves and gain a sense of freedom. The main figure revered in this community is the sweet transvestite himself; Frank n Furter. Frank n Furter has become a cultural icon, telling people to love themselves with an I-am-going-to-do-me-while-being-proud-and-loud attitude. “Don’t judge a book by its cover” (O’Brien and Sharman 1995) is one of Frank n Furter’s entry lines onto screen. The absurdity of the whole film and the fantastical escape the audience is taken on is mostly directed by Frank n Furter himself, being the king, or perhaps God, of his respective castle. Fans herald him as their savior from normalcy and the judgments of life. This liberation and acceptance also includes social justice, and a commitment to justice is one characteristic of a modern messiah figure (Reinhartz 2011, p.431).

RHPS laverne poster
Laverne Cox in the new TRHPS

TRHPS was released in 1975, and pushed the boundaries of its time with its sexual freedom and gender fluid identities. The cult classic became especially popular within the LBGTQA+ community. Laverne Cox who played the contemporary messiah in the new remake (2016) remarks, “After I saw Rocky Horror for the first time, it became a turning point in my life. It’s part of what gave me the courage to truly transition” (Baysinger 2016). And a gay fan has written about the experiences of “having two very special men come into [their] life” (Townley 2011), one being Jesus, and the other Frank n Furter, and in the course of the article Frank n Furter does more of the blessing and saving. Frank n Furter has not revolutionized queer rights, but he has become an icon for many who feel they are different, with TRHPS allowing a space for people to feel free from societal norms. The way Frank n Furter is heralded as such a symbol of sexual freedom and acceptance makes him the modern messiah of this contemporary religion. This interestingly is juxtaposed in contrast with the Frank n Furter’s character inside the film, who is more related to hedonism and havoc.

Frank gif

When we look at the Frank n Furter inside the film we are presented with a man with a very hedonistic lifestyle, who likes to manipulate and control others, a man who is both a murderer, and a cannibal. This Frank n Furter juxtaposes with the heralded figure mentioned earlier, making him a subverted messiah. Frank n Furter plays the role of a bacchic devil, “a postmodern, gay version of the god Dionysus, followed by his intoxicated Maenads” (Aviram 1992). In fact, the story of his hedonism influencing Brad and Janet, mimics the biblical story of the fall of humanity, where the serpent tricks Eve and then Adam into eating from the tree of good and evil (Genesis 3).

Brad and Janet
Brad and Janet, with Magenta and Riff Raff

The plot of TRHPS shadows this storyline, we have Brad and Janet, a perfect, clean cut couple, representing Adam and Eve, and Frank n Furter as the serpent, who offers them each a taste of the forbidden fruit, or sex. Janet is even ‘corrupted’ first, paralleling the biblical story with Eve being the first to eat the fruit. Their indulgence becomes a turning point as eventually both Janet and Brad are shown to be completely overwhelmed by desire in the floor show. The overarching story of TRHPS replicates the original sin, or the fall of humanity. And inside it Frank n Furter is the slithering snake that whispers and suggests; “give yourself over to absolute pleasure” (O’Brien and Sharman 1995).

Rocky and Frank
Frank and Rocky

Frank n Furter as a subverted savior is also highlighted through some of the film’s religious references. Rocky is brought to life by Frank n Furter. Not only is Frank n Furter elevated to god-like status by creating life, but he is paralleled with God as he sings “in just seven days, I can make you a man” (O’Brien and Sharman 1995). When biblically it took God seven days to create the universe (Genesis 1-2). However Frank n Furter does not see Rocky as his child, or his creation, but rather he made Rocky to satisfy sexual desires, as Frank n Furter sings in Sweet Transvestite, “he’s good for relieving my tension.” This subverted and perverse presentation of creation is again implied with a picture of Michel Angelo’s The Creation of Adam displayed on the floor of the pool, where Frank n Furter leads the way to hedonistic indulgence.

Frank with 2 women
Frank the great creator of life

The birthday dinner scene in TRHPS can also be seen as an inverted biblical reference. In the Bible Jesus said “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life” (John 6:54). This dinner scene can be viewed as a twisted version of Jesus’ words and actions where the bread symbolized his body and the wine his blood (Dika 2003, p.113). Here Frank n Furter actually serves Eddie’s flesh and blood, and this particular scene is introduced by the criminologist with a picture of Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper in a book open behind him. The character of Frank n Furter presents itself as a seductive, serpent, and this begs the question how that is compatible with his alter-ego of the liberating messiah-like figure. It seems that TRHPS satirizes fears of the LGBTQA+ community, using the absurdity of the film to mock those who thought that anyone queer was a sex-mad alien sent to corrupt humanity. Meaning that Frank n Furter’s corruption as a character, makes him more of a savior-like figure.

birthday gif

TRHPS has become its own religion. A contemporary faith that is staying strong for a new generation of outsiders. The new Sunday best comes with fishnet stockings and bright red lips, and amazing grace has been replaced with Sweet Transvestite for worship. Frank n Furter sits on his throne at the head of this religion, as both a figure for the marginalized, and a character who mocks 70s homophobia through his devilish ways. All in all TRHPS presents itself as a religion of terrible thrills…

Frank B&W



References to the Bible are taken from the NRSV edition

Aviram, Amittai F. “Postmodern Gay Dionysus: Dr. Frank N. Furter.” Journal of Popular Culture 26, no. 3 Winter, 1992

Tim Baysinger. How Laverne Cox made Dr. Frank n Furter her own on Fox’s Rocky Horror Picture Show re-make. The Hollywood Reporter, 20/10/2016, accessed 3/10/2017,

Berman, Judy. We Live in the World ‘Rocky Horror’ Created. Flavorwire, 25/09/2015, accessed 3/10/2017,

Dika, Vera. Recycled culture in contemporary art and film: the uses of nostalgia. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003.

Forbes, Bruce David. ‘Finding religion in unexpected places’ in Religion and popular culture in America ed. Jeffrey H. Mahan (University of California Press: 2005) 15

O’Brien Richard and Sharman, Jim. The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Directed by Jim Sharman. 20th Century Fox, 1975.

Reinhartz, Adele. ‘Jesus and Christ figures’ in The Routledge companion to religion and film ed. John Lyden. Routledge: USA and Canada, 2011.

Kevin Townley. There is a light that never goes out. Rookie, 10/03/2011, accessed 20/09/2017

Student Showcase 2: Politics, Prophets, and Jacindamania

Today’s student offering comes from Mathew Sherlock. Mathew hails from Devonport in Auckland and is currently studying towards a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws conjoint, majoring in Spanish. He hopes to work in politics some time in the future. Mathew took our Bible in Popular Culture class because religion and the Bible were completely new subjects for him – thankfully, he found the course very interesting, especially our discussions around contemporary prophetic figures and the American Monomyth, or ‘supersaviour’ in pop culture.

Mathew’s essay was incredibly timely in its focus on the rise of Labour Party politician Jacinda Ardern, who stood as the party’s leader during the 2017 General Election. The election resulted in a hung parliament, with neither Labour nor the incumbent National Party having an adequate majority to form a government. After a nail-biting few weeks, on October 19th, New Zealand First party leader Winston Peters declared he was prepared to form a coalition government with Labour. So, exactly one day after Mathew submitted this essay, Jacinda was declared NZ’s new Prime Minister. Serendipity. To learn more about her impressive rise to power, read on and enjoy this most fabulous essay.

Jacindamania herald
Image from New Zealand Herald 3 August 2017

Jacindamania: Analysing the Election of Biblical Proportions

Mathew Sherlock

The General Election of 2017 seemed to be a guaranteed victory for the National Party. Until Jacinda Ardern entered the picture. After her appointment as leader of the Labour Party, Ardern swept the nation, in a craze nicknamed “Jacindamania” (Kwai 2017). Marcus Borg identifies that biblical prophets disturb our sense of normalcy, possess a passion for social justice, and bring hope to the oppressed (2001, pp.111-44). Through analysing Ardern’s views and her corresponding policies proposed throughout the election, we can see that she matches these requirements. Comparing Ardern’s actions with biblical prophets Amos and Deutero-Isaiah will reach the conclusion that Ardern can be regarded a contemporary biblical prophet.

Election billboard with Jacinda Ardern and former Labour leader, Andrew Little.

Borg (2001) identifies that a biblical prophet disturbs our sense of normalcy and challenges dominant discourses within society. Ardern certainly disturbed the political normalcy of the 2017 election, which seemed to be a landslide victory for the National Party with an anticipated fourth term in government. Under previous Labour leader Andrew Little’s reign, the main party in opposition was polling at 24%, its lowest point since the 1990s (Trevett 2017). There was no foreseeable chance of a non-National victory. However, after assuming leadership, Ardern drastically increased the party’s polling percentage, peaking at 44% at one point during the election (Small and Walters 2017). This unprecedented twenty-point advancement for Labour in the electoral race changed the course of what seemed to be an obvious continuation of the National-led government, into the most enthralling election campaign in recent New Zealand history (Du Fresne 2017). Throughout the campaign, Ardern challenged New Zealand: choose between risk and hope (“Stuff Leaders’ Debate” 2017). There is risk attached to sticking to the status quo, whereas hope can make change for the better (ibid.). New Zealand’s sense of normalcy was greatly disturbed; placed at a political crossroad between stagnancy and change.

Dunedin artist Sam Sharpe with his Jacinda Ardern-inspired artwork.

Ardern challenged the dominant neoliberal discourse shaped by the National Party’s nine years in government. Neoliberalism’s key features promote the value of the free market and individual choice in addressing inequalities (Mirowski and Plehwe 2009). Their main election promise was a tax-cut, reducing the responsibility on the state for poverty and other social injustices (“Tax and Finances 2017” 2017). Ardern’s social democratic views contrast greatly from this, which promote legislation to redress inequalities and oppose tax cuts when other pressing social issues are present (Heywood 2012). Ardern challenged National’s policies that sought to benefit the wealthy, as child poverty had not decreased significantly over National’s term in government “Stuff Leaders’ Debate” 2017). Ardern’s view on societal issues were seen through her proposed policies, reinvigorating the discourse on how to address social inequalities. Examples of this were her free tertiary education policy, Maori-centred attainment standards, and stricter rules on land ownership to promote more first home buyers (“Labour’s Plan” 2017). These challenged the discourse shaped over the past nine years which placed individual responsibility on solutions. Despite this, they were generally well received by the New Zealand public, as reflected in Labours large increase in polling.

Ardern’s actions can be compared with biblical prophet Amos. Amos became prominent in the northern kingdom of Israel, a society where the rich were living extravagant lives while the poor were suffering (Thompson 1992, p.72). Amos disturbed their sense of normalcy, condemning the severe social and economic disparity (Bergant 2006, p.94). Amos challenged that the rich “trample on the needy and bring to ruin the poor of the land” (Amos 8:4). This critique of the wealthy citizens of Israel challenged the discourse surrounding the gap between the poor and rich. Both Ardern and Amos disturbed a society where the ruling class had failed to identify social and economic disparities, challenging the way they should be addressed. Thus, Ardern fulfils this requirement of a biblical prophet.

Jacinda Ardern with Kelvin Davis, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party

Borg also identifies that a biblical prophet has a passion for social justice (2001, p.118). Ardern’s passion is seen through her views and policies proposed during the election. Ardern centred her campaign around her social democratic beliefs; emphasising equal opportunity, communal responsibility, and the power of effective social justice (Murphy 2017). Ardern’s social justice focuses on the marginalised and disadvantaged groups in New Zealand, aiming for a more equal society. One example of this is the implementation of Maori education programmes that emphasise Maori learning methods and measures of success (“Labour’s Plan” 2017). This redresses the disadvantage Maori students face in the current education system, possessing a disappointing 50.6% secondary school retention rate as opposed to 75.4% of non-Maori (Marriot and Sim 2015, p.5).

lets do this
Ardern on the campaign trail.

From her social democratic viewpoint, systemic inequalities and disadvantages are argued to be a result of colonisation and ongoing disregard to differing values between cultures (Humpage 2015, p.450). As such, the implementation of such targeted policy helps distribute justice and equal opportunities to the groups that need it most (ibid.). Another example is Ardern’s assertion to reduce child poverty, claiming it was the initial reason for her interest in entering politics (“New Zealand 2017 election debate – LIVE| Newshub.”). Borg suggests that biblical prophets understand that sin comprises primarily as injustices, therefore placing such great emphasis on addressing social inequalities (2001, p.120). This is reflected in Ardern’s focus on marginalised groups in New Zealand society whom are impacted by such disadvantages. Reducing injustice is a key feature of a biblical prophet, and a characteristic that is prevalent in Ardern’s views and policies.

Jacinda foghorn 2
Ardern visits the University of Auckland. Wikimedia Commons.

Ardern’s passion for social justice mirrors that of biblical prophet Amos. Amos viewed injustices not as crimes of warfare, but social issues (Borg 2001, p.118). His passion for social justice emerged through his indictment of the wealthy for exploiting the poor (ibid.). Amos saw a large class disparity, where the rich were gaining influence, while the poor became disempowered (Bergant 2006, p.91). This disparity eroded communal responsibility for societal problems within Israel (ibid.). Like Ardern, Amos’ focus on communal responsibility emerged through his passion for social justice. The wealthy had an obligation to help address injustices face by the peasantry that had become disenfranchised (ibid.). Amos brought these issues to light after first increasing his following through announcing God’s judgement against Israel’s neighbouring enemies (Borg 2001, p.118). Then, Amos took advantage of his growing audience to turn and indict Israel itself for its social and economic inequalities (ibid.). Amos deplored the economic differences solely benefitting the wealthy while disadvantaging the poor (Bergant 2006, p.91). Amos thus increased the power of his message and following through addressing social issues that stemmed from the economic class gap present in Israel. Although Ardern did not come from a religious perspective in her campaign, nor used God as a justification for her passion for social justice, she used similar techniques to Amos. Criticising National’s apathy to address social issues, notably income inequality and rising house prices in New Zealand helped increase voter support for the Labour Party, and Ardern’s electoral campaign (“1 NEWS Vote17 – Vote 2017 – Leaders Debate 1” 2017). Framing the social inequalities as the result of nine years of inaction from the National government similarly identifies Nationals “sins” as social injustices, as Amos did to the wealthy people of Israel.

kiwi dream
Jacinda Ardern speaking in Auckland, 2016. Wikimedia Commons

Borg also identifies that a biblical prophet has a vision, a dream that brings hope to the oppressed (2001, p.130). Prophets may engage in prophetic energising, which values the use of language to create hope and bring forth a bright future (ibid.). Ardern’s incredible achievements in the 2017 General Election in seven weeks of her campaign brought hope to many New Zealanders that the government can strive to do better. New Zealand could be greater than what it already was. Ardern made use of prophetic energising in her speeches and debates, using almost poetic language to inspire voters. An example of this was her response to claims that her effect on the election polls was vapid; she was merely stardust that would soon settle and fade. Ardern responded elegantly that “this stardust won’t settle”, because New Zealand should not have to settle with what the current government was providing (“Stuff Leaders’ Debate” 2017). Bringing forth a prophetic message that New Zealand could do better, Ardern provided hope to the large portion of the public that had felt left out during the nine years of a National-led government (ibid.). She made use of this energising effect, imploring voters to choose change, and a better New Zealand.

Jacinda portrait
Ardern being sworn in as PM. Governer General NZ

Ardern’s energising prophetic vision draws parallels to Deutero-Isaiah, an unnamed prophet in the later chapters of the Book of Isaiah (Borg 2001, p.131). Deutero-Isaiah brought hope to a large group of Jewish exiles, using similar prophetic energising methods to mitigate the widespread panic and despair (ibid.). He energises the disenfranchised Jewish exiles, all survivors of the deadly Babylon conquest by reaffirming their love through God’s sight (ibid.). Deutero-Isaiah used language to promote a sense of hope in the exiles, assuring them in God’s vision that they should “not fear, for I am with you, do not be afraid, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my victorious right hand,” (Isaiah 41:10). Deutero-Isaiah and Ardern both spoke to a group that felt denied of rights and freedoms in their society, and used prophetic language to bring forth a brighter future inspired by their vision.

Ardern can be considered a contemporary biblical prophet. Although she does not come from the traditionally religious foundations of traditional biblical prophets such as Amos and Deutero-Isaiah, she matches many of the key requirements proposed by Borg. Ardern disrupted the normalcy of the New Zealand General Election, challenged dominant discourses with a promotion of social justice, and used prophetic energising methods to bring hope to many New Zealanders looking for a better future. Negating any successes or defeats for her and the Labour Party, she is an inspiration for New Zealand.

lovely pic of Jacinda


All references to the Bible are from the NRSV

Bergant, Dianne. Israel’s Story, Part 1. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2006

Borg, Marcus. “Reading the prophets again.” In Reading the Bible again for the first time: taking the Bible seriously but not literally. 1st edition, pp. 111-144. San Francisco: Harper, 2001.

Du Fresne, Karl. “The political drama is real this time as National faces stiff challenge for power.” Stuff. August 23, 2017.

Heywood, Andrew. Political ideologies: an introduction (5th edition). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

Humpage, Louise. “The Treaty and Social Policy.” In New Zealand government and politics, edited by Janine Hayward, 6th edition, pp. 449-459. Victoria: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Kwai, Isabella. “New Zealand’s Election Had Been Predictable. Then ‘Jacindamania’ Hit.” The New York Times. September 4, 2017.

“Labour’s Plan.” Labour Party of New Zealand. Accessed October 17, 2017.

Marriot, Lisa. Sim, Dalice. “Indicators of inequality for Maori and Pacific people.” Journal of New Zealand Studies, no. 20 (2015) pp.1-30.

Milne, Jonathan. “The last pitch: Labour leader Jacinda Ardern answers tough questions from Bill English, voters.” Stuff. September 17, 2017.

Mirowski, Philip., Plhewe, Dieter. The road from Mont Pèlerin: the making of the neoliberal thought collective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009.

Murphy, Tim. “What Jacinda Ardern wants.” Newsroom August 1, 2017.

“New Zealand 2017 election debate – LIVE| Newshub.” Newshub. YouTube video. 1:38:02. Posted 4 September 2017.

Small, Vernon., Walters, Laura. “Labour leaps into the lead in new poll, as leaders prepare for first debate.” Stuff. August 31, 2017.  

“Stuff Leader’s Debate.” YouTube video. 3:08:59. Posted 7 September 2017.

“Tax and Finances.” National Party of New Zealand. Accessed October 17, 2017.

Thompson, Michael. “Amos – A Prophet of Hope?” The Expository Times 104, no.3 (1992): pp.71-76.

Trevett, Claire. “Labour leader Andrew Little says he considered stepping down in face of bad polling.” The New Zealand Herald. July 30, 2017.

“1 NEWS Vote17 – Vote 2017 – Leaders Debate 1.” TVNZ. Video. 45:05. Posted 31 August 2017.


Student showcase 1: The Devil’s in the Detail

As in previous years, we are taking time throughout December to showcase some of the wonderful work done by our students in Auckland TheoRel. Starting us off today is Brittany Jacobsen, who took our most popular course, The Bible in Popular Culture (THEOREL 101G).  Brittany hails from Auckland and is working towards a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in Classics and Anthropology. Her future plans include studying Classics at postgraduate level, hopefully at a University in either Athens or London. She took THEOREL 101G because it sounded so interesting and reassures me that it has been one of the best courses that she has taken so far in her degree (we aim to please). So read on and enjoy Brittany’s essay, which looks at the biblical figure of Satan, as represented in that most charismatic of TV anti-heroes, Lucifer Morningstar.

lucifer 1

Is Lucifer Really Satan? Satan in Popular Culture

By Brittany Jacobsen

Throughout history, Satan  has traditionally been portrayed in theological and cultural discourses as the embodiment of all evil (De La Torre & Hernández, 2011, p.11). This portrayal has its roots in the Bible’s characterisation of Satan (Wray & Mobley, 2005, p.xiii). Yet Satan’s biblical portrayal is vague and contradictory (Wyman, 2016, p.4). And, when Lucifer Morningstar appears in FOX’s Lucifer (Kapinos, 2016-present) claiming that he is Satan, he subverts the Bible’s various depictions of this character in a number of ways. For, this popular culture afterlife presents a humanized portrayal of Satan – a Satan for the 21st-century. To do this, Lucifer fills in the gaps in biblical depictions of Satan – specifically, who Satan is and what he is like, his relationship with God, and his thoughts about his reputation as a tempter and a symbol of evil. Thus, Lucifer’s portrayal, although biblical in origin, extends well beyond the biblical traditions.

This essay will therefore compare the biblical portrayal of Satan with Lucifer’s using two methods for studying popular culture – the ‘world in the text’ and the ‘world behind the text’.  The ‘world in the text’ will involve discussing how Lucifer fills said biblical gaps, highlighting any similarities and differences between these portrayals. I suggest that there is a connection between the TV programme’s altered portrayal of Satan in Lucifer Morningstar and its 21st-century context – the ‘world behind the text’. That is, this particular biblical afterlife reflects 21st-century understandings of Satan, and highlights the rise of the anti-hero as a cultural trope.

In the world of Lucifer, Satan (aka Lucifer Morningstar) is the main character of the TV series, and so, he gains a personality, which contributes to his humanization. The show’s premise is that Lucifer is a fallen angel condemned by God to rule over Hell. The part is played by British actor Tom Ellis, who brings a great deal of charisma to this role. This is seen, for example, when Lucifer draws out other characters’ hidden desires; as we watch him do this, there is always a close-up of his face. The audience is thus compelled to look at Ellis’ ruggedly handsome face, his  cheeky smile, and sparkling eyes. We cannot look away. With individuals in the show paralleling our reaction, we understand this is the intended effect. With this face then, Satan becomes irresistible.

Lucy horns
Lucifer Morningstar, played by actor Tom Ellis

This idea of Satan having irresistible charm is not voiced in the Bible. Indeed, biblical passages mention little about who Satan is (Wray & Mobley, 2005, p.1), let alone giving him a charismatic personality (Wyman, 2016, pp.3-4). This has led to later Christian traditions creating afterlives for Satan, which are not necessarily evoked explicitly in the Bible itself (De La Torre & Hernández, 2011, pp.81-82).

The TV show Lucifer also creates a new afterlife for Satan, one which locates this figure within a 21st-century context. Satan, as Lucifer Morningstar, is humanized by a vibrant personality, and thus fits the contemporary definition of an anti-hero – “a clearly – or even, severely – morally flawed main character whom the spectator is nonetheless encouraged to feel with, like and root for” (Vaage, 2016, p.xvi). Traditional assumptions made about Satan being the embodiment of all evil (De La Torre & Hernández, 2011, p.11) shape the world behind Lucifer, identifying our anti-hero as ‘morally flawed’. This is captured in the show when Lucifer is told by another character to “stop caring, you’re the Devil”. Compassion, or ‘caring’, is considered a moral virtue, and so does not fit with the traditional portrayal of Satan/Lucifer as evil. Yet in the TV show, we are offered a much more human, and relatable Satan, which ‘encourage[s] [us] to feel with, like and root for’ him (Vaage, 2016, p.xvi). With his charisma, the audience is drawn to Lucifer, and so in almost every scene he appears, he remains in the frame. This emphasizes that he is the focus of our attention, and so we become increasingly invested in him – he becomes our ‘anti-hero’, an increasingly popular figure within contemporary pop culture (Vaage, 2016, p.90).

Lucy gif

The Bible also does not offer a clear explanation of Satan’s relationship with God. Satan is depicted in the Old Testament as being employed by God to test human faith (Job 1-2). However, in contrast to the New Testament (see (Luke 10:18; cf. Revelation 12:1-6;  Acts 5:3), there is no mention of Satan being God’s rival (Telford, 2014, p.91), or an explicit embodiment of evil. Thus, while one can agree that in the Bible God and Satan have a relationship, this relationship is not consistent across the two testaments (Wray & Mobley, 2005, p.1). Such inconsistency therefore offers us a biblical ‘gap’ around Satan’s character.

Lucifer fills this gap by making it explicit that the relationship between God and Satan is that of father and son. Lucifer repeatedly refers to God as “Dad” or “Father”, leaving us with no doubt about this. That this is their chosen relationship is significant in the show’s world. It implies that Satan’s biblical fall from heaven (Luke 10:18; cf. Revelation 12:1-6), and later adversarial role (Acts 5:3), were the result of childhood rebellion. This contributes to Lucifer’s humanized portrayal of Satan. His fall is said to be the result of “one of [God’s] children … act[ing] out”. The choice of describing this fall as “act[ing] out” against a parent implies that Satan is a rebellious child. This makes him appear more human because the audience can relate to this, perhaps having gone through similar stages of rebellion themselves. Therefore, because of this gap-filling, we gain a humanized portrayal of Satan.

Lucy 2

Satan is also a tempter. He is portrayed like this in both the Bible (Wyman, 2016, p.4) and Lucifer. In the Bible, this is fundamental to his character (cf. Job 1-2; Matthew 4:1-11). An important story about Satan, the temptation of Jesus, shows this most clearly (Wray & Mobley, 2005, p.120). Here, Jesus is taken “to be tempted by the devil” (Matthew 4:1). Such an explicit statement linking Satan with performing temptation leaves no doubt that this is his role.

Hans Memling der Hölle
Hans Memling, Die Hölle (c. 1485)

Furthermore, this role has also contributed to Satan being presented as the embodiment of all evil (Wray & Mobley, 2005, p.1). However, the connotations of the word ‘evil’ suggest someone who enjoys their depraved actions, similar to what we see in medieval depictions of the ‘evil’ Satan (De La Torre & Hernández, 2011, p.17). Yet, the Bible does not tell us about Satan’s thoughts or motivations about his role as tempter – sometimes it appears as though he is just doing his job, and with divine approval (Job 1-2). Thus, we see another biblical gap around Satan’s character.

Lucifer, in comparison, tells us Satan’s thoughts about being a tempter. The show acknowledges that Satan has this previous biblical role (Telford, 2014, p.90), however, it is presented as humanity’s excuse for human wrongdoing: as Lucifer complains, humans blame their own badness on him, claiming ‘the devil made me do it’. In a number of episodes, we are given insights into Lucifer’s thoughts on being a tempter. He sees himself as ‘vilified’, asking, ‘Why do they blame me for all their little failings as if I’d spent my days sitting on their shoulder forcing them to commit acts they’d otherwise find repulsive?’ Lucifer’s emotional response here is important because it again makes him appear more human, more relatable.

Lucy gif cheers

By filling the various biblical gaps in ways that humanize Satan, the TV character of Lucifer is influenced by 21st-century understandings of Satan as a figure of evil (Telford, 2014, p.103). In the 21st-century, Satan is no longer “the ultimate source of evil” (Wyman, 2016, p.14). The secularization of modern society has replaced him with secular figures of evil, human satanic figures (See Porter, 2017) – corrupt politicians and world leaders, war criminals, terrorists, unethical multinational companies . As a result, Satan has lost his mystical “power” in the minds of his 21st-century audience (Wyman, 2016, p. 15). Humanizing Satan in Lucifer reflects this loss because it suggests that he is now understood as one of us, rather than a supernatural entity. If evil is to be found, then it is to be found among the human community here on earth, rather than in a fallen angel or supernatural being. There is thus a connection between Lucifer’s altered portrayal and the world behind the text, our 21st-century context.

It is clear then, that Lucifer provides an altered portrayal of the biblical character Satan. In filling the specific biblical gaps of who Satan is and what he is like, his relationship with God, and his thoughts on being a tempter, Satan’s portrayal goes from vague to humanized. Therefore, Lucifer has “reflect[ed] the culture in which [it was] produced” (Telford, 2014, p.89). As we have seen, the humanization of Satan is the product of the 21st-century understandings of this figure, his relationship with evil, and the rise of the anti-hero.

Lucy flames

Reference list

All biblical citations are taken from the NRSV

De La Torre, M. A., & Hernández, A. (2011). The Quest for the Historical Satan. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Kapinos, Tom (Creator). (2016-present). Lucifer, [Television show]. United States: FOX.

Porter, A. L. (2017). Satanic Humans: Using Satanic Tropes To Guide And Misguide The Audience. Journal of Religion & Film, 21(1), 1-33.

Telford, W. R. (2014). “Speak of the Devil”: The Portrayal of Satan in the Christ Film. In E. S. Christianson & C. H. Partridge (Eds), The Lure of the Darkside: Satan and Western Demonology in Popular Culture (pp. 89-104).

Vaage, M. B. (2016). The Antihero in American Television. New York and London: Routledge.

Wray, T. J., & Mobley, G. (2005). The Birth of Satan: Tracing the Devil’s Biblical Roots. New York and Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wyman, K. J. (2016). The Devil We Already Know: Medieval Representations of a Powerless Satan in Modern American Cinema. Journal of Religion & Film, 8(3), Article 7, 1-19.


Two fabulous seminars

Auckland TheoRel are delighted to announce not one, but two wonderful seminars coming up next week. The first features TheoRel’s Caroline Blyth as the first guest speaker in a new seminar series hosted by the Gender Studies programme here at the University of Auckland. The seminar will be held in room 040B in the Owen G Glenn building on Grafton Road.


Next, on Friday 17th March, our visiting scholar, Jo Henderson-Merrygold will be delivering the first of our ‘My Queer Research’ seminars, brought to you by Hidden Perspectives: Bringing the Arts Out of the Closet – a new project at the University of Auckland, which provides a social and academic community for LGBTIQ+ students across the Faculty of Arts. This seminar will be co-hosted by Gender Studies and Theology and Religion.


Both of these events promise to be fabulous, so we hope to see you there!

For further inquiries about the seminars, or Hidden Perspectives, please contact Caroline Blyth.



New year, new visiting scholar

Auckland TheoRel are delighted to welcome their first visiting scholar of the year, Jo Henderson-Merrygold, who has come all the way from the Sheffield Institute of Interdisciplinary Biblical Studies (SIIBS) to work with us for five weeks. Jo is a PhD Student at SIIBS, and her visit has been generously funded by  the White Rose College of the Arts and Humanities (WRoCAH), as part of their doctoral training programme. In her PhD research, she is developing a strategy to read the Bible against established gender norms. In particular, she wants to challenge the way many readers assume that biblical characters are cisgendered – that their assigned (and assumed) gender remains consistent and fixed throughout their lives. She calls her approach a Hermeneutics of Cispicion.


At Sheffield, Jo is co-director of Hidden Perspectives: Bringing the Bible out of the Closet. Hidden Perspectives showcases challenging voices and research which invite new perspectives on norms of gender, sex, sexuality, race and class. Recent events have included papers covering sex-work in Hong Kong, post-holocaust readings of gender norms, HIV and LGBT activism in Kenya, and a hugely successful ‘Orange is the New Bible’ symposium. Later in 2017 Hidden Perspectives will be organizing a showcase of student research from across the Faculty of Arts at Sheffield.

One of Jo’s main tasks while she is in Auckland is to work with Auckland’s Faculty of Arts staff and students to develop a ‘sister’ Hidden Perspectives programme here. Hidden Perspectives NZ: Bringing the Arts out of the Closet is a new venture organized by Rainbow Arts and Arts Equity that seeks to provide a platform for LGBTI+ student voices across the Faculty of Arts, and to foster a social and academic community where LGBTI+ Arts students can meet, share ideas, support each other, and get inspired by queer research and activism.

Jo enjoying herself at Auckland Pride, 25 Feb 2017

Jo is delighted to be working with Hidden Perspectives New Zealand during the time she is here. She is organizing a new HPNZ website, has been meeting staff and students involved in HPNZ, and is currently busy getting our HPNZ promotional material ready for Orientation Week at the University. She will also be participating in a few HPNZ events while she is here, including our official launch (16 March) and her very own ‘My Queer Research’ seminar (17 March – details to come). Jo is so dedicated that she doesn’t even take weekends off, and spent last Saturday evening parading with University staff and students at Auckland’s annual Pride Parade. But we do give her a wee bit of time off, and she is having a great time exploring Auckland, enjoying our blue skies and warm sunny days (a bit of a change from the snow she left in the UK) and relishing the chorus of cicadas that provide the songscape in NZ at this time of year . Welcome Jo, and we hope you continue to enjoy your time in Auckland!



Baptisms of fire and blood: The Bible and Beyoncé’s Lemonade

This year, we had a load of fabulous essays from the students in our Bible and Pop Culture class. Today’s essay, though, has to be my favourite of 2016. It’s written by TianaTuialii, who recently completed her first year of a Bachelor of Arts and Law conjoint degree. Tiana was born and bred in Auckland city and has no intention of leaving anytime soon. She tells me that our Bible and Pop Culture course (THEOREL 101) was easily the most enjoyable course she took throughout the year, and she found it thought provoking, interesting and allowed breathing room for creative flair. Which is why she wrote not one, but two essays on the wonderful Beyonce Knowles. Tiana hopes that her future will be ‘a series of deliverances of justice’, as she intends to spend her lifetime working in the legal profession. I hope she continues to write too, as she has a real talent.


Beyoncé: debunking biblical condemnation of sexuality using metaphors of baptism, flame and menstruation.

By Tiana Tuialii

No image has been more dominating in popular culture of the twenty-first century than pop icon Beyonce Knowles. In her recently released album ‘Lemonade’, Beyonce deconstructs biblical condemnation of female sexuality through extensive metaphors relating to baptism, flame and menstruation. The need to invalidate biblical vilification of sexuality springs from a history in which women were consistently disadvantaged by not only their own femininity, but stereotypes of femininity. Indeed, long before biblical Eve arrived to partner with Adam, Pandora was fashioned out of clay by Hephaestus, described as a “beautiful evil” (Hesiod 1914). As is the nature of literary tradition, women are often an inherent dichotomy, both beautiful and sinful. Female oppression is historic and universal, the story cyclical. A woman is construed consistently as less of a human being and more as a force of nature. Considering aspects from the Second Edition of the New Living Translation Bible we can note a transformation of women as a destructive force of nature, to a significant and positive authority as shown in ‘Lemonade’.


The audience’s first glimpse of Beyonce in ‘Lemonade’ is of her sitting clothed in black, stark against the deep red of a stage curtain. The use of the colour red in scripture has symbolically meant sin and sinfulness. Indeed, “sins are like scarlet” (Isaiah 1.18). Therefore, it comes as no surprise that a woman should be presented amongst sin. However, it is not only sin that is associated with red, but menstruation too. Regardless, both sin and menstruation share a common theme of undesirability and uncleanliness. Biblically, menstruation is one of the pains gifted to Eve by God for biting into the forbidden fruit. He exclaims “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth” (Genesis 3.16). The prior asserts that a female’s bodily functions are intended to be uncomfortable.

bey-gifHowever, Beyonce expresses no such sentiment. Instead, she describes menstruation as simply tilling “blood in and out of uterus”. Further, it isn’t God or Eve she calls to blame “for the flush of blood”, but the moon. In refusing to recognize Eve’s sin as the source of discomfort as a result of regular bodily function, Beyonce rejects the idea that a woman should feel condemned under the aegis of the bible. In a prelude to ‘Daddy’s Girl’ Beyonce lyricises that “you look nothing like your mother, you look everything like your mother”. In essence, because a woman is sinful, we all look like Eve, the mother of humanity.

bey-darkHowever, Beyonce is not discouraged by appearing sinful, expressing her desire to look like her mother by wearing her lipstick. In picking up and using the tube of lipstick and subsequently offering the lipstick to young girls, Beyonce shows how unashamed she is to be a woman. She isn’t fearful of being associated with sin, of looking like Eve. Instead, she actively pursues the feminine and finds power in doing so. Such is shown by the perversion of Matthew 5:5, where instead of God, Beyonce begs “Mother dearest, let me inherit the Earth”. In her replacement of God with a matriarch, Beyonce refuses to acknowledge the lords second punishment to Eve, subservience to the male figure. Womanhood, characterized by menstruation and pregnancy, is shown in ‘Lemonade’ as a source of power rather than shame. Using imagery, dialogue and metaphors associated with menstruation, Beyonce shows a clear shift between traditional biblical condemnation of sin to a more femininely powerful modern perspective – a rejection of the synonymous nature of womanhood and shame.

bey-girlsIn baptism, believers rise from the water, immediately becoming symbols of spiritual longevity. They have accomplished a great feat: receiving resurrection-life through Jesus Christ (Moren 2010). Considering the prior, baptism has traditionally been the means by which one establishes a life-long relationship with Jesus Christ. In contrast, Beyonce uses baptism as a means to rebirth herself, rather than rebirth her faith. In doing so, Beyonce shows the regenerative nature of baptism can only be achieved for women once they accept power lies in femininity, not shame. She explains that as a result of shame, at not being enough to satisfy her husband, she “fasted for 60 days, wore white, abstained from mirrors, abstained from sex”. The list is extensive. However, despite the correct performance of the practices and not only the acceptance, but encouragement, of such practices by the bible, she is still left unfulfilled.

bey-water-2Pictured in a room flooded with water, Beyonce is literally drowning in her cloak of shame. It is not until she removes the cloak that she leaves the room freely, water rushing behind her. Consequent images show her walking through water, a line of women following. She gushes “baptize me. Now that reconciliation is possible”. Reconciliation has only become a possibility as a result of Beyonce leaving the room and the water where she was agonizing over her sin. Her choice to leave, to forget the ugliness committed against her is where shame dissolves. Shame does not dissipate as a result of baptism. Rather, baptism becomes possible once shame dissipates. This makes a broader comment on the oppressive structure of womanhood, perpetuated by the bible, that women who live in shame of themselves will never achieve freedom in life or through Christ. Matthew 3:13-17 notes that after Jesus’ baptism “the heavens were opened”. In a similar fashion, once Beyonce lets go of the questions “coiled deep”, she can undergo healing which will be “glorious”. Ultimately, imagery, dialogue and metaphor related to baptism in ‘Lemonade’ work to assert that for women, baptism is void of its regenerative properties until they can let go of the sin and shame that springs from the original temptation. While Beyonce’s music could be considered simple artistic expression, her message embodies feminism (Thompson 2016).


No image is more classically associated with hell, the devil and sin than flame. In ‘Lemonade’ the use of flame is rampant. When viewing flame as a symbol of sin, the audience sees Beyonce unafraid, happily sitting in the middle of a box of flame in a prelude to ‘6 Inch’. She remains unaffected, because if the female body is the site of sin, then the presence of fire outside of her body is only a reflection of the flame within. Therefore, her strut through a hallway alight, only alludes to the female’s ability to handle the sin of the world and the sin the world has pushed upon her.

giphyIndeed, after Adam and Eve bit into the forbidden fruit, it was Eve who God turned to and questioned “what have you done?”. The male remained free of accountability, granted the opportunity to “rule over” the female as a result of her treachery. However, Lemonade marks a significant divergence from the traditional view of flame as an associate of sin. Admittedly, Beyonce uses flame as a trope to establish herself as blissfully aware and unashamed of her sin, as previously noted. But, she also uses flame in a way which is much more consistent with Bachelards description of it being unique, life giving, “intimate and universal” (Manopriya 2015). In the prelude to ‘Sandcastles’ the camera focuses intently on a fire place, the flames welcoming and warm. Beyonce states “Do you remember being born?”.

bey-fire-gifHere, flame is directly associated with life. Bachelard describes flame as rising “from the depths” and offering “itself with the warmth of love”. Here, birth and flame are consistent with what could be considered the ‘warmth’ of love, ‘Sandcastles’ being a love song (Manopriya 2015). With the focus on the fire place Beyonce extends the metaphor between fire and birth, stating “are you thankful for the hips that cracked the deep velvet of your mother and her mother and her mother?”. In closely linking flame and birth, Beyonce twists what is usually a negative symbol into becoming something “magic”, allusive of a women’s potential to birth life, but also rebirth her own life. Such is confirmed in losing the house, a traditional associate of femininity, to flame. In burning down a recognizable site of female oppression, Beyonce offers women a chance to rebuild something worthy from the ashes. Here, fire grants the opportunity to ‘relive’, to start again free of the restrictions of femininity. Hence, fire in ‘Lemonade’ is not a destructive associate of sin, but a powerful positive force used by women.

bey3Through her visual album ‘Lemonade’ Beyonce works to deconstruct biblical condemnation of sexuality through metaphors related to baptism, flame and menstruation. Since the story of Adam and Eve, where the Lord proclaimed “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you”, women have been dealing with adverse effects. They have been viewed as the site of sin, the original wrong-doers and the downfall of men.

bey-in-yellowBeyonce refuses such assertions. Instead, she claims that “God was in the room when the man said to the woman wrap your legs around me”. She refuses to allow men a complicit position in actions that involve two. She demands male accountability. The lyric “she don’t gotta give it up” is imbued with a double meaning. As a women, she doesn’t have to give up sex, doesn’t have to be subject to someone else’s desire. As a women, she doesn’t have to give up, nor be afraid of, her femininity. Ultimately, the use of baptism, flame and menstruation in ‘Lemonade’ act as “exhibitions of female and sexual empowerment which disrupt traditional notions of femininity” (Kumari 2016). It is in this way, that ‘Lemonade’ works to deconstruct biblical vilification of sexuality.


Works Cited

Hesiod. 1914. Theogony. Translated by H.G.Loeb Evelyn-White. Vol. 57. William Heinemann.

Kumari, A. 2016. “You and I: Identity and the Performance of Self in Lady Gaga and Beyonce.” The Journal of Popular Culture 49(2): 103-416.

Manopriya, M. 2015. The Two Elements of Nature. Vol. 15:5. Language in India.

Moren, Peter J. 2010. C.H Spurgeon and Baptism. Baptist Quarterly.

Thompson, Cheryl. 2016. The Sweet Taste of Lemonade: Beyonce Serves up Black Feminist History. Herizons.


Political Supersaviour

Today’s Bible and Pop Culture essay comes from Bachelor of Arts student Jessica Marshall. Jessica has just finished her second year of her Arts degree, majoring in history and English. She was born in Manchester, in the UK, but has lived in Auckland since she was ten years old. Jessica hopes to be a journalist once she finishes her studies. Like Christiane Amanpour and Kate Adie, she is passionate about wanting to hold people responsible in the court of public opinion, in order to ‘right the wrongs’ that we see too much of in the world.

Jessica chose the wonderful TV series West Wing as the focus of her essay, and her evaluation of President Bartlet as a contemporary saviour figure casts a cynical eye at contemporary US politics. Enjoy.


Josiah ‘Jed’ Bartlet: The Fictional Messiah U.S. Politics Always Needed


Jessica Marshall

At this point in time, politics in the United States has become a mockery of the democracy it claims to stand for. So, in the time of such a travesty, we must look to fiction. The television series The West Wing (1999-2006) created and written by Aaron Sorkin has the greatest example of a President (fictional or otherwise) that the United States could hope for in Josiah ‘Jed’ Bartlet. As one writer put it, ‘One of the only things that has made life worth living for left-leaning liberals … is the small fact that, for one hour … [George W. Bush] is not the president’ (Clark 2005, 224). And unlike most presidential characters, Bartlet is multi-faceted and layered (Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles 2006, 153). In this essay, I will argue that Bartlet shares a number of features with the figure of the contemporary messiah or ‘supersaviour’, who Jewett and Lawrence identify in their discussion of the American Monomyth (2002). I will do this through analysing several storylines and episodes of West Wing, including the Pilot (1×01), the shooting storyline (1×22 – 2×02), the episode ‘Two Cathedrals’ (2×22) and, finally, the parabolic episode ‘Isaac and Ishmael’ (3×01).


There’s a phrase that came out of the protest movements of the 1960s: ‘The personal is political.’ It seems to be a sentiment that has continued over the decades, even going so far as to enter into the fictional White House, making itself pronounced in the pilot episode of The West Wing. One character, Josh Lyman (played by Bradley Whitford), deals with a faux pas with regards to the religious right. This is how our hero, President Jed Bartlet, is brought into the picture. Josh is forced to apologise for the faux pas. In the midst of this meeting, after another staffer – Toby – becomes frustrated with the recipient of the apology over racist comments she has made towards Jews, a debate over the Ten Commandments breaks out between Toby and one member of the religious right, John Van Dyke. Van Dyke makes the claim that ‘Honour thy father’ (Exod. 20.3) is the First Commandment. An argument ensues between Toby and Van Dyke in which Toby explains that ‘Honour thy father’ is, in fact, the Third Commandment, to which Van Dyke responds with the question ‘Then what’s the First Commandment?’ At this moment, President Bartlet walks into the room, answering the question correctly. Here, Bartlet combines the selfless zeal of a man who rescues a staff member he should have fired for a one-liner (Josh) with the zealous saviour who rescues the White House from evil. Yet, perhaps his behaviour is not entirely selfless (Lawrence and Jewett 2002, 6). Bartlet’s granddaughter, twelve-years-old, received a death threat from an over-zealous fringe group going by the name ‘The Lambs of God’, all because – in an article – she stated her opinions on reproductive rights. Bartlet, having already corrected them on the order of the Ten Commandments, then poses a question to those present in the room: ‘From what part of holy scripture do you suppose The Lambs of God drew their divine inspiration when they sent my twelve-year-old granddaughter a bloody Raggedy Ann doll with a knife through its throat?’ It is in this scene that Bartlet proves one of his messianic superpowers, according to the American Monomyth: his intelligence (Primiano 2009, 99). It shows up again and again throughout the show’s run, but the message is always the same: you would be best advised not to go up against him in a battle of wits.


Perhaps the best storyline that Aaron Sorkin ever tackled as the writer on The West Wing – and one of its most controversial – was that of the Roslyn shooting. Here, we see two resurrections. In flashback, we see the resurrection of Bartlet the politician and in the present we see the resurrection of Bartlet’s staffer, Josh Lyman. While the second resurrection is important to another storyline, one I will discuss later, the first is the more interesting. At the beginning of the flashback, it looks like Senator John Hoynes (the Vice-President in present time) will win the Democratic nomination. Bartlet, on the other hand, is the dark horse, the outside candidate no one expects to succeed. As a woman in a New Hampshire bar says to Toby, ‘I didn’t even know Bartlet was running’ (‘In The Shadow of Two Gunmen Part One’ 2000). In the following scene, however, Bartlet again proves his intelligence; during a speech in Nashua, New Hampshire, he talks about the economy and taxes – not exactly a rousing topic, let’s face it. But then, when asked about a vote in Congress over the New England Dairy Farming Compact (he voted against a bill that would have given dairy farmers more money, but caused the price of milk to rise), Bartlet responds simply with ‘Yeah, I screwed you on that.’  It is one of those turning points for an election campaign. Normally, these occur during the presidential debates after the parties have announced their nominees (for example, Kennedy vs. Nixon in 1960 or Bush vs. Dukakis in 1988; see Spacey and Brunetti 2016). That this could happen so early in a campaign that next to no one had even heard of is nothing short of miraculous. He continues, saying, ‘One in five children live in the most abject, dangerous, hopeless, backbreaking, gut-wrenching poverty… I voted against the bill ‘cause I didn’t want it to be hard for people to buy milk… if you expect anything different from the President… I suggest you vote for somebody else.’ It’s an honesty we rarely see in politicians, it’s endearing, it makes you want to vote for the guy who admits that he stiffed his own constituents and it raises from the dead a campaign few even knew existed. In reviving the campaign with one speech, Bartlet resurrects his career as a politician and, therefore, himself.


One of the most heart-breaking moments in this television series comes when President Bartlet yells at God in the National Cathedral in the episode entitled ‘Two Cathedrals’ (2001). It is flashback-heavy episode, as Bartlet deals with his grief for his secretary and friend, Mrs Landingham who has died in a car crash. The speech (a chunk of which is in Latin – the language of the traditional Catholic mass) is juxtaposed against Bartlet’s memories of his abusive father. In doing this, it pits God against Bartlet’s own father. The anger Bartlet felt towards his father for years is mixed in with his ire towards God in his moments of grief: ‘”You can’t conceive nor can it, the appalling strangeness of the mercy of God,” says Graham Greene. I don’t know whose ass he was kissing there ‘cause I think you’re just vindictive. What was Josh Lyman? A warning shot? That was my son.’ He all but screams, the sound of his voice echoing across the empty Cathedral. His anger is easily understandable. Christians are reminded that people are all ‘God’s children’ (Rom 8.16). Yet, even the most devoted of followers, the most desperate to please the father, cannot do so and even if they try their best to do so, God still takes and takes and takes. He’s taken Mrs Landingham, the only parental figure Bartlet had left, handed him a case of remitting-relapsing Multiple Sclerosis, and had his staffer, Josh Lyman – a man Bartlet has come to see as his own son – shot. Why? Bartlet, himself, asks this question: ‘What did I ever do to [Jesus] but praise his glory and praise his name?’ Confused and angry, Bartlet admits that he has lied to the American public with regards to his MS diagnosis, but surely that makes him like Jesus sending his disciples away before his crucifixion – he does not want the people around him to suffer because of who he is or the suffering he has to endure.

The final episode I wish to talk about is the first episode of the third season, entitled ‘Isaac and Ishmael’ (2001). Officially, a special rather than an actual episode (at the beginning of the episode, the cast inform us that it does not fit in with the normal plot). It was filmed and aired within the four weeks after the events of September 11th, a point at which the majority of the entertainment industry avoided referencing even the idea of violence, let alone terrorism (Jones and Dionisopoulos 2004, 21). It is parabolic, as students from the Presidential Classroom programme wind up in the midst of what the Secret Service calls a ‘Crash’ (meaning that the White House has been breached). For a small moment, as his staffers – Josh Lyman, Toby Ziegler, Sam Seaborn, C.J. Cregg and Charlie Young – are in the midst of fielding questions regarding terrorism, President Bartlet walks in with his wife, Abbey. Here, he is asked by a student whether or not there is something noble in being a martyr. To this, he replies with the line ‘A martyr would rather suffer death at the hands of an oppressor than renounce his beliefs. Killing yourself and innocent people to make a point is sick, twisted, brutal, dumb-ass murder… we don’t need martyrs right now. We need heroes. A hero would die for his country but he’d much rather live for it.’ Here, Bartlet crosses borders. His speech comes at a time in American history when they need a leader, a time when the Patriot Act was being passed with little to no forethought as to what it could do. In giving this speech, the United States is given a leader, a hero to quote the character himself, one who will not simply go to war because it is the easier option. The speech reminds people of who the enemy really is: not one particular race (as had already been explained earlier in the episode) or a particular religion but anyone who commits heinous attacks against America and its people. It is Bartlet’s sermon on the Mount moment, but instead of preaching to the poor and downtrodden, he preaches to those who form the future of society: children. Instead of saying ‘Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom in heaven,’ he says that America needs a hero and, like any Messiah, allows for the phrase ‘and I am it’ to go unsaid (Matt. 5.3).


There was a reason I subtitled this essay ‘The Fictional Messiah U.S. Politics Always Needed’ and, yes, it has to do with my own political leanings. It also has to do with the fact that Jed Bartlet, a creation of Aaron Sorkin’s own mind, represents the best of all the Presidents of American history. He’s honest like Lincoln, witty like Kennedy and Reagan. There’s an idea known as the cult of leadership and it’s normally applied to dictators like Stalin or Kim Jong-Il. In The West Wing, I believe we have a leader, albeit fictional, we could add to a list of political messiahs who actually deserve the cult of leadership. He is honest, a reviver of dead political campaigns, intelligent and he does not even realise that he is a hero. Jed Bartlet is the man America needs to bring it back from the abyss.


All references to the Biblical Text are from the New International Version (NIV).

Written Sources

Clark, J. Elizabeth. ‘The Bartlet Administration and Contemporary Populism in NBC’s The West Wing’ in Michael Hammond and Lucy Mazdon (Eds.), The Contemporary Television Series. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2005. Pp.224-243

Jones, Robert and George N. Dionisopoulos, ‘Scripting a Tragedy: The “Isaac and Ishmael” Episode of The West Wing as Parable’ Popular Communication Vol.2 (1), 2004, pp.21-40

Parry-Giles, Trevor and Shawn Parry-Giles. The Prime-Time Presidency: The West Wing and U.S. Nationalism. Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 2006

Primiano, Leonard N. ‘”For What I Have Done and What I Have Failed To Do”: Vernacular Catholicism and The West Wing’ in Diane H. Winston (Ed.), Small Screen, Big Picture: Television and Lived Religion. Waco, Texas. Baylor University Press, 2009, pp. 99-123

Shelton Lawrence, John and Robert Jewett. The Myth of the American Superhero. Grand Rapids, W.B. Eerdmans, 2002.

Electronic Sources

‘George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis’ Race for the White House, directed by David Bartlett, produced by Kevin Spacey and Dana Brunetti. United States: CNN, 2016.

‘Government Surveillance’ Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. Produced by Liz Stanton. United States: Avalon Television and Partially Important Productions, 2015

‘In The Shadow of Two Gunmen Part One’ The West Wing, directed by Thomas Schlamme, written by Aaron Sorkin. United States: NBC, 2000

‘Isaac and Ishmael’ The West Wing. Directed by Christopher Misiano, written by Aaron Sorkin. United States: NBC, 2001.

‘John F. Kennedy vs. Richard Nixon’ Race for the White House, directed by Christopher Spencer, produced by Kevin Spacey and Dana Brunetti. United States: CNN, 2016‘Pilot’ The West Wing. TV Series. Directed by Thomas Schlamme. Written by Aaron Sorkin. United States: NBC, 1999.

‘Pilot’ The West Wing. TV Series. Directed by Thomas Schlamme. Written by Aaron Sorkin. United States: NBC, 1999.

‘Two Cathedrals’ The West Wing. Directed by Thomas Schlamme, written by Aaron Sorkin. United States: NBC, 2001.

[1] John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett. The Myth of the American Superhero, Grand Rapids, W.B. Eerdmans, 2002, p.6



Another glimpse of Delilah

Today’s wonderful Bible and Pop Culture essay is by Lachlan Balfour, who takes us back for another look at my favourite biblical character, Delilah. Lachlan has just completed his second year of a law and arts degree, where he is majoring in politics. Lachlan hasn’t decided yet what he’ll do once he completes his degree (he has a while to decide!) but at this point, he is thinking about a career working in politics.  Lachlan tells me that he enjoyed our Bible and Pop Culture course, as it allowed him to gain a knowledge of the bible and to understand just how prevalent it is in contemporary society. So sit back, and relish some more Delilah fabulousness.


Hedy Lamarr as Delilah in Cecil B. DeMille’s Samson and Delilah (Paramount, 1949)

Samson’s Judas: The Portrayal of Delilah as a Vindictive Femme Fatale


Lachlan Balfour

The portrayal of Delilah in cultural texts since the first mention of her in Judges 16 has tended to show her as a vindictive femme fatale, something that has little basis in the bible. Judges 16 provides limited background on Delilah, her motivation for betraying Samson or the nature of their relationship. Despite this, creators of cultural works, including Rembrandt in his 1636 work The Blinding of Samson, Rubens’ Samson and Delilah and Cecil B. DeMille’s 1949 film epic of the same name, attempt to fill these gaps to create Delilah the femme fatale. Delilah’s motivation for betraying Samson, the nature of their relationship, and whether Delilah regretted her betrayal are the biblical gaps discussed.  This essay will focus on how the world behind the text, including the creator’s experiences and the views of those around them, and the world in the text – focusing on the piece itself, are used to fill these gaps to create the  image of Delilah we have today.


Poster for Samson and Delilah (Paramount 1949)

In Samson and Delilah, DeMille gives Delilah a number of motivations for cutting Samson’s hair, all of which aid in portraying her as a vindictive femme fatale. Judges 16 only refers to the possible motivation of Delilah receiving “eleven hundred pieces of silver” from each of the Philistine elders in return for discovering the source of Samson’s strength (JDG. 16.5). While DeMille does incorporate this detail into his telling of the story, he does not make it the sole reason for Delilah’s betrayal. DeMille instead makes her primary motivation that of revenge for Samson’s rejection of her over her sister and an all-consuming jealousy that means if she can’t have Samson, no one can – both very femme fatale like qualities. The world in the text of the film shows Samson rejecting the offer of marriage to Delilah after her sister betrays him by marrying someone else, stating he would “not want a thistle from a rose” (Zwick 2014, 219). After becoming courtesan to King of the philistines, she offers her services in trapping Samson as revenge for his rejection. Once Delilah has cut off his hair she offers another motive for her betrayal – jealousy. Referring to the virtuous Mirjam who loves Samson and convinces him to leave Delilah to save his parents, Delilah remarks:  “I could have loved you with a fire to make all others seem like ice…but one call from the milk-faced Danite and you run whining at her heels.” This is very much portraying Delilah as the femme fatale, a seductress who causes the downfall of a helpless man her for her own gratification. Her near hatred for Samson after his rejection also adds to this image, which is vastly different to the monetary reward which seems to motivate Delilah in the bible.


Hedy Lamarr and Victor Mature, Samson and Delilah (Paramount 1949)

The society surrounding DeMille influenced him in making his Delilah a “scheming little dame,” taking from popular perceptions of Delilah in the 1940s and views on women more generally (Kozlovic 2010, 8). Delilah’s portrayal as a femme fatale fits very much within view of Delilah in the 1940s, that she was a temptress and therefore her whole character was bad. This is in line with the conservative view that promiscuous women were dangerous and immoral that existed during the period – though promiscuous men were not subjected to the same harsh judgement.  Samson is portrayed as an Israelite hero for murdering Philistines in revenge for his broken engagement to Delilah’s sister, but Delilah is seen as a vindictive temptress for doing what was in the best interests of her people. By portraying Delilah as, in DeMille’s words, “quite the bitch” but Samson as above reproach is a reflection of the world behind the text of 1940s society in America where men were seen as the superior sex (ibid., 12). Further, DeMille is enforcing the stereotype of  Delilah as a dangerous woman, determined to bring down Samson for initially rejecting her love. More recent interpretations consider that perhaps Delilah was only betraying Samson for her own survival, knowing that it was dangerous to disobey the Philistine elders (ibid., 10). No consideration is given to her situation, a single woman in a world very much dominated by men, and that maybe her motivations lay only in survival (Zwick 2014, 219).


Delilah makes the fatal cut (Paramount 1949)

Rembrandt portrays Delilah as unremorseful for her betrayal of Samson, instead relishing in his pain to add to her image as an evil, vindictive woman. Judges 16 offers no insight into how Delilah felt about her actions, so he has filled this gap in a way that enforces the stereotype of her as an evil femme fatale. The world in the text of The Blinding of Samson shows Delilah as being both repulsed by the gouging of Samson’s eyes but also has a look of fascination and almost satisfaction as she looks on at the struggling Samson (Georgievska-Shine 2007, 249). Further, she is seen to be mocking Samson by clutching his hair in her hand and “flaunting it” in front of him (ibid). He is enforcing the stereotype of Delilah as a femme fatale who revels in the destruction she has caused by painting her as a “projection of the feeling of attraction mingled with repulsion elicited by woman and the danger she denotes” (ibid.). Rembrandt has completely imagined her response cutting Samson’s hair as there is no mention of her after the gouging in Judges 16, and instead of giving her qualities of shame and remorse he has used it to give her the qualities of a femme fatale.


Rembrandt, The Blinding of Samson (1636)

            Looking behind the text, Rembrandt’s own fear of losing his vision, something that for a painter would be seen as ‘the ultimate deprivation’, combined with societal views impacts his portrayal of Delilah (ibid.). It is thought that the models for Samson and Delilah is the artist himself and his wife Saskia, with Rembrandt having only painted Samson during their marriage (ibid., 252). His own feelings about relationships between man and woman and the dangers that they contained were expressed through The Blinding of Samson. Rembrandt saw from his marriage that women could be unremorseful femme fatales, and used his deepest fear of going blind as a way to show the betrayal which can occur in relationships (ibid.). Further influencing his depiction of Delilah were those around him. There was a strong theme in Dutch art and literature at the time warning of the dangers of relations between man and woman (ibid.). This would have caused him to take a more moralistic approach to Delilah, portraying her as evil personified for betraying Samson and therefore unremorseful for her actions.


Rubens, Samson and Delilah (1609-10)

Rubens’ Samson and Delilah portrays the relationship between the pair as sex worker and customer to enforce the image of Delilah as a femme fatale. Judges 16 does not give a clear picture of the relationship between Samson and Delilah. Although it assumed she is a concubine, Samson acts differently towards her than the woman he lay with earlier in the text (Jdg. 16.1-3), saying that he is in love with her rather than there just being a sexual attraction (Sasson 1998, 334). In Rubens’ painting, we see from the world in the text that he includes many of the traits of a brothel with an old woman as a ‘procuress’ and the inclusion of towels and jars typical of brothel scenes (Georgievska-Shine 2007, 461). Further hints at this being a brothel scene are that Delilah’s breasts are exposed and she is waring in a red dress, the huge Samson resting on her lap hinting that they have just finished making love (Exum 1996, 192). This sexualisation of Delilah combined with the perception of sex workers as people with ‘loose morals’ contributes to her portrayal as a seductress and dangerous woman – despite this not being the case in Judges 16. That Rubens chooses to portray her as a concubine is very much a reflection of his world and the beliefs at the time. Other artists during the 17th century also adhered to Josephus’ description of Delilah as a “harlot among the philistines” by painting her with an expression of indifference toward Samson, never having loved him (Georgievska-Shine 2007, 462). It is only natural that Rubens would follow this theme in his portrayal, interpreting Judges 16 in such a way that Delilah is made into an immoral seductress.

The portrayal of Delilah in cultural texts differs greatly from her biblical portrayal in Judges 16. Looking at the texts and their creators’ influences for Delilah’s portrayal show a vindictive femme fatale where only a vague description of Delilah exists in the bible. Cecil B. DeMille’s Samson and Delilah fills the biblical gap of the motivation for Delilah’s betrayal as revenge and jealousy, attributes that feed into the image of her as a femme fatale. DeMille’s world helped to shape this portrayal by its views around the interpretation of Delilah and women more generally. Rembrandt’s The Blinding of Samson also exhibits Delilah as an unremorseful, dangerous woman, with the moralistic Dutch contemporaries and his own personal views on relationships shaping this portrayal. Finally, Rubens’ Samson and Delilah fills the final gap in Judges 16, portraying the relationship between Samson and Delilah as a courtesan and customer. The prevailing view at the time of Delilah as a sex worker influencing his work and helping to add to Delilah’s image as an immoral femme fatale.



All biblical text references are from the New Revised Standard Version.

Exum, J. Cheryl.  Plotted, Shot, and Painted: Cultural Representations of Biblical Women. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic press, 1996.

Georgievska-Shine, Aneta “Rubens and the Tropes of Deceit in Samson and Delilah”. Word and Image 23, no. 4 (2007): 460-473. doi:10.1080/02666286.2007.10435799.

Kahr, Madlyn. “Rembrandt and Delilah”. The Art Bulletin 55, no. 2 (1973): 240-259. doi:10.1080/00043079.1973.10789742.

Kozlovic K., Anton. “The Construction of Samson’s Three Lovers in Cecil B DeMilles Technicolor Testament, Samson and Delilah (1949).” Women in Judaism: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1, no. 7 (2010): 1-31.

Sasson M. Jack “Who Cut Samson’s Hair? (And Other Trifling Issues Raised by Judges 16).” Prooftexts 8, no. 3 (1988): 333-339.

Zwick, Reinhold. “Obsessive Love: Samson and Delilah Go To the Movies”. In Samson: Hero or Fool? The Many Faces of Samson, edited by Erik Eynikel and Tobias Nicklas, 211-235. Leiden: Brill, 2014.



Controversial Judas

Today’s student essay comes from Flo Cardon, another student who took our Bible and Pop Culture class earlier this year. Flo is currently in the middle of completing her Bachelor of Arts degree, with a major in Classics and a minor in Ancient History. She loves art and history and in her spare time, enjoys painting. Unsurprisingly, her primarily subject matter in her art relates to religion and mythology. She also loves watching films, particularly musicals (which can probably be deducted from her essay topic!).

Flo chose a controversial biblical character to focus on in her essay – Judas – considering his (equally controversial) afterlife in the movie Jesus Christ Superstar. It’s a great essay, so read on, and enjoy.

Heaven on Their Minds: Judas in the Bible and Popular Culture


Flo Cardon

The name ‘Judas’ has become synonymous with ideas of betrayal, disloyalty and treachery. It is commonly known that in the Bible, Jesus Christ was betrayed by the only ex-disciple, Judas Iscariot, in exchange for money. The Bible presents Judas as a two dimensional person, simplified down to only that one moment in his life where he gave Jesus over to the Romans and sealed his fate as ‘Judas, the one that would betray him’ forever. Norman Jewison’s musical film Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) presents Judas as a complex and tragic character that plays an important part in the story of Jesus Christs’ life. By comparing Jewison’s Judas with his biblical counterpart, many investigations can be made into the history of Judas as a character and his portrayal as the one who brought down Jesus Christ.


Carl Anderson as Judas in Norman Jewison’s Jesus Christ Superstar

In comparison to the Bible, Jewison’s Judas is presented as the tragic figure and the one who the audience should sympathise with. He is shown as only wanting the best for Jesus and the Jews, and uses the entire first musical number as a soliloquy as to how he thinks Jesus is going to doom all his followers and friends as well as himself. Here Judas is not presented as a villain but Jesus’ worried friend. His motivation is to get Jesus to listen to him so that they can prevent Jesus’ movement from getting too large that it will get attention from Roman authorities. This is not a man with evil intent, but one that cares for his friends and the danger he sees they are bringing upon themselves. Biblical Judas is a stark contrast to this; Judas is referred to as ‘Judas, the one that would betray [Jesus]’ more often than not. In the Gospel of John, Judas criticises Jesus’ use of expensive perfume on himself and voices that he thinks the money used on this perfume could have gone to the poor, and is subsequently labelled as a thief (John 12.5-6). This shows that Biblical Judas is motivated to betray Jesus through money, and not friendship like in the film. Judas’ realisation of the inevitability of Jesus’ fate at the beginning of the film contrasted with his obliviousness of the fact that he would be the one that brought Jesus’ downfall brings about an extremely tragic aspect to Judas’ character that isn’t found in the Bible. Before Judas’ death, he sings about how he did not know he was handing Jesus over to die, which is another tragic contrast to how he only intended to betray Jesus so that he would protect the fate of all those that followed his growing movement, including Jesus himself. This emphasises the tragic nature of Judas’ part in this story, as he was unknowingly playing into Jesus’ inevitable arrest and crucifixion much more than he was let on.

Photo of Carl AndersonHowever, in the Bible during the last supper, it is written in the Gospel of John that ‘the devil had already prompted Judas to betray Jesus’ (John 13.2), meaning that Biblical Judas only needed to be prompted in order to actually betray Jesus in exchange for money. Both versions of Judas hang themselves in response to Jesus’ sentence to be crucified, but in the film we feel much sorrier for Judas here than the Judas in the Bible. In the Bible, Judas’ death is short and sweet, with no sympathy or remorse shown towards him, just that ‘he went away and hanged himself’ (Matt. 27.5). This seems to imply that he did deserve this tragic ending, as he was shown as the villain who handed Jesus over to the Romans and only that, nothing more. However, just after Jewison’s Judas dies, we hear ‘So long Judas, poor old Judas…’ sung repeatedly as the outro of his death song, reinforcing the idea that Judas was the victim of this story and that he did not deserve this outcome. No one listened to his accurate predictions of what would happen to Jesus and his movement, and he died as a result.[1] Judas in Norman Jewison’s musical film compared to the Bible provides us with insight into the complexity of his character and differing nature of interpretations of it. Judas is clearly the villain in the Bible because of his betrayal of Jesus, but Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) presents us with a Judas with a much more composite, and therefore human, nature.


judas-kiss2The Judas kiss

An important aspect of the change in Judas between the Bible and Norman Jewison’s Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) is Judas’ race. It is known that Judas was a Palestinian Jew born in Jericho and one of the most well-educated among the Apostles. However, in the film, Judas is played by Carl Anderson, a black man, which caused a variety of controversy when the film was released. Among the controversy was the accusation that making the ‘villain’ of the narrative black was anti-Semitic. It was argued that by making Judas the only black person gave the character evil connotations, as the ‘true villains’ of the story, the Jewish priests, are also primarily clad in black (Hebron 2016, 157). When the film was initially released, Rabbi Marc Tenenbaum described it as ‘a witch’s brew of anti-black and anti-Semitic venom’ (Bennette 2016). This is in reference to how Judas has been depicted as the prototype of an evil Jewish figure throughout history, with offensive and stereotypical anti-Semitic features like a hooked nose, large eyes and black hair (Meyer 2009, 2). This dehumanized Judas as a biblical figure, cutting him down to being the villain who sold off Jesus Christ to be executed.

judas-jesus-superstarThe decision to make Judas black, as Marc Tenenbaum mentioned, also stirred up discussion of the portrayal as anti-black. This is the reversal of the anti-Semitic idea, as people thought Jewison’s Judas to be anti-black through the fact that the only black character is Judas, the primary image of betrayal and evil, according to the Bible. Carl Anderson being cast to play Judas is also argued to be ‘a comment on the history of African Americans’ (Grace 2009, 98). This can primarily be seen in Judas’ death scene, in which his suicide is clearly reminiscent of the lynching, especially the large amounts of black Americans that were lynched in the first half of the twentieth century as a result of extreme racial oppression and tension in the United States. This blurred the line between the actor and his role, as Judas knew of the violence and oppression that was being carried out by the Romans like no one else did (Hebron 2016, 159), which is a parallel to the racial suppression of black people that was still being carried out when the film was released, and still continues to this day, with the numerous racist responses to the Black Lives Matter movement. Judas understood violence and oppression like no one else did, yet no one listened to him. This afterlife of Judas is vastly different to that of the original biblical Judas, which can be seen in these varying responses to the choice to make Judas a black man in the musical film.

carl-anderson-judasAn interesting yet unique aspect of Jewison’s film is that it is told primarily through Judas’ point of view. It is obvious that Jesus is the hero in the Bible but that is because it is written by his devout followers, whereas it can be argued that Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) was created as a reaction to the lack of investigation into Judas’ side of the story, where Judas himself is the protagonist. This is because of Judas’ character development in the narrative; Judas started off as a follower of Jesus, he believed and supported him, subsequently betrayed him, and then felt such an overwhelming guilt at what he had done that he committed suicide. This is true for both the 1973 film and the gospels. But whereas in the Bible Judas’ feelings and thoughts are ambiguous, the film allows us a look into Judas as the main character and as someone who changes and learns (Miller 2011). The fact that the film is from Judas’ point of view means that the audience is being shown the story of Jesus through the eyes of someone who is critiquing him. Judas is allowed to critique Jesus here, as the audience goes into the narrative knowing the famous story of Judas’ betrayal, and knows that he is seen by many as the ‘villain’ of the musical. Judas’ critique of Jesus shows us mainly that he sees Jesus as not the son of God but a human man who put himself in danger by putting the focus on himself rather than the philosophies he preaches.

judas-5In the Bible, Judas is only mentioned in relation to Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion, which does not allow as much character development as the film. This contrast fills in a lot of gaps in the Bible, like what Judas’ thoughts, motives and opinions were when it came to Jesus and the last week of his life. He shows us a Jesus that is human enough to get angry, flip tables at the temple, get overwhelmed at his popularity and even doubt his own faith in his cause. Compared to the cool, calm and collected Jesus shown in the Gospels, this musical Jesus is a lot more unpredictable and human, as shown through Judas’ perspective. Judas can also be seen as he central character through the fact that in the film, Judas is the one resurrected, and not Jesus, as it is more commonly shown. Whether Judas’ reappearance after death is Jesus’ dream or, as some have put it, Satan himself appearing to Jesus to taunt him, Judas uses this last song of his to interrogate Jesus as well as apologise for what he did. Judas doesn’t get to apologise in the Bible, he is just said to have hanged himself and that was the end of biblical Judas. Judas in this film is not the hero, but he is more of one than Jesus is shown to be. Jesus, with his short temper and doubting faith, seems to be more of a villain than Judas in this film, showing how Judas’ point of view presents a unique take on the constantly retold biblical story.


In conclusion, Judas in the Bible can be compared to his counterpart in Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) to reveal some in depth conclusions about his character and reactions to it. While the film may not change too much of the narrative presented to us in the Bible, Norman Jewison fills in gaps surrounding Judas’ thought processes and motivations as a complex character and puzzle piece in Jesus Christ’s last week alive. We are given the ending we expect to see but with new depth and details, which is what a successful rendition of a biblical tale, like Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), should aim to do.


[1] This is reminiscent of the Greek myth of Cassandra, who was a prophet that no one listened to before she was killed; She is known as a central figure of epic tragedy, which shows how clearly Judas’ portrayal in Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) is one of the most tragic nature, emphasising how the complexity of this version of Judas is a stark contrast to the two dimensionality of Biblical Judas.


All references to the Biblical text are from the NRSV

Bennette, Georgette, ‘Jesus Christ Superstar Resurrected’, The Huffington Post, 8 October 2016,

Grace, Pamela, New Approaches to Film Genre: Religious Film: Christianity and the Hagiopic. Great Britain, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Hebron, Carol A., Judas Iscariot: Damned or Redeemed: A Critical Examination of the Portrayal of Judas in Jesus Films (1902-2014). Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.

Meyer, Marvin W., Judas: The Definitive Collection of Gospels and Legends About the Infamous Apostle of Jesus. Harper Collins, 2009.

Miller, Scott, Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll, and Musicals. Boston, Northeastern University Press, 2011.