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 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.    

Calling Down Fire (part 2)

The followers of Jesus would also be aware of the strong possibility that if the Caesar had sent messengers ahead of himself, to prepare a city for his arrival there, and that city (or town or village) rejected him for any reason whatsoever, that the Caesar’s response would likely be to make an example of that village.  The Caesar, in a show of force that proved his power and rule, could very well take the step of killing those who did not bow the knee.  If this was done, the killing would probably be done in a fairly dramatic and attention-getting way (a crucifixion may not be out of the question), so that it would not be necessary to repeat such a thing upon reaching the next city during the course of his travels.  Though lacking the power of the Caesar, the question about calling down fire from heaven (invoking Elijah), it would seem that James and John are expressing a desire to follow the same pattern. 

One could understand the way of thinking, however misguided.  Truly, if this King is greater than Caesar, than all should be made to bow the knee.  Calling down fire from heaven to consume those that refused to show honor would be the way of insuring that such would happen.  Jesus’ response is well known and in line with His character as revealed in the Gospels.  He “turned and rebuked them” (Luke 9:55).  It is to be noted that He did not turn and rebuke the villagers that rejected Him.  Rather, He rebuked His disciples that wanted to go about commanding allegiance in the way that Caesar and all other kings had commanded allegiance, which was ultimately the threat of pain and death.  In consideration of this of course, one cannot help but think of the regular “calling down of fire”---that of death and the eternal fire of hell---that is employed to convince people to bow the knee to Jesus. 

Rather than stay in that village in an attempt to defy the rejection, “they went on to another village” (9:56).  Jesus was not going to be side-tracked in His mission to preach the Gospel of His kingdom, which is what is to be understood as that which truly carries power.  To that end, chapter ten of Luke begins by saying, “After this,” thereby connecting it with the words and events of chapter nine.  Luke writes, “After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others (possibly seventy) and sent them on ahead of Him two by two into every town and place where He Himself was about to go” (10:1).  This is quite similar to what can be seen taking place in the ninth chapter, when Jesus “sent messengers on ahead of Him… to make things ready in advance for Him” (9:52a,c).  Observing these instructions in this context, it would seem that Jesus sees Himself in the role of the world’s true Caesar, sending out evangelists to announce His coming and to prepare His subjects for an appropriate reception.   

With the sending, Jesus included instructions, saying “Do not carry a money-bag, a traveler’s bag, or sandals, and greet no one on the road”  (10:4).  This sounds like rather unusual instructions, but it is possible that Jesus wants His disciples to be distinctive from other wandering teachers in those days.  He added a demand that once they find a hospitable response from a household, that they stay in that one house, and “not move around from house to house” (10:7b).  Again, without getting too bogged down in details, suffice it to say that this practice will continue to set His disciples apart from other roving teachers of that day.  Ultimately, those that came across the representatives of Jesus are to be made to realize that the visitors are there for a single mission, which would be to “Heal the sick in that town and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come upon you!’” (10:9) 

Deceptively Revealing (part 2 of 2)

When Isaac spoke these words to Esau, it was not to his ears alone that they came.  “Rebekah,” Isaac’s wife, “had been listening while Isaac spoke to his son Esau” (Genesis 27:5).  Apparently, she was rightly alarmed at what she had heard.  When Isaac, who had been marked as the bearer of the divine covenant that had first come to Abraham, spoke to Esau about blessing him, Rebekah knew that, because of Isaac’s use of “bless,” that it was the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant to which he referred.  Isaac was intent upon passing the blessing on to Esau. 

Before we contemplate the way that Rebekah responded to what she had heard, we should take a moment to consider what it is that Isaac is doing, and whether or not he can actually do what both Isaac and Rebekah (and most likely Esau) know that he is about to attempt to do.  Can Isaac actually pass along the Abrahamic covenant?  No, he cannot.  That is the prerogative of the God that enters into covenant.  Isaac did not have the covenant passed along to him by Abraham, but rather, the Scriptures inform us that it was the Lord who spoke to Isaac and informed him that he was to be the bearer of the divine covenant.  This lined-up with what Abraham had been told about the son that would be born to he and Sarah.  Here, Isaac, fully aware of his plans and intentions, is presuming to usurp the promise that had come to him, while presuming to encroach upon an area that belonged to God alone.  So though it is unlikely that Isaac’s actions are going to be effectual in relation to the bearer of the covenant, his completing the task to which he had set himself would only prove to be problematic down the road, especially in the area of family relations and positions of honor within the extended household. 

This is only a part of what it was that prompted Rebekah to take action.  What was that action?  Well, it was deception.  Rebekah, in full awareness of the family’s history of deception, jumps right into the family “business,” doing what she believes to be an absolute necessity.  Just as Isaac figured that deception had worked for him and his dad in the past, so too could Rebekah reach the same conclusion.  So “Rebekah said to her son Jacob, ‘Look, I overheard your father… Now then, my son, do exactly what I tell you!’” (27:6a,8)  With that, she proceeded to unfold a plan and give Jacob instructions that would allow him to go before his father in his brother’s place, telling her son that in this way his father would “bless you before he dies” (27:10b). 

Why would she go to such trouble?  It is because she had a promise from the Lord.  That promise came to her when she was pregnant with both Jacob and Esau.  She was told that “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples will be separated from within you.  One people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger” (25:23).  Because Rebekah was married to the younger son of Abraham, and because it was he that bore the divine covenant in the world, this would naturally lead to the belief that her younger son (the one that came out second) would also be the recipient of the covenant that the Lord had made with Abraham and was carrying out at that time through Isaac.  One would think that it would be foolish to believe that she did not make this promise known to Isaac.  However, it might very well be the case that she did not do so.  So naturally, as the boys grew, Isaac would have favored the older son, which would not have been surprising, and we are told that “Isaac loved Esau because he had a taste for fresh game” (25:28a).  However, it is specifically said that “Rebekah loved Jacob” (25:28b). 

While it is quite natural for the older son to be favored, we can probably attribute this special love for her younger son to the promise that she had received, and the knowledge that it was he that was going to receive and bear forth the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant.  Viewed in this light, it would not be terribly difficult to believe that Rebekah kept the Lord’s message to herself, though this would carry the risk of Isaac attempting to do what he was now doing, which is what has now prompted Rebekah’s actions.  As we remember that Isaac himself was the younger son of Abraham, it is doubtful that he would have difficulty accepting the receipt of a report from Rebekah dealing with what she had been told by the Lord, so his actions to bless the older son further indicate that he had not been made aware of this promise. 

When Rebekah speaks to Jacob, he responds with a protest, indicating that he didn’t see how it was possible for him to carry out this deception, due to the physical differences between he and his brother.  Within his protest, we get a glimpse of the notion that Rebekah has shared the knowledge of her promise with Jacob, as he says, “My father may touch me!  Then he’ll think I’m mocking him and I’ll bring a curse on myself instead of a blessing” (27:12).  It is with this that Jacob reveals the fact that he is aware of the promise concerning his position, but is simply concerned with how his mother is suggesting he go about receiving the blessing that would affirm this in the eyes of his brother and the whole of his father’s household.  Along with this, by use of the language of blessing and cursing, he demonstrates his awareness of the covenant that his father carries.  We should expect this of him, as Isaac would have made this well known to his sons.  Rebekah’s response has her taking up the language of covenant as well, saying “Any curse against you will fall on me, my son!  Just obey me!” (27:13b).  She was confident that the deception would be successful, and that it would result in blessing, as such things (deceptions) had so often done for her husband and her father-in-law.