Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 5)

A client would also be expected to publicly attest to the honor of their patron.  If and when possible, a client would expend the effort to make a lasting, public pronouncement of said honor by having an inscription placed on a public monument of a public building, that all may see and realize the honor and generosity of their patron.  On a monument in Corinth that dates from the middle of the first century, one can read an inscription in honor of a man named Julius Spartiaticus, who was looked upon and acknowledged as an important patron to the tribe of Calpurnia.  He too would have been a contemporary of Paul. 

The inscription, offered by his clients, reads: “Gaius Julius, Son of Laco, Grandson of Eurycles, [of the tribe] Fabia, Spartiaticus, Procurator of Caesar and Augusta Agrippina, Tribume of the Soldiers, Awarded a Public Horse By the Deified Claudius, Flamen Of the Deified Julius, Pontifex, Duovir Quinquennalis twice, Agonthete of the Isthmian and Caesar-Augustan Games, High Priest of the House of Augustus In Perpetuity, First of the Achaeans.  Because of his Virtue and Eager and all-encompassing munificence toward the Divine House And toward our Colony, the tribesmen Of the Tribe Calpurnia [Dedicated this] to their Patron.”

Apart from inscriptions on monuments and buildings which, understandably, could be quite expensive and therefore limited only to being provided by the wealthier clients of even wealthier patrons (remembering that, apart from the Caesar himself, everybody was a client of somebody at some level), the honor of a patron could be expressed through the employment of a herald.  It is possible to find some excellent Scriptural example of somebody being heralded in the book of Esther.  There, Mordecai is heralded by Haman.  “He led him about on the horse throughout the city, calling before him, ‘So shall it be done to the man whom the king wishes to honor!’” (6:11b)  Though this is certainly not an instance of a client heralding a patron, it is an example of somebody being honored through the employment of a herald---albeit in this case an unwilling herald. 

The Gospel of Luke presents a record of something that would have been understood as a clear instance of heralding.  Given the early church’s position concerning who Jesus was and how He was worshiped in the years between His Resurrection and the composition of Luke’s Gospel, the angel of the Lord making an appearance to the shepherds in the field and telling them to “Listen carefully, for I proclaim to you good news that brings great joy to all people: Today your Savior is born in the city of David.  He is Christ the Lord” (2:10b-11), would have been perceived as an instance of a patron (the Creator God manifest) being heralded (by one of His angels).  This is not a ground-breaking thought, especially considering the song “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing.”  However, the activity being referenced by the song asks to be comprehended according to a world defined by honor, the role of heralding, and the governing dynamics of the patron-client relationship. 

Speaking to this activity, and doing so from the basis of a clear knowledge of and undoubted participation in the patron-client system, along with a thoroughgoing knowledge of the role of honor in his world, Dio Chrysostom, an orator, writer, philosopher, and historian of the Roman Empire who was also contemporary with the Apostle Paul, wrote: “But when we come to men, they require crowns, images, the right of precedence, and being kept in remembrance; and many in times past have even given up their lives just in order that they might get a statue and have their name announced by the herald or receive some other honor and leave to succeeding generations a fair name and remembrance of themselves.” 

One could even take these words and compose an imaginary speech by a client, in honor of a patron, hearing something like “This man deserves crowns upon his head.  He should have images erected in his honor.  He and his family should have precedence of place at all public functions.  His name should be kept in remembrance.  With complete disregard for his own safety, he risked his life, though he expected no statues.  He placed himself at the mercy of the gods, though the idea of a herald announcing his exploits was far from his mind.  Because he had acted in complete altruism, with no regard for honor, he should be honored, as should his progeny, for generations to come.”       

Mordecai & Jesus (part 1 of 2)

Now Mordecai went out from the king’s presence in purple and white and royal attire, with a large golden crown and a purple linen mantle. – Esther 8:15  (NET)

After all that had taken place, this was Mordecai’s vindication.  Not only that, but this represented the vindication and deliverance of the covenant people of the Creator God, as the Jews were saved from the destructive decree that had been issued by Haman, and unwittingly enforced by the king. 

The narrative of Esther informs the reader that Haman had been exalted and set above all of the officials of the kingdom of Persia (3:1).  “As a result, all of the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate were bowing and paying homage to Haman, for the king had so commanded.  However, Mordecai did not bow, nor did he pay homage…  When Haman saw that Mordecai was not bowing or paying homage to him, he was filled with rage” (3:5).  Because Mordecai would not bow to Haman, not only was he enraged at Mordecai, but “Haman sought to destroy all the Jews (that is, the people who were the kin of Mordecai) who were in all the kingdom” (3:6b).  Here, hatred directed towards Mordecai is converted into a plan to wipe out the Creator God’s covenant people.  In effect, for Haman, Mordecai stands as the representative for all of the Jews.      

So even though a decree of destruction against all the Jews was set forth, the plan is reported to have been foiled through the faithful actions of Esther, as she is urged on her Uncle Mordecai.  In a very messiah-like role, she willingly took her life in her hands and interceded on behalf of the covenant people, so as to spare their lives.  This would have the added effect of bringing punishment upon all that would present themselves as enemies to her people.  Effectively, prior to her brave intervention (again, as urged by her uncle), the Jews were as good as dead.  The covenant faithfulness of the Creator God was at stake.  “Throughout each and every province where the king’s edict and law were announced there was considerable mourning among the Jews, along with fasting, weeping, and sorrow” (4:3a).  They knew that they had been sold into death.  Mordecai himself “went out into the city, crying out in a loud and bitter voice” (4:1b).  The reader of the story can almost hear him crying, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?” 

Yes, it was as if the people of Israel had gone down into the very pit of death.  Apart from the intervention of their God to deliver them from certain destruction, there was no hope.  But something happened.  Though it is well known that the God of Israel is not mentioned in the Hebrew version of the book of Esther (though the Creator God is invoked in the extended, Greek Septuagint version), it is resoundingly clear that their faithful, covenant God is on their side and working on their behalf, fulfilling His promises to them.  Clearly, the implication is that intervention is necessary for the covenant people to continue, and for their God to be vindicated as well. 

In their fasting, weeping, and sorrow, they are clearly humbling themselves and seeking God, according to God’s promise to Solomon that can be found in the second book of the Chronicles (7:14).  They are under intense persecution and they are in need of redemption and deliverance.  This is the same story that is presented in the book of Exodus (the foundational narrative for the people that would identify themselves as a people of exodus), repeatedly in the book of Judges, and also in the prophetic work of Daniel.

Saul's Final Exile (part 1 of 2)

Near the close of the first book of Samuel, we learn about the not-so-surprising way in which Saul’s life was brought to an end.  Saul’s death is tightly connected with his visit to the witch at Endor, and it serves as yet another example of God’s covenant faithfulness, as it relates to the issues of the subjugation and redemption (exile and exodus) of His chosen people.  The story of Saul’s visit begins with a reminder that Samuel had died, which provides a basis for Saul’s fear at the assembly of the Philistines against him and Israel. 

God’s anointing, along with the kingdom, as we know, has already been removed from Saul and he has been vexed with a troubling spirit from the time that such was pronounced against him.  Most assuredly, he had taken his eyes off of Israel’s God, no longer trusting in His faithfulness towards His people, and instead, had put his trust in another man, that being Samuel.  It was probably the case that, since it was Samuel that had given voice to the stripping of the anointing and kingdom from Saul, that Samuel was the one with whom Saul had hoped to restore a relationship of trust, rather than the God for whom Samuel spoke.  The new challenge being offered by the Philistines caused Saul to be “absolutely terrified” (1 Samuel 28:5), and even though we read that “Saul inquired of the Lord” (28:6a), this inquiry, as we would expect, was met with silence on God’s behalf, so he quickly turned to the idea of inquiring of “a medium” (28:7). 

We need not recount the full story of Saul’s visit, but rather, jump straight to the reported interaction between Samuel and Saul that has apparently been facilitated by this medium.  “Samuel said to Saul, ‘Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?’  Saul replied, ‘I am terribly troubled!  The Philistines are fighting against me and God has turned away from me.  He does not answer me---not by the prophets nor by dreams.  So I have called on you to tell me what to do’.” (28:15)  Samuel’s response is a representative report of the epitome of God’s promised cursing for disobedience in relation to the covenants related to His commandments.  He says, “Why are you asking me, now that the Lord has turned away from you and has become your enemy?” (28:16)  This should remind us of the blessing and cursing passages from Deuteronomy, which are instrumental in interpreting and understanding Israel’s history, as well as the Bible’s meta-narrative, which is the story of exile and exodus (from cover to cover).

Samuel’s words to Saul are a startling re-phrasing of Deuteronomy 28:15, which reads, “But if you ignore the Lord your god and are not careful to keep all His commandments and statutes…” (28:15a), which would cause Saul to reflect on the events that had brought him to the point of this interaction---especially the Amalekite situation, “then all these curses will come upon you in full force” (28:15b).  By his own words, Saul has expressed to Samuel that he is confused by the Lord’s response---or lack thereof---in the face of the current conflict that has come upon him and Israel.  This falls right in line with additional words from Deuteronomy, which state that “The Lord will send on you a curse, confusing you and opposing you in everything you undertake until you are destroyed and quickly perish because of the evil of your deeds, in that you have forsaken Me” (28:20).  Could there be a more stark example that Saul had forsaken the Lord, in that here he was, consulting a medium, and rousing the spirit of a dead prophet of Israel? 

Samuel tells Saul, “The Lord has done exactly what I prophesied!  The Lord has torn the kingdom from your hand and has given it to your neighbor David!” (28:17)  Just in case Saul had not made the connection, or had somehow forgotten the basis for this turn of events for him, Samuel reminds him that it was because “you did not obey the Lord and did not carry out His fierce anger against the Amalekites,” that “the Lord has done this thing to you today” (28:18).  Briefly recounting the history of Amalek and Israel, we recall that it was Amalek that first met Israel during their exodus from Egyptian exile (subjugation).  Amalek had fought against Israel, attempting to subjugate them in the midst of their exodus.  This was the reason why, when Israel would later encounter Amalek, that God demanded the total annihilation of Amalek and everything related to Amalek.  Saul did not carry this out in full.  Because of this failure, Amalek would attempt to re-subjugate Israel many years later, in the person of Haman, the son of Hammadetha the Agagite (Agag was the king of Amalek that Saul initially spared, but Samuel later executed).  This would serve to indicate that even though Agag was not spared from the sword, many in Amalek were, meaning that the failure to carry out God’s clear commandments had far-reaching repercussions.  In light of the fall of man, and in the ironically bright glare of the darkness by which we are surrounded on a daily basis in this world, it is not difficult to understand the nature of the reach of those repercussions.