Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 24)

Having placed new parameters around honor and shame, especially concerning widows and the response to widows, Paul then goes on to present his thoughts concerning the same in a way that is not entirely dissimilar to what he did with overseers and deacons.  In a sense then, it is almost as if Paul is creating “widows” as a position in the church, which he knows will result in the appropriate amount of honor coming their way.  Again, this stands in opposition to the culture, which was generally dismissive of widows and which left widows to what was going to be a harsh and miserable existence.  So just as Paul has offered directives concerning the role and the requirements pertaining to overseers and deacons, he now does the same for widows. 

To that end, Paul writes “No widow should be put on the list unless she is at least sixty years old” (1 Timothy 5:9a), which would be quite old in a day and age in which life expectancy was much, much lower.  This restriction is extended as Paul adds, “was the wife of one husband, and has a reputation for good works” (5:10a), which is the language of public benefaction, extends beyond service in the church, and does not carry any connotation whatsoever in relation to performance-based righteousness or the attainment of salvation, “as one who has raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of saints, helped those in distress---as one who has exhibited all kinds of good works” (5:10b).  This should give each reader pause, causing the believer to continue efforts towards that which is here defined as good works (as it matches up well with the words and actions of Jesus), especially as Paul makes the point of using “good works” twice in relation to these things.

In contrast, Paul adds the instruction to “not accept younger widows on the list,” presumably those concerned with pleasures, “because their passions may lead them away from Christ and they will desire to marry, and so incur judgment for breaking their former pledge” (5:11).  Clearly, with these harsh words, Paul has specific individuals in mind, much like was probably the case with the restrictions placed around the qualifications for overseers and deacons.  Talk of the widows that have been the wife of only one husband, combined with this talk of desire to marry and judgment for the breaking of pledges, dovetails with Paul’s insistence that overseers and deacons be the husband of only one wife, and should probably not be read in isolation from each other. 

Taken together, all of this lends itself to the idea that there were certain individuals in the church that were attempting to elevate themselves or to create a hierarchy within the church, and Paul would not have this in the church of the Christ.  With such things in mind, Paul can be heard continuing with his condemnatory words, not speaking in generalities in the least, and writing “besides that, going around from house to house they learn to be lazy, and they are not only lazy, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things they should not” (5:13).  Apparently, Paul is attempting to shame somebody specifically, as this is a far cry from “one who has raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of saints, helped those in distress---as one who has exhibited all kinds of good works.”     

Speaking In Tongues (part 25)

So though tongues are a sign for unbelievers, in at least the ways that have been here discussed, it is in this context that Paul has indicated that prophecy is for believers.  How and why is this so?  It is because prophecy serves to strengthen the church, which, by definition, are those that call Jesus Lord.  It is those that call Jesus Lord who constitute the church, and therefore it is they who are the believers. 

An unbeliever is not a component of the church, so they are not necessarily going to be concerned with making the Creator God’s kingdom present, though they may be physically present in the assembly (attending a church service is distinct from being a member of the entity that is understood as the body of Christ).  The activity of prophecy however, because all are encouraged to participate without regard to position or status or honor (with no divisions at the table as befitting the messianic banquet which the church is called to model), should make a substantial impression on the unbeliever, which is something that will be addressed by Paul.   

The twenty-third verse begins with “So if the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:23a).  Stopping right there, it must be said that this would be quite the unusual event.  It would be well outside the normal range of religious experience to have the entire assembly of an association demonstrating glossolalia.  In the recorded history of this type of activity, the ecstatic utterances associated with the idea of being possessed by the spirit of a god, it was always a limited occurrence.  As one understands that honor was a limited good, and that honor would accrue to the individual or individuals said to be employed by the god for communication that was in need of interpretation, it is more than sensible that the activity would be a limited to a select few individuals and would not occur prolifically or haphazardly.  Such a thing would be quite novel.   

Now if speaking in tongues was being used to create a spiritual hierarchy within the kingdom of the covenant God, this makes it possible to easily comprehend why there may have been a desire on the part of each person to engage in the practice, especially if this was the very Creator God, who had inhabited physical form in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, now speaking through another person by His Spirit. 

If the Creator God had taken human form in the person of His Messiah, and if that Messiah had been resurrected from the dead and was being proclaimed as having received all power and all authority as Lord of all, and if that God was now speaking through another human by means of ecstatic utterances, then it is not at all difficult to understand why an entire congregation would have wanted to be viewed as the human vessel somehow inhabited by that God.  If one thinks along these lines, and if this way of thinking represents reasonable speculations, then one is not left to wonder at the particular elevation of those that spoke in tongues.

Speaking In Tongues (part 23)

Paul then makes his now rather familiar point by writing “Otherwise, if you are praising God with your spirit, how can someone without the gift say ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?  For you are certainly giving thanks well, but the other person is not strengthened” (1 Corinthians 14:16-17).  It returns to this.  Paul wants to see the church strengthened through every activity that is said to be rooted in the gifting of the Spirit of the Creator God. 

Paul wants every member (taking up and employing his language from chapter twelve) to be able to participate equally, on equal footing, with nobody feeling like a foreigner, with nobody marginalized as second-class spiritual citizens of the kingdom of the covenant God, and certainly nobody being held up or looked to as a superior within the body of the Christ simply because they engage in one or more particular activities that have been honorifically pre-designated by that body as gifts of the Spirit. 

Time and again, Paul, as he deals with what is happening in this church body because of the glossolalia that is occurring there, refocuses his audience on the strengthening of the church (which can also be seen in his dealings with the problems at the church meal and the Lord’s Supper in chapter eleven).  It is the strengthening of the entire body that should be the motivation and the result of speaking in tongues.  If that motivation and result is not achieved, regardless of the gift under consideration (with this going beyond speaking in tongues), then it’s place in the assembly needs to be reconsidered and carefully examined.  To circle back around to the issue of honor, it can easily be said that if one is concerned with accumulation of honor through the exercise of what are considered to be the gifts of the Spirit, then the strengthening of the church is probably not going to be in sight. 

Bringing honor back into consideration at this point allows what comes next to dovetail quite nicely, as Paul writes “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in the church I want to speak five words with my mind to instruct others, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue” (14:18-19).  Paul knew that speaking in tongues would gain him honor, but this he did not seek, so he did not engage in this publicly, which his hearers would probably think quite odd.  If there was no public display and no witnesses, then what would be the point?  Paul did not want to limit his impact within the church to only those gifted with the ability to interpret or understand, thus contributing to a division and a spiritual hierarchy of elevation and exclusion (based on honor accumulation).  If he spoke plainly in church, then no matter how much or how little he spoke, all could share equally in the instruction.     

Water Into Wine (part 1)

Now on the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee. – John 2:1a  (NET)

At the beginning of this story, the author reports that “Jesus and His disciples” (John 2:2a) were invited to a wedding and its associated feast.  Quickly, the fact that there was a problem is encountered, which was that “the wine ran out” (2:3a).  As one might imagine, this is an issue.  For some reason, the fact that the supply of wine had been exhausted was of some concern to Jesus’ mother, so she is said to have taken it upon herself to inform Jesus that “They have no wine left” (2:3b).  Apparently, there was something about Jesus’ personality and character that caused His mother to think that Jesus would be interested in addressing this obviously pressing issue.  It would seem that Jesus’ mother was of the opinion that Jesus would take it upon Himself to fix this problem. 

However, based upon His initial response, Jesus does not sense that this is an issue in which He wants to involve Himself, saying “Woman, why are you saying this to Me?  My time has not yet come” (2:4).  Even though Jesus says this to His mother, Mary believes (with this apparently based on what she knows about her Son) that He is going to do something.  In accordance with that belief, she “told the servants, ‘Whatever He tells you, do it.’” (2:5)  Most likely, though one knows not how long, some time elapsed between the time at which Mary speaks to the servants and Jesus’ reported act of intervention in the problem at hand.  Eventually, and though the story does not set forth an overt reason for it, Jesus is spurred into action.  For some reason, though He had seemed uninterested when first told of the wine shortage, Jesus takes action to correct the situation. 

Why is the fact that there is no wine a problem?  Why is Mary concerned with this?  Why does she think Jesus will be interested in involving Himself to rectify the situation?  Why does the author of this Gospel see fit to include this story?  The answers to these questions come through an examination of the setting and the culture.  In the end, this becomes an opportunity for Jesus to provide instruction (albeit indirectly) to those in attendance.  Ultimately, it appears that the author of the Gospel of John finds it useful to include this story because it serves to provide elucidating information about the nature of Jesus’ kingdom and His mission. 

In order to understand the goings-on here in Cana, one must make an effort to understand the nature of feasts in the world occupied by Jesus.  When it came to feasts (or really any public meal in general), there were rules in place for the table.  For all practical purposes, meals were miniaturized pictures of the society in which they were taking place, and there were “rules” (unwritten though they may be) governing association and socialization in meals and other areas of life.  Importantly, the positioning of guests around a meal table was a visible demonstration of social hierarchy and political differentiation. 

What was quite common in the ancient world, and which can be safely presumed was present at this particular meal as a matter of course, was a u-shaped table known as a “triclinium.”  Banquets were organized around this table, using dining couches, with the host sitting at the center of the bottom of the “u”, with the two most prominent positions of honor to the right and to the left of the host.  This arrangement should be entirely unfamiliar, as even though there is not an ongoing overt honor and shame culture (and its associated competition for honor as a limited public good) in the western world, public occasions that include a meal in the world of today are generally arranged somewhat accordingly, with those more important to the organizer or the host or the cause seated closer to the front of the room, whereas those that are considered less important seated further away.  A major difference, of course, is that the seating does not necessarily reflect the attendees’ standing in the wider culture, and (at least in the western world) there are no hard and fast application of unwritten rules based on public perception.