Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 27)

Bringing honor back into focus, and remembering that the activity of the church is designed to ultimately increase Jesus’ honor in the court of public opinion (honoring the man that suffered what was then known as the greatest shame, which is a truly radical notion), Paul can now be heard to say “Elders who provide effective leadership must be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching.  For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his pay.’” (1 Timothy 5:17-18) 

It does not seem unreasonable to propose that Paul has himself in view here in this section of the letter.  One could surmise that Paul is answering accusations that have been leveled against him, as self-defense is a semi-regular feature of the Pauline library.  Most assuredly, the quotation from the twenty-fifth chapter of Deuteronomy, in regards to the ox, is not Paul finding a proof-text in regards to being paid for his teaching, with pay becoming equivalent to “double honor,” nor should it be construed as such.  Rather, the entire section from Deuteronomy must be considered, and the context on offer is that of adjudication. 

There one reads “If controversy arises between people, they should go to court for judgment.  When the judges hear the case, they shall exonerate the innocent but condemn the guilty.  Then, if the guilty person is sentenced to be a beating, the judge shall force him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with the number of blows his wicked behavior deserves.  The judge may sentence him to forty blows, but no more.  If he is struck with more than these, you might view your fellow Israelite with contempt.  You must not muzzle your ox when it is treading grain” (Deuteronomy 25:1-4).  So the statement about the ox is connected to controversy, judgment, exoneration, sentencing, and the carrying out of a sentence.  If Paul is indeed referencing himself as the elder who provides effective leadership, then he is also demanding the double honor of just treatment.  Why should he receive anything less?  Though he is willing to suffer for his children, he will not be subject to unfounded accusations. 

At the same time, it should be well understood that Paul does not demand honor for himself, especially considering the fact that he writes things like “I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor, and an arrogant man” (1:13a), while also referring to himself as the worst of sinners (1:15,16).  He is happy to shame himself, with this self-shaming serving as a functional groundwork for what is to come, but he is not about to put up with slander and attacks, which, if Paul is to be viewed as the elder, seems to be implied. 

Perfectly in line with the Deuteronomy reference, and in another Deuteronomy quotation, Paul goes on to write “Do not accept an accusation against an elder unless it can be confirmed by two or three witnesses” (5:19).   Of course, the possibility continues to exist that the elder is not, in fact, Paul referring to himself in the abstract, and that there is another problem in the church, which also runs back to the idea that this is not to be viewed firstly as words that establish church doctrine, but as words to be understood inside a historical and cultural situation that can, after appropriate processing, be applied as an operative principle for the church at large.    

Love On John's Terms (part 20)

Jesus, apparently uninterested in the background of the blind man that He understands Himself as charged to heal, and concerning Himself only with the fact that He must “perform the deeds of the one who sent me as long as it is daytime” (John 9:4a), took steps to deliver sight to this previously blind individual.  The result of Jesus’ action seems to have generated confusion along with a bit of anger, while also demonstrating that this man was well-known to the community and that his condition was common knowledge.  Questions were asked:  “Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?” (9:9a)  Some confidently answered “yes,” while others said “no.” 

Undoubtedly, a natural incredulity was at work here, in that even if a person may have been reasonably certain that this was indeed the beggar with which they were familiar, the fact of his now being able to see was something of a confusing matter, as people simply did not go from being blind for an entire life to seeing---such was entirely unexpected and contrary to human experience (this then is not unlike the Resurrection).  Eventually, the matter and the man was brought to the attention of the Pharisees, who offered up their own line of questioning, while the author take the opportunity to insert the previously unknown fact that Jesus had performed this act of healing on the Sabbath. 

Presumably, for the author, until those concerned with the important matter of covenant markers (Sabbath-keeping, circumcision, and dietary/purity laws) were involved, healing on the Sabbath was not an issue.  This, of course, becomes the primary concern for the Pharisees, as they say “This man, “ meaning Jesus, “is not from God, because He does not observe the Sabbath” (9:16b).  Others disagreed.  The formerly blind man, when queried, offers his own assessment, which was “He is a prophet” (9:17b).  This, just as was the case with mentions of “Samaritan” in the eighth chapter, provides another connection with what has been previously heard.  This use of “prophet” again links Jesus to Moses, which is an ongoing theme of this Gospel.

The man’s parents become involved in the matter, and as it appears that they wanted nothing to do with this controversy because it will risk their standing in the synagogue (9:22), they insist that their son is more than capable of answering for himself.  Accordingly, yet another inquiry is made.  The formerly blind man is told “Promise before God to tell the truth.  We know that this man is a sinner” (9:24b --- a sinner understood as somebody who does not possess right covenant standing, rather than somebody who performs or fails to perform acts according to a subjective standard or morality and perceived righteousness). 

The man who was blind, but who now has sight, responds to this assertion by saying “I do not know whether he is a sinner.  I do know one thing---that although I was blind, now I can see” (9:25).  When asked to again recount the story of what happened, he again proceeds, perhaps unwittingly, to stir a pot of underlying anger directed towards Jesus by saying “I told you already and you didn’t listen.  Why do you want to hear it again?  You people don’t want to become His disciples too, do you?” (9:27). 

This produced an inflamed response of “You are His disciple!  We are disciples of Moses!  We know that God has spoken to Moses!” (9:28b-29a)  Of note, Moses comes into play again, which the audience (reader or hearer) should take as a rather ironic statement, as it has clearly been an ongoing point of the author to explicitly connect Jesus to Moses.  It also serves as an indication that a part of the stories that had been circulating about Jesus in His day, as well as being an indication that part of the ongoing means, in the author’s day, by which Jesus was either being discredited or by which adherents to His cause were being won, was whether or not He fulfilled the role of the prophet to come that would be like Moses.  This fits well within the overall sense that the Gospel of John serves in an apologetic function concerning Jesus’ role as the physical revelation and incarnation of the Creator God, while also doing a form of historical rendering. 

Corinth's Communion (part 1)

Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper. – 1 Corinthians 11:20  (NET)

When one grasps the importance of meals and the meal table in the first century world and for the early church that sprung up into that world, as they were an effective means by which to communicate concepts concerning the kingdom of heaven, any mention of meals can be vested with a significant amount of weight and meaning.  This can be done even if there does not appear to be any overt controversy or angst in the situation. 

However, one such place in which there does appear to be much controversy concerning the meal table is the church at Corinth.  This angst is expressed by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, which is the place where one is able to discover the most detailed treatment of the communion table, outside of the Gospels, in the whole of the New Testament.  The words used in Paul’s presentation of the communion in the eleventh chapter has been, for centuries, the basis for the celebration of communion, shedding clear light on the practice of the early church, as Paul helpfully elaborates on the goings-on that we see in the “Last Supper” of Jesus and His disciples. 

At the same time, while extraordinarily helpful, those same words have been the source of much controversy, as words like “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup.  For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.  That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead.  But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged” (11:27-31), have been applied in a number of not always altogether helpful or appropriate ways. 

Quite often, there is an encouragement to apply these words in an individual and personal manner, which fits well within a notion of salvation that is predominantly individualistic and focused on an other-worldly escapism.  However, this type of application presents us a bit of a problem, as it is unlikely that such notions would have been the thrust of Paul’s understanding, nor that of the early church.  It is a near certainty that such would not reflect the worldview in which Jesus Himself was ensconced, which was also the world in which He would re-orient the Passover celebration and its meaning towards Himself. 

While there is certainly a sense of individual salvation to be found, as the collective salvation of the covenant people would naturally include the salvation of individuals, Jewish thoughts of salvation, especially as connected with the Passover celebration, as would come to be the case for the church’s communion table, were oriented towards the deliverance of the people of the Creator God from exile and oppression, with the deliverance from out of Egypt as the functional model.  So while there is indeed an individualistic component here, that individual benefit cannot be disconnected from the community. 

Also, the escapism that is prevalent in so many popular interpretations of the communion passages of chapter eleven would not have been a part of Paul’s worldview.  The guilt and judgment reference in the passage previously quoted would not at all be connected with the eternal destination of one’s soul, and would certainly not have been used as a means of limiting participation at the communion table or of generating fear and trepidation at partaking of the elements.