Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 1)

Now to the eternal king, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever!  Amen. – 1 Timothy 1:17  (NET)

Before one can commence with an exegesis of the text of Paul’s first letter to Timothy (this study will take the position that the letter comes from the mind and hand of the Apostle Paul, though for the purposes of this study, it really makes no difference whether the letter is Pauline or deutero-Pauline), there is an obligation to take steps to construct the social framework in which the letter will be composed, in which it will be read by its recipient, and in which it may have been shared with an assembly of Christians.  Specifically, one must be aware of the patron-client relationship of the Roman world. 

The patron-client relationship was one which tied persons of significantly different social status together in a reciprocal exchange of goods and services.  The relationship is asymmetrical, in that the two sides are not social equals and will never make any pretense whatsoever of equality.  The patron-client contract, especially in a world heavily divided between free and slave or citizen and subject, as was the Roman world, provides the client with things that would not normally be available to them, whether that be material things or even something nebulous and subjectively defined, such as justice.  Whatever it is that is provided to the client by the patron, it is understood that the client badly needs these things, and that the client cannot obtain such things on his own.  

In return for the benefaction of the patron, the client gives the patron honor and loyalty.  In a world defined by the system of the limited good of honor, the client does not confer his own honor upon the patron.  Rather, the patron is accorded greater honor in the court of public reputation by amassing a network of clients that, ipso facto, demonstrates the largesse of the patron and serves to signify how truly honorable and worthy of honor the patron is. 

The honor of the patron is then noised abroad by the client (the client speaks in honorific language about his patron), so that all may hear of the deeds of the patron on behalf of the client, which is part and parcel of his demonstration of loyalty.  In Latin, this loyalty is known as “fides,” whereas in Greek it is known as “pistis.”  Translated to English, such is read as “faith.”  The denizens of the world into which Jesus and the announcement of His Gospel came would have largely heard “faith” as a response of loyalty within the parameters of the patron-client system.    

Interestingly, the existence and prevalence of the patron-client relationship seem to be implied in many accounts within the Gospels of Jesus’ interaction with those that came to Him seeking some good thing that they could not obtain for themselves.  Those that came to Jesus in search of the good that He could provide would be fully aware of the patron-client relationship, and would often expect the demand for or exhibit the desire to treat Jesus as their patron, offering their services or their selves to Him as their client.  Jesus, however, during His earthly ministry, rejects clientage, and resists becoming a patron in the accepted sense.  To demonstrate this, a couple of brief examples from the Gospels will suffice. 

Speaking In Tongues (part 10)

Before Paul brings up Apollos, who is renowned for his eloquent speech and his ability to employ lofty speech in his presentation and defense of the Gospel (thereby explaining Paul’s making mention of Apollos), Paul defends this recognized deficiency in his own abilities.  Naturally, though he may see his abilities as being deficient, he believes that the message that he preaches, and the effects that it produces in those that hear it and live it, more than make up for his perceived failings. 

With a solid framework in place, it is now possible to better understand what Paul is getting at when he writes “When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come with superior eloquence or wisdom as I proclaimed the testimony of God.  For I decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.  And I was with you in weakness and in fear and with much trembling.  My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God” (2:1-5). 

This very thing that he did not want to see, which is faith based on human wisdom (with this being tied to the honor competition rather than this being a knock on the mental pursuit of the appropriate understanding and application of facts, not to mention that the message of the cross as the place of actual honor for Jesus and those that would follow Him, when the world saw it as the place of the greatest shame), is what was happening among those that were inclined to identify themselves with Apollos, in alignment with the prevailing principles of honor and shame.  This also illuminates Paul’s asking them “are you not merely human?”  Again, Paul takes no issue with Apollos.  Indeed, Paul may have desired to possess Apollos’ abilities.  At the same time, what he saw in Corinth, as the people were perhaps reacting to Apollos more based on his abilities rather than on the message that he faithfully delivered to the best of his abilities, served as a tremendous example to Paul. 

In the end, he would rather see that the message of the Gospel (Jesus as Lord of all) and its cross (humiliation, suffering, weakness, cursing, shame) carry the day, for then there would be no doubt as to wherein lied the mysterious efficacy of the message against all reasonable expectations (the whole thing being absurd prima facie).  It was Paul’s underlying hope that if honor was to be accrued and assigned, that it would not be assigned to the one that delivered the message, but to the one of whom the message spoke, and it would hopefully spark imitation of the supreme honoree along cross-shaped lines.

This must be approached carefully, especially if one finds himself in the midst of a Christian culture that decries deep learning as being somehow antithetical to the spirit of the Gospel.  Paul does not take issue with learning and the ability to speak persuasively.  He is taking issue with the response of the people in accordance with social norms that valued power and persuasion and the individual pursuit of honor at all costs as the dominant ethic of society, rather than the embrace of suffering and shame if need be as the dominant ethic of the society of the followers of Jesus as they turned the world on its head. 

Failing in this area would mean that they were continuing to value the standards of the kingdoms of man rather than the standards of the kingdom of the Creator God as demonstrated by Jesus, as those standards were outlined in the what they have would known about Jesus through the traditions that were being orally transmitted about Him (in word and deed), and as displayed through His cross. 

Love On John's Terms (part 4)

Now, though it would be both challenging and entertaining, this study will not to explore every use of “love” or one of its derivatives within the Johannine corpus.  To do so would take go far afield of the primary task, which is ascertaining the way in which a disciple of Jesus is to define love, doing so based on the terms on offer in the various John writings and in accordance with Jesus’ command of the thirteenth chapter to “love one another.”  However, it is appropriate to begin with the first use of “love” in the Gospel of John, as it does lay the groundwork for what will follow. 

Following up on the assertion that the Creator God’s faithfulness to His covenant and His creation was foundational for His actions in and through His Christ, it only makes sense that the first use of love, as it forms the premise of the way in which to understand the insisted upon love for one another on John’s own terms, is the well-known sixteenth verse of the third chapter.  As this Gospel is presented orally (it would not be read privately be individuals), the very first mention of this foundational element for the Johannine community falls from the lips of Jesus as the audience hears “For this is the way God loved the world: He gave His one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.” 

For John then, giving is demonstrated to be foundational for love.  However, it is not giving for the sake of giving, but giving that is purposed in the direction of redemption.  The concept of redemption provides the context for the tension between perishing and eternal life.  The interpretive framework that stands behind the contrast between perishing and eternal life would have been that of exile and exodus.  For a Jew of the first century (and it can be surmised that the author and the audience of John were primarily Jewish, and if not Jewish by descent, well- instructed in the history of the Jewish people, as it is only in being well versed in the story of the Creator God’s covenant and His activities for and through His covenant people, that the message of the Gospel of the Christ is going to make any sense whatsoever, especially in light of the fact that Christianity is simply a messianic Jewish movement centered upon Jesus), unlike the vast majority of overly Greek-influenced Christendom in the early twenty-first century, perishing would not have produced thoughts concerning an eternity in hell. 

The key is the contrast between perishing and eternal life.  Whereas perishing did not produce a connotation of an eternity in a fiery hell, so likewise, “eternal life” would not have conjured up thoughts of going to heaven when one died.  This was not about the post-mortem destination of one’s eternal soul.  Rather, perishing would have been equated to exile (according to Levitical and Deuteronomic curses, as well as the continued oppression of Israel under foreign powers), whereas eternal life would have been equated with exodus into a promised land.  Ultimately, when viewed through the lens of the Resurrection of Jesus, that promised land would have been understood as the Creator God of Israel’s renewed creation (His kingdom come on earth with all things set to right), enjoyed by those that have been resurrected to new life with bodies suited for that glorious age. 

Therefore, it should be understood that the love of God (for John) is to be comprehended in accordance with the coming of the Creator God’s kingdom on earth.  So immediately, based upon the foundation that has already been laid in this study up to this point, there is a sense that the love of one another that will evidence the fact that one is a disciple of Jesus is love that serves as a signal that the kingdom of the Creator God has come and is coming.  This would seem to be reinforced by Jesus’ statement that love between and among His followers would be modeled on His own love for them.  Since John appears to be operating with a very early and very high Christology in which Jesus’ is presented as the Creator God manifest in the flesh from the very outset (John 1:1), the love of Jesus for His disciples can be equated with the Creator God’s own love for the world.  So along those lines, it would not be a stretch to say that love, as desired by Jesus (according to John) must function redemptively.  Going forward, it is this thought that will serves as a guide.