Love & The Public Good (part 2)

When reading about “respect” and “honor,” one must remember the culture of honor and shame, and understand this part of what Paul is saying accordingly.  Naturally, if the Christian has complied with his duty to be a voice to the rulers, doing good so as to receive their commendation (Romans 13:3b), with this doing of good the language of public benefaction; and if the church has been complicit in its responsibilities to care for orphans, widows, lepers (sick), and the poor, then the governing authorities will be able to restrict the scope of its activities to being “God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer” (13:4b), rather than engaging in all manners of activities with which the Christian will find disagreeable.  This then allows the Christian to pay taxes with a clear conscience, properly acknowledging their God’s provision of those charged with government functions. 

Of course, this also bears on the responsibility of the church to communicate the words of one who preached the kingdom of the Creator God, as the Gospel of Luke records of John the Baptist that “Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, ‘Teacher, what should we do?’  He told them, ‘Collect no more than you are required to.’” (Luke 3:12-13).  The idea that tax collectors would collect only that which they were required to collect would have been quite the radical notion in that day, as it was well understood that tax collectors, quite simply, collected more than what was required, lining their pockets and enriching themselves with the excess.  Yes, this issue of government and taxes, as presented by Paul, must be understood within the context of the church’s responsibility to embody the love of its God by effectively preaching the Gospel of the kingdom and living out in their own community the principles of that kingdom. 

If a government, on this side of the cross, has become oppressive, with oppression generally linked to high levels of taxation (while understanding that the average person under the Roman empire paid well over half of their income---in the course of a subsistence lifestyle---in taxes, with this often leading to debt and ultimately slavery, which brings in the issue of “owe no one anything”), then the church of the Christ need only look at itself and its failure to remain true to Jesus’ message of the advent of the kingdom of the covenant God, and of that God’s desire to bring the rule of heaven to earth, as it has most likely retreated into an escapist fixation that limits the acceptance of Jesus’ challenging and world-altering message to going to heaven when one dies. 

It is worthwhile to re-read this section as a whole so that one can frame it within a statement made very early in this letter to the Romans.  Paul writes “Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  For the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,’ (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does no wrong to a neighbor.  Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (13:7-10). 

Laodicea's Wealth (part 6 of 6)

When Jesus says, “Because you say, ‘I am rich and have acquired great wealth, and need nothing’” (Revelation 3:17a), He lets the church at Laodicea know that the grand claim and accompanying attitude of the city of Laodicea following the earthquake that leveled their city, that they needed no help or funds from Rome to rebuild, had infiltrated their church.  This is what reveals that there were very likely some wealthy individuals to be found in the church (and perhaps they were preaching a very early version of the “prosperity gospel”?).  Again, this is not a problem unless the presence of the wealth leads to ungainly results, in which the wealthy are simply treated better within the church and afforded greater honor (in the honor and shame culture) simply because of the fact of their wealth. 

Lest they become too puffed up with their wealth, which would have been gained through their business of money exchange for the region (3:18a), their sale of high-end clothing made from the black wool for which Laodicea was famous (3:18b), or the sale of their eye salve (3:18c), Jesus lets them know that they are actually “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked” (3:17b), and encourages them to “take My advice and buy gold from Me refined by fire so you can become rich!  Buy from Me white clothing so you can be clothes and your shameful nakedness will not be exposed, and buy eye salve to put on your eyes so you can see!” (3:18)  One must notice the use of “shameful.”  Such language, given the cultural context, is quite specific and should not escape attention. 

This is a bit of a double entendre, as it serves as both a rebuke against unwarranted puffery as it relates to what is of true value in the kingdom of the Creator God and amongst the people that represent that kingdom, while also reminding them that this is the attitude that those that have acquired wealth (regardless of the means by which it was acquired, whether that be skill, diligence, luck, inheritance, oppression, or fraud) should take when it comes to their position inside the church.  The wealthy, who are seated at the places of honor at the world’s banqueting tables, should be even more fervent in their efforts to take the lowest place when it comes to the gathering together of the church.  Yes, even making a strenuous and concerted effort to do so, while not trumpeting the fact that it is occurring. 

Ultimately, the practice of serving in the church will spill over into their participation in the wider community (as should be the case for all, whether rich or poor), thus the gathering together as a church and exemplifying the power of the Gospel to turn the world upside down (the accusation leveled against the church community in Acts 17), allows the people of the kingdom of the covenant God to learn the way that their God expects them to serve and prefer one another so that they may effectively represent His kingdom to a watching and waiting world, in an ongoing development of the virtue of serving and preferring, so that such things become a matter of habit. 

Laodicea's Wealth (part 2)

However, contrary to what might be expected, not only did Laodicea not request assistance from Rome or from the emperor, they actually declined the assistance that was offered, choosing instead to rebuild and restore the city from their own means.  This, of course, would grant Laodicea some measure of independence from Rome; but only a measure, as they still relied on the existence of the empire and the relative security and stability it afforded.  In fact, Laodicea received from Rome the title of “free city,” and was the “conventus” of its territory, meaning that it functioned as the capital city of a division of the Roman province in which it was located.  This meant that it would be the seat of a district court, as well as the headquarters for other governmental functions for the region. 

Taken together, the facts of the great wealth of the city, that the wealth enabled them to decline assistance from Rome after a catastrophe, and that it was a seat of provincial government (though not relying on the largesse or beneficence of Rome or of the emperor, in contrast to so many other cities of the region), Jesus’ chiding of His church for its insistence that they were rich, that they have acquired great wealth, and that they were in need of nothing becomes quite understandable. 

Now, this is not meant to be a condemnation of wealth.  Taking a negative view of wealth, whether civic or individual, based on these words, would be unwarranted and out of context.  What one must keep in mind as progress is made in pulling back the layers of nearly two thousand years of cultural changes that have served to obfuscate from view what would have been easily seen and understood by the Laodiceans in their day (they would have known about declining imperial assistance in rebuilding, they would have known why, and as citizens of Laodicea they would have been quite proud of that fact), is that their wealth is what is causing them to engage in practices that have Jesus wanting to vomit them out of His mouth. Therefore, these practices are not in line with what can be observed in His mission, nor are they in accordance with the message of the Gospel. 

The practice or practices (as the case may be) of this “lukewarm” city (Laodicea) stands in contrast to what takes place in the “hot” and “cold” cities (the well-known epithets assigned to Hierapolis and Colossae).  The church in Laodicea, correspondingly, is being asked to observe the difference in practice between itself and the churches in those other cities and to mimic the practice, thereby becoming either hot or cold, either of which was perfectly acceptable to Jesus.

After commenting on their wealth and need of nothing, Jesus makes an interjection that serves to negate any vaunted ideas of self as citizens of Laodicea that might have arisen from such thoughts, saying that this church did not realize that they were actually “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked” (3:17b).  Not only is this a challenge to their honor, metaphorical and analogical application seems to be unavoidable, as Jesus wants them to understand that though they may be wealthy, their nauseating practice that partially stemmed from the fact of their wealth actually showed them to be something far different.

Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 4)

This account of Jesus dining at the house of Simon the leper provides a bit more detail.  Here, the reader is informed that “six days before Passover,” (thus answering the question as to whether or not Jesus had adequate time to complete purification rituals before celebrating Passover---so Jesus (the Messiah) went to the cross in a state of ritual impurity, and the early church was unconcerned with this aspect of the story, though it would have certainly attributed to the scandalous, stumbling-block nature of the message of Jesus) “Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom He has raised from the dead.  So they prepared a dinner for Jesus there.  Martha was serving, and Lazarus was among those present at the table with Him” (John 12:1-2). 

If one did not have the stories of Matthew and Mark, when reading this story in John it would be possible to get the sense that Jesus is dining in the house of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary.  If He was doing so, that would be quite understandable.  Lazarus had, quite naturally, become famous.  Many people, as John reports few verses later, came to this house to see both Jesus and Lazarus (12:9).  Not only that, there are indications that the family may have had some wealth, and therefore may have been an honored family within the community, with that indication being the fact that Mary had the costly perfume with which to anoint Jesus, and the fact that the gathered guests make mention of “the poor,” with the words themselves ringing out and serving as an indication of the dichotomy that existed between the poor and those that were joining Jesus at this meal.  However, this meal is not taking place at the house of the now-famous-and-potentially-wealthy Lazarus, but rather, at the house of Simon the leper.       

In the ancient world, it was customary for a community to receive a famous and honored individual into their midst with great pomp and ceremony.  Often, a delegation from the community would go outside their town, meet the arriving person of prominence, and accompany them back to their locale.  This is referred to as a “parousia”.  There are several examples of parousia in the life of Jesus, and even one when He goes to Bethany to raise Lazarus from the dead.  There is no record of Jesus being received in this way upon this visit to Bethany, but one can imagine that such an event took place, as His fame could only have grown as Lazarus continued to live amongst the people. 

As a part of the reception, there would be a determination made as to which member or family of the community was the most worthy and important individual, in the best position to accept the dignitary into their house, most capable of reflecting favorably on the larger community so as to give the best possible impression to the honored guest, and able to bring honor to the whole of the community in the process.  As was said, it would have been a natural choice, owing to previous events, for Lazarus to host Jesus in Bethany.  The fact that Jesus loved Lazarus and His sisters would have contributed to this more than natural arrangement.  However, it is Simon the leper that receives the honor of hosting a meal for Jesus. 

Whether this is the choice of the community or Jesus’ choice one is left to wonder, but what is clear is that one who would normally be marginalized and even ostracized in the community for a variety of reasons is the one that has this honor.  If the story of Zaccheus (as a prime example of Jesus choosing His own host) is any indication, it is likely that it is Jesus that has made the choice of meal location, but it is not something about which one can be dogmatic. 

Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom of God (part 2)

In the same chapter, when Jesus stands before the Sanhedrin, Mark writes that “Some stood up and gave this false testimony against Him: ‘We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this Temple made with hands and in three days build another not made with hands.’” (Mark 14:57-58)  The author punctuates this with “Yet even on this point their testimony did not agree” (14:59), but He is clearly cognizant of and counting on an awareness of what must have been the well-known Jesus tradition recounted in the Gospel of John (not relying on John, as Mark came first, but what would have been the oral and possibly written Jesus tradition), in which Jesus says, “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up again” (2:19).  Shortly thereafter, John helpfully provides the gloss on Jesus’ words by informing the reader that “Jesus was speaking about the Temple of His body” (2:21). 

When all of this is taken together, the reader sees a widow giving all that she has (which is an almost worthless amount) to a Temple that is going to fall, which is ultimately a wasteful action, whereas the woman with the alabaster box gives something of immense value in recognition of the One that is the eternal Temple, causing the onlookers to refer to this as a wasteful action.  Jesus makes it clear that it is the former (the widow’s gift) that was wasteful (and tragic), whereas the latter was “a good service” (14:6b), and therefore not wasteful. 

Because the stories in the Gospels demand to be heard within Jesus’ pronouncement that the kingdom of the Creator God is at hand, one must ascertain what this has to do with Jesus’ kingdom understanding.  It is by this that Jesus addresses the prevalent and apparently incorrect understanding that the kingdom of His God would be centered in Jerusalem, with all nations coming to its Temple to offer worship to Israel’s God.  Jesus makes it quite clear that even though they were correct in believing that all nations would in fact come to worship the Creator God by means of the Temple, that Temple by which this God would be worshiped, in recognition of His kingdom, would be Himself (Jesus).     

To go along with the interesting theological Temple dynamic that has been inserted into the narrative here in chapters twelve and fourteen of Mark’s Gospel, the place of the meal in which Jesus is engaged and at which He is anointed, as He says, “for burial” (14:8), is the house of “Simon the leper” (14:3).  Yes, Jesus is dining at the home of a leper, and therefore dining at the home of one whose entire existence is one of impurity in relation to Jewish law and custom.  Simon would definitely have found himself at the lower end of the honor and shame social spectrum, if not outside of it altogether as one unable to even compete for honor. 

As a leper, Simon would stand almost completely outside the social order, as he would translate ritual impurity to those who came into contact with him.  In the eyes of those that were in a position to observe this meal, Jesus Himself would have fallen into ritual impurity, and amazingly, within Mark’s narrative, Jesus can be seen doing this immediately before Passover.  Though He is looked upon as a respected rabbi within Israel at this point in time, Jesus apparently finds Himself unconcerned with the perceptions. 

Hot, Cold & Lukewarm (part 1)

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot.  I wish you were either cold or hot!  So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold…” – Revelation 3:15-16a  (NET)

The vast majority of those reading this study live in a world that bears very little resemblance to the first century world of the middle east and Asia Minor, and that fact must be borne in mind when approaching Scripture and its world.  No matter how educated one is in terms of being able to interact in the world on multiple levels and in and with a variety of disparate environments or group, or how Spirit-filled one may consider himself or herself to be, and no matter how strongly one declares a strong reverence the Bible, serious presentations of the all-important message of the Gospel cannot take place without serious study. 

In that light, when looking at this sliver of the message to the church at Laodicea, it must be insisted upon that one cannot casually approach the Scriptural text as if the terms in use carry the precise meaning today that they did when first penned.  In addition, it would behoove a reader not to overly rely or place a possibly un-warranted confidence in a knowledge of either Greek or Hebrew.  This knowledge often finds one translating the words from their original language and then interpreting the translation according to a modern understanding within one’s own subjective pre-determination that has been probably been determined by a relatively un-critical (and even unacknowledged) acceptance of a prevalent theology, philosophy, soteriology, ecclesiology, or eschatology, while simply congratulating oneself on the use of the ancient languages and acting as if truth has been rightly grasped. 

If and when effort is undertaken to translate from the original languages of Scripture, it is critical to be all the more attentive to the historical, cultural, and social contexts into which the words were uttered, bearing in mind that the words may have carried a meaning in those days that has been lost to modern hearers or readers, but which can be re-discovered upon the application of adequate effort in such a pursuit.  Words are regularly re-defined through usage, and often take upon themselves a variety of meanings and connotations that may very well be entirely foreign to original usage. 

To take a non-controversial Biblical example, consider the name “Nimrod.”  A reader will come upon this name in the tenth chapter of Genesis and read that “Cush was the father of Nimrod; he began to be a valiant warrior on the earth.  He was a mighty hunter before the Lord.  (That is why it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.’)” (Genesis10:8-9)  From there, one can go on to find out that he was a king and the builder of great cities.  Without going into further detail of the life of Nimrod, it is quite clear that he was a man that demanded great respect.  He is called a valiant warrior and a mighty hunter.  He was the builder of a kingdom, and men flocked to his leadership.  His name, in his day and in the days that followed, was a great name. 

Now, however, the situation is dramatically different.  In this day, if somebody is referred to as a “Nimrod,” the name is being offered as an insult.  That person is being referred to as a fool, with the ensuing implications standing at a great distance from “valiant,” “warrior,”, “mighty,” and the like.  So in a bygone era, if somebody was referred to as being a Nimrod, it would have been considered an honor.  Today, this is not the case.  Words change. 

All The Saints (part 11)

Notice the focus on the matter of Gentiles and the effectiveness of the Gospel’s message.  This, of course, makes perfect sense, as Paul is primarily known as the Apostle to the Gentiles.  At the same time however, he addresses himself to Jews as well, as his congregations (household meal gatherings in honor of Jesus) are a mixed bag, consisting of both Jews and Gentiles.  This is well demonstrated not only by the content of his letters, but by the fact that he spends a great deal of time addressing Jews in the synagogues in the various Gentile-dominated cities to which he travels. 

However, Luke, as the author of Acts, is free to pick and choose that upon which he focuses his attention and that which he relays to the readers/hearers of his work.  Interestingly, he consistently chooses to impart information concerning Gentiles, with this information provided its contextual setting by the Jew/Gentile issue that consumed the energy of the nascent church and so much of Paul’s attention.  This lends substantial weight to the idea that the means by which Gentiles are included in the covenant people and share in their promises (the means by which they are justified) was a (if not the) fundamental point of contention in the early church. 

Verse twenty provides the response: “When they heard this, they praised God.  Then they said to him, ‘You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all ardent observers of the law” (Acts 21:20).  That is, they are believers in Jesus who continue to adhere to the covenant markers of circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, and dietary laws.  Going on, “They have been informed about you---that you teach all the Jews now living among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs” (21:21).  This, as can be gleaned from Paul’s letters, is highly debatable, and probably something of a distortion or half-truth (at best). 

Paul’s primary concern was the covenant marker of Gentiles, that being confession of Jesus as Lord (their confession of the Gospel) that made them people of the covenant, and not the submission to the ongoing covenant markers of Israel as that which made them people of the covenant.  Paul was not concerned with whether or not the Jews continued to hold to these customs, being far more concerned with not forcing Gentiles to submit to them, as doing so would contribute, in his mind, to erecting barriers to the spread of the kingdom of the Creator God to all peoples.  Paul clearly demonstrates his belief that it would create unnecessary and probably unhelpful divisions among people, with these divisions based solely on identifying practices that had nothing to do with the proclamation of the Lordship of Jesus. 

If anything, Paul’s preaching probably encouraged Judaizing Gentiles (Gentiles who had adopted the covenant markers of Israel so as to come under the auspices and provisions of the covenant, so becoming Jews) to discontinue Sabbath-keeping and adherence to dietary laws (reversing circumcision, though possible, would probably not be encouraged, especially considering that Jews were not the only people to practice circumcision---it was really the combination of covenant related activities, though these changed over the years to reach the form that they had taken by the time of Jesus and Paul, that served to set Israel apart from other peoples).  This could form the basis for the mild accusation heard in the twenty-first verse, as, in order to make a point, they would not make an effort to distinguish between a Jew of national and ethnic Israel, and someone who had become a Jew through the required processes.  Though this study will not dwell on it, this chapter and its recorded exchange provides an indication that there may have been something of a struggle for honor within the church, with what has already come and what follows serving as an attempt to shame Paul.   

All The Saints (part 7)

The “all” barrage continues on into the next verse, which reads “He Himself is before all things and all things are held together in Him” (Colossians 1:17), which flows right into “He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn among the dead, so that He Himself may become first in all things” (1:18).  So here Paul writes about “all things” and “all things,” with the “all-inclusiveness” of humanity being carried in its basket of meaning and implication, moving directly into mention of the body of believers, that being the church, which is composed of all nations, apart from the covenant markers that delineated national Israel. 

This becomes inextricably linked with the assembly of Israel when “firstborn,” as part of “firstborn among the dead,” is attached to it.  This is an interesting phrase with an interesting addendum.  While “firstborn” is a position of honor, and while “the dead” can certainly be honored, talk of “the dead” in connection with Jesus generates thoughts of the cross.  If the cross is indeed brought to mind, this creates an interesting juxtaposition of honor and shame, as honor is identified with life, and shame is identified with death.  Jesus then, receives His honor at the place of shameful death as part of the cosmic reversal in which the last become first and the first become last, and in which that which is the source and place of greatest shame (the cross) is converted into the place of highest honor. 

In His willful trek to the cross, Jesus, by going to the lowest place, ascends to the highest place, becoming “first in all things.”  As “firstborn” implies the first of many, while also carrying its congregational cognitive in connection with the whole of Israel, the attachment of “among the dead” provides a double-meaning of tremendous importance to those that follow Jesus, with its demand that those who do indeed follow Him also be willing to go to the places of shame, carrying the message of the kingdom of the Creator God and being the place where heaven and earth overlap---representing and bringing that kingdom’s reign to those places where death attempts to assert its complete, total, despairing, humanity and creation defacing reign in defiance of Jesus.    

The nineteenth verse states “For God was pleased to have all fullness dwell in the Son” (1:19).  This reinforces that which has been asserted in verses fifteen and sixteen, while also continuing the heavy theme of “all” that appears to be so crucial to Colossians in particular, as well as to Paul and the church in general.  It is appended by “and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself by making peace through the blood of His cross---through Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven” (1:20). 

“All” features from first to last, is here linked to reconciliation and “peace,” is contexted by the “cross” (which ties neatly back to the “dead” of verse eighteen), and drawing conclusions from the formulaic setting forth of some of the earliest doctrines of Jesus, flows nicely into the twenty-first and twenty-second verse, where Paul insists that “you were at one time strangers and enemies in your minds as expressed through your evil deeds, but now He has reconciled you by His physical body through death to present you holy, without blemish, and blameless before Him” (1:21-22). 

All The Saints (part 5)

One can feel the warmth of the bright shining light of this entrenched interest when sitting alongside the gathered Colossian congregation, joining together in their customary meal gathering in honor of their Lord as the letter from the Apostle is read aloud and hearing “We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, since we heard about your faith in Christ Jesus and the love that you have for all the saints” (Colossians 1:3-4).  With the background provided, one should not skim quickly over this “all.”  It should be heard with all of the world-altering potential contained therein. 

After a quick bit of praise from Paul, while making mention of the Gospel that he says “has come to you” (1:6a), he adds an “all” emphasis with “Just as in the entire world this Gospel is bearing fruit and growing” (1:6b).  As with the “all” of verse four, one must not take lightly this talk of the “entire world,” given the backdrop of the exclusiveness that limited entrance upon the covenant.  Contrary to this, and contrary to his former way of life, Paul’s words, along with the sentiments expressed by Peter (as recorded in Acts), represent the realization of the flinging open of the doors of the Creator God’s covenant to all people---the entire world. 

It is in this mindset that one then goes on to hear the words of verse twelve, where Paul writes of their “giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you to share in the saints’ inheritance in the light” (1:12).  This qualification speaks to the issue of inclusion.  Prior to Jesus, and prior to the announcement of His Gospel (acknowledging Him as Lord of all) as the means (identification) by which one enters into the covenant (is justified), it was the works of the law (the accepted covenant markers and practices that identified and separated the people of Israel from all other people) that provided qualification to be a “saint” and to share in the promised inheritance that stretched all the way back to Abraham.  To that, reinforcing the “all,” “entire world,” and “qualified” language, Paul adds “He delivered us,” a word of unity, “from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (1:13-14). 

“Redemption” is a loaded term with a strong history, rooted in the history of Israel and firmly connected to the exodus, which was an incredibly important component of the story by which Israel identified itself.  Redemption is, in effect, exodus.  Throughout the Scriptures, the symbol of the Creator God’s redemption of His people was their exoduses, which were many.  Exodus, be it exodus from Egypt or exodus from Babylon (or from any other oppressor, whether inside or outside of the land of promise), was crucial to the story of Israel, and was a unifying theme for a people that took an “us against the world” stance. 

Redemption, or exodus, which implied a deliverance from exile (which was the result of Israel’s “sins”), was by and large (it’s not really the case for the Egyptian exodus) the evidence that Israel had been forgiven of its sins of covenant violations.  Therefore, Paul’s use of this language, as it is encompasses both Jew and Gentile, draws the Gentiles into the story of his God’s redemptive actions on behalf of Israel and the world through Israel, providing them with an exodus of their own, thus folding them into the people of Israel’s God. 

All The Saints (part 4)

As a result of Peter’s plea, James, grasping the movement of the Creator God’s Spirit, along with a Scriptural and historical justification for that movement, says “Brothers, listen to me.  Simeon has explained how God first concerned Himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for His name.  The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written, ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord, namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be My own, says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.’” (Acts 15:13b-18)  Remarkably, it is determined that the tent of David is to include the Gentiles (resonances of Isaiah 54:2---make your tent larger???), and that this has always been the plan of the covenant-making-and-keeping Creator God of Israel.   

In Acts thirteen, Paul and Barnabas are in Pisidian Antioch.  Paul speaks to “Men of Israel, and… Gentiles who fear God” (13:16b).  During the course of his speech, as he quickly recounts the story of the Creator God’s covenanting with humanity, he goes on to say “Brothers, descendants of Abraham’s family, and those Gentiles among you who fear God, the message of this salvation has been sent to us” (13:26). 

He goes on to punctuate the remainder of his message with words of family unity, speaking of “the good news about the promise to our ancestors” (13:32b), and “to us, their children” (13:33b), climaxing with “Therefore let it be known to you, brothers, that through this one forgiveness of sins,” which is the language of exodus experience and covenant inclusion, “is proclaimed to you, and by this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you” (13:38-39).  Here, one needs to be cognizant of the possibility that “the law of Moses” stands in for “works of the law,” which were the covenant markers that were to be practiced as the identifying, justifying marks for those who were under covenant. 

Thus, through recollection of these scenes as recorded in the book of Acts (which, though the stories would have been shared, were not available in written and standardized form to the churches of the day),observers are provided with a glimpse into the struggle.  There were doubts.  There were prejudices and ancient biases.  There was a fear that the status gains of one group (Gentile Christians) were coming at the expense of another (Jewish Christians). 

In an honor and shame culture in which honor was a limited good (one only gained honor at the expense of another’s honor), this is more than understandable.  There were church-wide conflicts.  There were intra-church (as congregation) conflicts.  There was a lack of unity on a number of issues, both within bodies and across the body.  There were stances taken by one church that would not be taken by another church.  Indeed, a review of the New Testament letters demonstrates that each congregation dealt with different problems at different times and in different ways.

All of this lays the groundwork for a look at Colossians.  In co-ordination with the title of this study, it can be said that “all” in Colossians, seems to play a strategic role.  This “all” takes on multiple forms, and when one reads the letter with the questions concerning the inclusion and acceptance of Gentiles as part of the covenant people of the Creator God, minus their adoption of the markers of that covenant, this communiqué takes on an interesting character.  Paul is very much interested in the elimination of long established, perhaps cherished barriers (in some corners), in the name of the creation of a unified, new creation, kingdom people.

Acts, Jealousy & Honor (part 3)

With that in mind, the rehearsal of the Acts narrative to this point encounters the fifth chapter, which begins with the story of Ananias and Sapphira.  That story (which is probably less about their lies and more about their actions that diminished the church and Jesus’ public honor, and the potential shame that could have been brought upon the community by supposed followers not living out its principles) is immediately followed by “Now many miraculous signs and wonders came about among the people through the hands of the apostles” (Acts 5:12a). 

From there, the reader goes on to hear an echo of an earlier statement, when reading “By common consent they were all meeting together in Solomon’s Portico” (5:12b).  That echo is from chapter two, where one would have previously found that “Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the Temple courts” (2:46a).  As was seen, this was appended by “the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved” (2:47b), which is mirrored in the fifth chapter by “More and more believers in the Lord were adding to their number, crowds of both men and women” (5:14).  Quite obviously, the repetition is important, and one must be cognizant of the fact that Luke’s story consistently builds, moving the reader or hearer along with a climax in mind.

Between the reports about the miraculous signs, of meeting with common consent, and of believers being added to the ever-growing group of Christians in Jerusalem, Luke writes that “None of the rest dared to join them, but the people held them in high honor” (5:13).  This, as should be well known, is more than simple respect or admiration.  Honor was a functional component of society.  Honor was important.  Honor was everything.  Luke makes the point that the disciples were being held in “high honor.”  This must not be overlooked. 

This high honor put the disciples in the position of becoming potential patrons to a sizable number of people---able to provide benefits to a large client base.  Now, bear in mind that the disciples and the church did not seek to become patrons, as this was not the motivation behind the signs and wonders.  The signs and wonders were designed to point beyond the disciples to the King and the kingdom that they dutifully proclaimed in word and deed, as they sought to raise the public honor of Jesus by touting His Resurrection in the face of His shameful crucifixion. 

One sees evidence of the movement by the people to elevate the disciples as patrons when reading “Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets, and put them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow would fall on some of them” (5:15).  This is classic client behavior, as they sought to honor a patron or potential patron so as to gain benefaction.  Furthermore, “A crowd of people from the towns around Jerusalem also came together, bringing the sick and those troubled by unclean spirits.  They were all being healed” (5:16).  With this record, one sees a replay of the stories about Jesus as recorded in the Gospels---the church thus carrying on the work of its Lord.  Against all odds, public honor was coming the way of the church.    

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 30)

Paul’s conclusion in regards to contentment and that which is truly valuable is “But if we have food and shelter, we will be satisfied with that” (1 Timothy 6:8).  This is quite the contrast from the general attitude as reflected by the acquisitive human appetite.  It takes a genuine work of the Spirit of the Creator God to create such contentment.  This is true for all time, and stands in special and stringent opposition to Paul’s world, as it was largely defined by constructs of honor and shame. 

In the end, this contentment with food and shelter leads to the removal of oneself from the always ongoing competition to increase one’s public honor and avoid shame.  For the citizen of the kingdom of the Christ, it should be the case that a concern with that kingdom’s priorities, as an animation of the Spirit of the Creator God, would rush in to fill the void of this ardent opposition to the ways of the world.  This contentment, realized against the backdrop in which contentment is never an option, but may simply be viewed as an accommodation and acquiescence to a perpetual and unalterable position of shame in the eyes of the culture, operates in a stark contrast with the alternative. 

Along these lines, Paul writes “Those who long to be rich,” which can also be heard as those that pursue honor (and if they do, they do so according to the rules and regulations of the world’s patron, that being Caesar, thereby serving to ultimately enhance his public honor rather than that of the world’s true patron and Lord), “however, stumble into temptation and a trap and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge into ruin and destruction” (6:9). 

This is not a blanket condemnation of wealth, as wealthy can certainly be used rightly and to the ongoing extension of the kingdom of the covenant God as a manifestation of the mysterious work of His Spirit, but of misplaced desire, especially on the part of denizens of the kingdom of that God.  Understanding that, it is said that “the love of money is the root of all evils.  Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains” (6:10). 

The associated warning is “But you, as a person dedicated to God,” as a member of His kingdom community, with a higher and more honorable calling than can possibly be imagined (serving the poor, the blind, the lame, the maimed, orphans, widows, etc…), “keep away from all that.  Instead pursue righteousness, godliness, faithfulness, love, endurance, and gentleness” (6:11).  Righteousness is to be understood as a place among the Creator God’s covenant people.  Godliness can be heard as an imitation of the Christ, looking to His faithfulness in the midst of overwhelming shame.  Love, endurance, and gentleness were to be the hallmarks of the church.    

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 29)

A natural objection would be raised by those who were slaves (who may very well have had slaves of their own, which should probably be taken into consideration when hearing what comes next from Paul), which could be “What if our master is a believer?  Should he not be forced to free us?”  It may be the case that the church met in the very household of a believer who was also a slaveholder.  Undoubtedly, Paul would let the Spirit have its work (one could hear Paul’s words to Philemon about avoiding compulsion), with this heard in his response to the theoretical objections: “But those who have believing masters must not show them less respect because they are brothers.  Instead they are to serve all the more, because those who benefit from their service are believers and dearly loved” (1 Timothy 6:2). 

With these words there is a reminder that Paul, in general, is far more concerned with that which benefits the body as a whole, rather than that which benefits individual believers, which this being quite easy to discern from his letters to the Corinthians and the Romans (not as a source of proof texts, but as communications that reveal the heart of the Apostle).  Again, this will require love, self-sacrifice, and preferential treatment on behalf of the slave. 

This is quite the role-reversal in that day, for it would usually be the master, in the position of patron and benefactor to those that are his slaves, that were looked to as those with the opportunity to be generous and magnanimous.  Here, Paul has effectively reversed those roles, and it is now the slave that is in said position and is therefore in a position to accrue honor.  One should not look to this culturally reversing element as a justification for the extension of slavery, but as an element of the last becoming first and the first becoming last, and as something of an in-breaking of the power of the kingdom of the Creator God.    

Beginning with the sixth verse of the sixth chapter, Paul writes “Now godliness combined with contentment brings great profit.  For we have brought nothing into this world and so we cannot take a single thing out either” (6:6-7).  Had this study not already revealed that Paul has dismissed Stoicism, effectively countering its philosophical stance with the hope of the Resurrection (as embodied in Jesus), one may be tempted to hear a resonance of Stoic thought in these words from the Apostle. 

One is better served, however, to hear Paul from within the honor and shame competition of the culture.  Though, as has been said before, it would not necessarily be the case that honor was equated with wealth, this would largely hold true.  So here one finds a way of thinking that militates against the valuation of honor, and the goods that become associated with an every-increasing cache of public honor, with a reminder of that which is truly valuable.  In the end, that would be working to increase the public honor of the one that was made to be Lord and Christ. 

Contentment, as opposed to Stoic apathy, runs contrary to the ceaseless competition for public honor; and as should be well known, godliness, in imitation of the Lord, not only causes one to become unconcerned with public honor, it also causes Jesus’ followers to seek out the places and people and situations and activities that will redound to the accrual of shame.  With shame being the equivalent of death, and generally to be avoided at all costs (as was the going concern of the culture), the believers’ going “down” into shame (though paradoxically it is an elevation in the eyes of the covenant God) can be looked upon as the equivalent of going down into death---going to the cross with Jesus and being crucified with Him.

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.    

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 26)

Taken together then, not only do the words sound very similar to that which is spoken of widows (“for some have already wandered away to follow Satan”), but combined with the need to be well thought of by those outside the faith, one can here sense a prohibition against being a gossip or a busybody, about being lazy, and about going from house to house talking about things they should not.  There’s no reason to believe that this is somehow the exclusive domain of women. 

If this is what will give the adversary the opportunity to vilify the church when such activities are undertaken by the widows (those normally dismissed by the wider culture), how much more than when the overseers of the meal table---the ones who would naturally be looked upon with as leaders of the assembly by the surrounding world (though they do not hold a formal position)---engage in the same.  Concurrently, one can notice that the same words are not applied to deacons. 

This is understandable, because as table servants they would not be accorded the same type of respect by those outside the church as would the meal overseer, though those who serve are accorded the highest honor within the church.  Such is the nature of Paul’s witness to the church, as he always has his eye on the church’s interaction with the culture and its need to be a counter-balance to the stifling of true humanity that takes place in the cultures that do not bow the knee to the Lordship of Jesus.

Finally, rounding out his words for Timothy and the church in regards to widows, having given this group a seemingly inordinate amount of attention, Paul writes “If a believing woman has widows in her family, let her help them.  The church should not be burdened, so that it may help the widows who are truly in need” (1 Timothy 5:16).  While Paul’s words clearly operate at a level that allows the church for all time to ascertain direction and ideals, one can’t help but believe that Paul has some specific people in mind here as he writes. 

There is little reason to think otherwise, and there is even less reason---considering the fact that Paul is dealing with specific situations that have arisen in the church letters---to imagine that Paul is suggesting guidelines to be applied to the church universally and for all time.  What should get a reader’s attention, when considering how to apply these words of Paul, are the counter-cultural elements and the implications for service within the church and the church’s interaction with the world. 

One stumbles dangerously into anachronisms when losing sight of the fact that Paul writes to real people, in real churches, at a definite time in history, dealing with real and pressing situations as the church sought to find its way in representing the kingdom of the Creator God while standing against the forces, though defeated by the cross and by the Resurrection, that sought to infiltrate and destroy the people of that God---attempting to destroy the church’s ability to stand as witness to its sovereign Lord. 

When taking the honor and shame competition of the day into consideration, while also considering the possibility that in all of this talk (concerning overseers, deacons, and widows), Paul has certain problematic individuals in view, one can move helpfully away from reading this letter solely as some tractate concerning church discipline, and instead read it as a clarion call to a church, through the apostle’s emissary, to continue to align itself with kingdom ideals, seeking the way of the cross and of shame, as all honor continues to accrue to Jesus. 

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.”     

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 23)

At the same time, Paul does not romanticize widows, and does not unduly elevate them, as he still stresses the equality of the church and the need for all to be treated equally---this was the counter-cultural corrective to the usual treatment of widows.  It stands written: “Honor widows who are truly in need” (1 Timothy 5:3a).  Unsurprisingly, Paul commences with the use of “honor” language.  As is known, this goes far beyond treating them deferentially or simply respecting them, as talk of honoring widows affords them a status (a status that is to be shared by all, as all honor would ultimately be directed to the Lord that has subjected Himself to the greatest shame) which they would be unable to attain outside of the church.  This is balanced with the “in need,” as Paul keeps the unity of the church body in view, always cognizant of the fact that the scale, owing to the social conditioning that is a component of human nature, can often be tipped too far to one side, with widows being afforded honor that is quickly converted to rank, status, and special privilege. 

The “in need” is followed up with “if a widow has children or grandchildren, they should first learn to fulfill their duty towards their own household and so repay their parents what is owed them” (5:4a).  Here one notes the mention of “their own household,” which is a contrast with the church body, which, owing to the fact that the gatherings of the church took place in private homes around a common meal, would be often referred to as a “household.”  Though there would be no honor involved in caring for a widowed mother or grandmother, and especially because there would be sacrifice on the part of the children and the grandchildren, it is insisted upon that “this is what pleases God” (5:4b).  Speech, conduct, love, faithfulness, and purity indeed. 

In contrast to the widow that has children or grandchildren, “the widow who is truly in need, and completely on her own, has set her hope on God and continues in her pleas and prayers night and day” (5:5).  As part of the non-romanticizing of widows, on the other hand, “the one who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives” (5:6).  Here, it is necessary to make a further point about honor and shame, in that shame was equivalent to death.  So an interesting construct has been created. 

Paul insists that widows that are truly in need be honored, which will include her receiving the support of the church body and their meeting all of the necessities of her life, which is contrary to cultural norms.  This has been tempered with a call to duty for children and grandchildren of widows to live sacrificially, in accordance with the demands that the Creator God has placed upon His covenant people.  Paul then revisits the widow that is truly in need, who should be on the receiving end of the honor that would not normally come to her, pointing out that part of her commendation stems from her continuation in pleas and prayers, contrasting that with the widow that is concerned only with the pursuit of pleasure (Epicureanism?), who is already dead (shameful).    

To this is added, “Reinforce these commands, so that they will be beyond reproach” (5:7)---reproach being a term of honor versus shame, as conceptions of honor and shame are reworked and appropriately retooled within the church.  Though the church community will not be structured by perceptions and assignments of honor and shame, Paul very much desires the community of the covenant of faith to develop new and revolutionary ideas in regards to that which is truly honorable and deserving of honor, and of that which is shameful and deserving of shame.  To that end, he insists that “if someone does not provide for his own, especially his own family, he has denied the faith,” the mark of the covenant that is calling Jesus Lord, with all that is implied thereby, “and is worse than an unbeliever” (5:8).  For the body of Christ, there could be no greater source of shame.    

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 22)

In verse twelve of chapter four Paul writes “Let no one look down on you because you are young” (1 Timothy 4:12a).  Honor came to someone (at least partially) in conjunction with age.  Though a person would not be looked upon as being honorable simply because of age, those things that conveyed honor would only be recognized as being truly honorable when attached to someone of appropriate age.  The church of Christ, unconcerned with the conveyance of honor according to the world’s standards, recognizes an entirely different set of honor standards, in accordance with “speech, conduct, love, faithfulness, and purity” (4:12b).  There is no age-discrimination here, and all can participate equally.  Accordingly, these things can be demonstrated through “the public reading of Scripture… exhortation… teaching” (4:13), and it is these things that should absorb attention and be marks of progress (4:15). 

In the fifth chapter of this letter, Paul addresses an issue that is near to the heart of the Creator God, which is that of widows.  The Hebrew Scriptures---the words that reveal the character of that God, and which must be viewed through the event of the incarnation and the cross---are filled with words that speak to the covenant God’s concern for widows.  Widows, along with orphans, were among the most vulnerable members of society, and the mark of the people of the Creator God was their proper care of widows (and orphans, though this study will ultimately be limited to widows for the sake of the treatment of Timothy). 

Indeed, it could be said that a driving force behind the judgments of the Creator God that rained down upon His people through the instrumentation of Assyria and Babylon, was Israel’s treatment of the groups of people to whom their God had directed them to offer special concern and consideration.  This group included widows.  Therefore, one should not be surprised to find the issue of widows treated in the New Testament, as the church of the Christ sought to find its way in a culture that was quite dismissive of widows as those that had no place in the honor system---who were relegated to the margins of society, and whose existence, by and large, was going to be meager at best. 

The Creator God’s passionate concern for widows, as revealed in the narrative tradition that was foundational for the covenant faith of Israel, is best summed up by James, as in the context of the early church’s grappling with the continuation of that narrative tradition and the re-shaping of that covenant faith around Jesus as Lord, he writes “Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their misfortune” (1:27a).  This has an added benefit of making it possible “to keep oneself unstained by the world” (1:27b). 

There is a tendency to see this as a statement with a double directive, with the first directive concerning achieving a pure and undefiled religion being caring for orphans and widows, while the second directive is keeping oneself unstained by the world.  Perhaps this is a false division?  Perhaps it is time that Christians saw this as directive and consequence---action and reaction?  Perhaps this statement by James follows hard on the directives and examples of the Hebrew Scriptures?  Israel failed to care for the orphans and the widows, and therefore they became stained by the world around them.  Had they cared for the orphans and the widows, and kept that at the center of their covenant-keeping, such staining would not have taken place.    

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 18)

As Paul would give his instructions concerning deacons, he would be unable to escape the weighty and terrible fact that he had been involved in the death that had come to the martyr Stephen.  How ironic that believers (at least in terms of the order of the books of the New Testament) are introduced to Paul at the death of the first person to be mentioned as a deacon of the church, and then here he is, years later, instructing Timothy in regards to the qualifications and conduct of deacons. 

Re-reading the words concerning deacons that are on offer here in this letter, along with an underlying contemplation of the culture into which this position was introduced and against which it gravitated and stood as a counter-cultural witness in its revelation of the functioning of the kingdom of the Creator God, should be done with Stephen in mind.  To that end, one hears that “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not two-faced, not given to excessive drinking, not greedy for gain, holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience” (1 Timothy 3:8-9). 

Truly, Stephen went to his death with great dignity, expressing a desire, like Jesus, that those taking His life be forgiven.  Not being given to excessive drinking would serve him well in his service of others.  Not being greedy for gain, which is fundamentally an honor proposition, would enable him to conscientiously take the lowest place.  His holding to the mystery of the faith, part of which was a reversal of the social order, in which the last become first and the first become last as a significant component of Jesus’ kingdom teaching, is demonstrated by willful service to those considered last, treating both first and last as equal in the eyes of the covenant God as they participate in their God’s kingdom come to earth.  In a world defined by honor competition, these can be difficult propositions, which is why, with Timothy and the first set of deacons in mind, one can go on to read “And these also must be tested first and then let them serve as deacons if they are found blameless” (3:10). 

Why must they be tested?  Because in the kingdom of the Christ it is servants that were to be honored, rather than those that are being served.  Therefore, if this is rightly grasped by a congregation, there would be a significant temptation to give undue honor to those that serve, elevating the individual that serves rather than elevating the position of servant and ideal of service.  Accordingly then, a deacon would have to be willing to relegate the position if it became vested with honor, distancing himself from the undue honor that might be heading his way, and allowing another to take up the role.  In a way then, divesting oneself of the position of servant is a way of embracing shame.  This elevation of service as conducive to honor, as opposed to public speech acts such as speaking in tongues or words of wisdom and knowledge, could only take place in a community transformed by the re-shaping message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord---and all honor is due to Him). 

Going further, it is said “Likewise also their wives must be dignified, not slanderous, temperate, faithful in every respect.  Deacons must be husbands of one wife and good managers of their children and their own households” (3:11-12).  As was seen with similar words said concerning overseers, this may very well be a way to specifically identify certain men that should not be considered for this position.  Why provide such limitation?  Would not the service serve to bring about what may be much-needed humility and change to such a person and to their family?  Though this may be a position held by an on-looker from outside the congregation, who sees the role of servant in opposition to the accrual of honor, this would not be so inside the church, as the taking of the role of servant at the table becomes that by which honor can be accrued. 

A person that is not “full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” may take advantage of this reversed situation, using it for their own advantage.  So in rounding out the treatment concerning deacons, with all of these thoughts in mind, Paul writes “For those who have served well as deacons,” with service being the crux of the matter, “gain a good standing for themselves and a great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus” (3:13).  Truly then, honor and standing in the church come from service, though it is not an honor or a standing that should cause one believer to be set over another believer in an intra-chuch honor competition.  The boldness comes from taking the role of servant, living out the principles of the kingdom, and even experiencing, to an extent, as the surrounding community viewed a person of honor taking the role of a lowly servant, a portion of the shame that came the way of their Lord.    

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 15)

Now, when one considers a daily distribution of food to widows, there is probably an idea of people going house to house, delivering meals to those that are shut-in and who are too old and frail to serve themselves.  Though this may have been part of what was occurring, it is best to keep oneself culturally and historically grounded, while also keeping the regular assembly around the meal table front and center. 

One must also bear in mind that, due to much shorter life expectancies, these widows could have been relatively young.  Though this study will later be dealing with this in greater detail, it is possible to get a glimpse of the treatment of widows in the letter to Timothy (thus causing the reference to widows in Acts to have an even greater bearing on a study of Timothy), when Timothy is instructed that “no widow is to be put on the list unless she is at least sixty years old” (1 Timothy 5:9a). 

As it relates to the physical capabilities of widows and to being sure that they are being viewed through an appropriate lens, Paul writes that there is a bit of a problem in widows “going around from house to house” (5:13a).  In response then, Paul’s directive is “I want younger women to marry, raise children, and manage a household, in order to give the adversary no opportunity to vilify us” (5:14).  More on this anon, but in that statement, widows are the “young women” and therefore the subject.  

So again, one must put the idea of the frail, sickly, shut-in widow, who can barely lift her head or feed herself (though there were certainly some of these attached to the church), out of mind and see these widows referenced here and in Acts as capable and perhaps vibrant members of the community, who are able to participate in the regular table gatherings of the church. 

That said, it is probable that it was at the coming together of the church around a common meal that these widows were being neglected in the distribution of food.  If so, this sounds terribly like the situation that Paul addresses in Corinth, where he writes “when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it…  Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper.  For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper.  One is hungry and another becomes drunk.  Do you not have houses so that you can eat and drink?  Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing?” (1 Corinthians 11:18,20-22a) 

It becomes clear that the honor-based arrangements around the meal tables to which Jesus was regularly invited, and which He regularly criticized, were alive and well and being used at the meal tables of the church in Jerusalem.  Widows, as would have been quite common owing to a lack of a living husband and therefore a lack of honor or even the ability to accrue honor (a wife’s honor was dependent on that of her husband), were being neglected---relegated to the positions in which they were served last.