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 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.    

Speaking In Tongues (part 26)

However, as has been said, this rather commonplace religious practice, to this point, has been limited in its performance.  One simply did not see entire groups of people speaking in tongues.  Not only would this have been counter-productive, whether within Christian associations or other gathered groups, this would also have run afoul of the honor system and its embedded functionality for society. 

Now, one might try to take this particular point and argue that an entire church speaking in tongues would serve to uproot the standardized systems of honor and shame, as this was certainly a portion of the missional ideal of the church and the kingdom of the covenant God (the first becoming last and the last becoming first, willingly taking the lowest place, ascribing all honor to a man that had suffered the most shameful ordeal of that age), but Paul’s words do not allow for any such thinking. 

If this was truly a desired goal, Paul would not write things like “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 in order to instruct others, rather than then thousand words in a tongue” (1 Corinthians 14:18-19).  Also, since Paul also goes on to write “If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret” (14:27), any such argument that speaking in tongues should encompass the entire congregation falls flat. 

It is the limited performance of tongues, and the limited number of people who spoke in this way within a society accustomed to witnessing a person engage in ecstatic speech that could be the key to understanding the whole of verse twenty-three.  Though he begins with “So if the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues,” he quickly digresses from any sense that this is going to be a positive thing by adding “and unbelievers or uninformed people enter, will they not say that you have lost your minds?” (14:23) 

Now this is not to say that the unbeliever or the uninformed should determine how Christian gatherings are conducted, but if someone in Corinth were to walk in on such an assembly, with knowledge about glossolalia, with knowledge that interpretation is a necessary feature of the practice, with knowledge that it is a limited good, and with knowledge that speaking in tongues was a component of the never-ending competition for honor, then it is quite simple to see why Paul might say such a thing. 

Unbelievers or the uninformed, not knowing that Christ-worshipers do not compete for honor in their world or in their assemblies and association as do everyone else, would see a massive honor-competition taking place.  Along with that, since glossolalia was believed to be the way that a god sometimes chose to communicate to his worshipers, presumably through one particularly devout worshiper, the unbeliever might wonder what kind of a god would need to speak in such a way through each person in an assembly? 

This immediately leads to the idea that if there were multiple people all doing the same thing at the same time, it could be presumed that there was more than one god speaking through those people, which would then run counter to the claims of the Christians there gathered.

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 1)

…maintain good conduct among the non-Christians, so that though they now malign you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God when He appears. – 1 Peter 2:12  (NET)

The Gospel is inherently social.  Because it is the declaration of Jesus’ Lordship, with this Lordship being the Lordship not just of individual lives and souls, but over the whole of the cosmos, it has a social element.  This is a far cry from the Gospel being reduced to a “social gospel,” but rather, it is to say that the implications of the declaration demand to be worked out in a tangible, visible way, on display for a society to see. 

Just as the worshipers or proponents of the Caesar declared his lordship, and in doing so were not asking people to make a private confession of faith in Caesar or to cultivate a personal and private holiness that would somehow be pleasing to Caesar, neither were the proponents of Jesus insisting upon such a thing.  The Gospel (Jesus is Lord) was and is public.  The reaction to the Gospel (the fact that Jesus is Lord) demanded a community context.  The presentation of Caesar’s gospel (Caesar is lord of all) resulted in certain activities (the erecting of statues, sacrifices, festivals, submission to his earthly rule, etc…) that made it clear to all that his gospel was being accepted, so it would be expected that an alternative Gospel, especially in that day and age (and of course for all time) would demonstrate the same. 

When the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) was preached into a world that was accustomed to a regular hearing of a gospel message (Caesar is lord), it was preached into a world that was prepared to hear such a message, and it was preached into a world that would have expected public, community oriented demonstrations of what it was that was being trumpeted.  Yes, the Gospel was and is meant to be transformative.  That transformation, of course, is intensely personal, but that personal transformation was and is to be manifested in positive public behavior---not simply a negative (i.e. “I don’t do” these things and neither should you).  

That public behavior is not, as is so commonly proposed, merely that which takes place in church gatherings where singing, praying, lifting up hands, and giving are taken as the evidences of the inherent power of the Gospel and of transformed lives.  Public behavior is not that which is primarily concerned with a dramatic abstention from participation in life’s pleasures, accompanied by thinking that it is by constant refraining and restraining efforts that holiness is demonstrated. 

Those things can certainly be evidentiary, but they are only the primary evidence if one exalts the individual, rather than the body (and its Lord), and if one places private spirituality in the context of a personal quest to achieve heaven upon death higher than offering tangible service as and for a community (being lights to the world).  Such a focus seems to run counter to the movement of Scripture, in which the Creator God is constantly calling a people to Himself, beginning with Abraham, so that they might exemplify divine blessing and be a blessing to the whole of the created order.  Persons are called, and they are called to be a part of a people, for the primary purpose of being a blessing to the world so that the God that calls them into covenant might be glorified. 

Samson's Hair (part 1)

Finally he told her his secret.  He said to her, “My hair has never been cut, for I have been dedicated to God from the time I was conceived.  If my head were shaved, my strength would leave me; I would become weak, and be just like all other men.” – Judges 16:17  (NET)

The story of the maddeningly enigmatic character, Samson, begins in a familiar way for the Hebrew Scriptures, which is with a barren woman.  It is said that there was “a man named Manoah from Zorah, from the Danite tribe.   His wife was infertile and childless” (Judges 13:2).  The God of Israel steps into this situation, and the “The Lord’s angelic messenger appeared to the woman and said to her, ‘You are infertile and childless, but you will conceive and have a son” (13:3). 

Immediately upon hearing this, one is reminded of the stories of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Rachel.  Because the patriarchs of Israel had all experienced, to an extent, what was now being experienced by Manoah and his wife, those hearing this story already know that there is going to be something special about this child.  They know that the Creator God of Israel has a special purpose in mind for this family, in line with His larger purposes for Israel.   

From the angelic messenger, Manoah’s wife is said to have received explicit instructions in relation to the treatment of the boy that is going to be born to her.  The messenger tells her, “Now be careful!  Do not drink wine or beer, and do not eat any food that will make you ritually unclean.  Look, you will conceive and have a son.  You must never cut his hair, for the child will be dedicated to God from birth.  He will begin to deliver Israel from the power of the Philistines” (13:4-5). 

With this, thoughts are moved beyond the patriarchs of the nation to Israel itself.  This mention of ritually unclean foods hearkens to the Mosaic law, and the use of “son” is a reminder that in the Exodus narrative, which was intensely programmatic and definitive for Israel, the Creator God refers to Israel as His firstborn son (4:22).  Naturally then, like Samson, Israel was a child dedicated to God from its birth, with certain restrictions in regards to ritual purity.  If one was to think big picture, then Israel, ultimately, was going to be the means by which the Creator God acted in history to deliver the whole of His creation from the power of death.  Thus, Samson becomes a microcosm of Israel. 

When Manoah is given the privilege of encountering the angelic messenger and the instructions are recounted to him, he is told “Your wife should pay attention to everything I told her.  She should not drink anything that the grapevine produces.  She must not drink wine or beer, and she must not eat any food that will make her ritually unclean.  She should obey everything I commanded her to do” (13:13b-14).  Fascinatingly, the very thing upon which so many focus when it comes to Samson and the sign of his covenant, which was the instructions related to his hair, is not reiterated to Manoah. 

Instead, the messenger tells him, twice, that his wife should pay attention to everything that she has been told to do in regards to her and her son.  In this case, she has received further instruction and it is going to be incumbent upon her to share these instructions with her husband.  It is also incumbent upon her husband to trust his wife in regards to this matter of their son’s hair, which provides an interesting twist to the dynamic of the story, especially within a society ordered around patriarchal dominance.  The report of this situation is yet another compelling reversal of social norms, as it elevates this woman and forces her husband to rely on her in a way that was quite uncommon and potentially revolutionary in that day and age. 

Corinth's Communion (part 15)

The institution in view, which fits within the meal practice of the ancient world and which seems to demand consideration because of the context provided by Paul’s words in the sixth chapter of first Corinthians, is what is known as the “symposium” (Greek) or the “convivium” (Latin/Roman).  In ancient Greece, the symposium was a drinking party.  The word “symposium” derives from the Greek word “sympotein,” which means “to drink together.” 

The symposium was a key social institution in the Greco-Roman world, and would be especially so in a well-known and popular Greek city such as Corinth.  Among other things, it served as a forum for men to debate philosophy or the issues of the day, to devise grand schemes, to boast about achievements (note Paul’s mention of boasting in the fifth chapter), or quite simply to engage in festivities with friends, family, neighbors, and business associates. 

Symposiums were also frequently held to celebrate the introduction of young men into aristocratic society, for the purpose of celebrating special occasions, athletic victories (which would be key in Corinth which was the home of the Isthmian games), or other contests such as those held for the creation and recitation of poetry.  Most assuredly, an aura of nobility (according to the honor and shame culture and the societal honor competition) surrounded the symposium. 

The events would typically be held in the men’s quarters of the household; and of course, early church meetings took place in private homes, thus lending opportunities for such engagements.  Relatively quickly, it becomes rather simple to identify a slippery slope, especially when the idea of the messianic feast, which was of tremendous importance in the early church, was introduced into the wider Greco-Roman culture. 

Those that participated would recline on couches that would be arrayed against three walls of the room, away from the door or entryway.  Obviously, space limitations would limit the number of couches, therefore limiting the number of participants, even if one were to take standing room into consideration.  The events were limited to men, and only those of a certain status were allowed to recline.  If any young men were present, they would not recline, but would be obliged to sit up or to stand.  Naturally, food and wine would be served, and one does well to remember the social stratifications that would most assuredly be at work in conjunction with this service.  In addition, entertainment would be provided.  Depending on the occasion, this entertainment could include games, songs, flute-girls or boys, slaves performing various acts, or even entertainers hired specifically for the occasions. 

Moving forward then, it is necessary to consider how much of Greek culture, carried forward by Rome, had infiltrated the social life of first century Judea.  The meals that Jesus attended, and the meals to which He would make reference in His parables, could very well have taken up the cultural dynamic of the wider world.  Most assuredly, even if the communal meals did not take the form of the Greco-Roman meal, the culture of the eastern world, as it operated on and was dominated by considerations of honor and shame, would have included social stratifications.  

Problems For James (part 2)

There, immediately after elevating orphans and widows (1:27), who were among the most overlooked and ostracized groups in all of society, James goes on to write “My brothers and sisters, do not show prejudice if you possess faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1).  James is here addressing those that confess Jesus as Lord, and therefore identify themselves as participants in His kingdom movement. 

Bearing in mind the honor and shame culture and the social stratification that would be on display in public gatherings (especially community meals), and keying in on the idea that prejudice should not be shown, James writes “For if someone comes into your assembly” (2:2a), which is an assembly that is most likely going to include a common meal as was standard practice for those that sought to follow the model that Jesus had adopted, “wearing a gold ring and fine clothing, and a poor person enters in filthy clothes, do you pay attention to the one who is finely dressed and say, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and to the poor person, ‘You stand over there,’ or ‘Sit on the floor’?” (2:2b-3) 

Though the words are not used, this mention of one person being seated in a good place, with another person relegated to standing or sitting on the floor is a reference to table/meal practice.  Because Greek culture had infiltrated Jewish culture to a point, it is here possible to hear the language of protoklisian (chief seat) and eschaton (lowest place).  Those in receipt of this letter, along with those who would read it apart from the original audience, who would have been imbued with the cultural understanding that made this language commonplace and understandable, would have quickly and easily imagined the banqueting constructs that are being referenced. 

Common cultural practice dictated that the most noble and esteemed would have been given the best seats at a banquet, whereas the least would have been left standing or taken their places on the floor.  The honored guests (in the eyes of those in attendance) would have received the best food and wine, and the less honorable guests (in the eyes of the attendees and the court of public opinion) within that honor and shame society, would have received items of much lower quality if anything at all.  What does James say about this situation that is taking place in the church community to which his communication is addressed?  He says, “If so, have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil motives?” (2:4)  Clearly, the harsh language indicates that this type of behavior had no place within the church.   

In a way that continues to echo the example and the teachings of Jesus, when heard from within a construct which has James envisioning the character of the meal practice of the church, James goes on to say “Listen, my dear brothers and sisters!  Did God not choose the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that He promised to those who love Him?” (2:5)  If a banqueting table is in mind, this mention of the kingdom, along with the use of “heirs” (which provides the Abrahamic covenant context that the author, due to his mentioning of Abraham that is soon to follow) that accompanies the contrast between rich and poor, places James squarely within the Jesus tradition that served as a constant reminder of the messianic banquet and of the unexpected way in which the Creator God was going about the business of establishing His kingdom, as reflected in the unexpected way in which Jesus was said to have gone about His daily ministry. 

Nebuchadnezzar's Fall (part 4)

According to the Scriptural narrative, as the first divine image-bearer, Adam had been given complete dominion over the covenant God’s good creation.  Through his actions however, as creation’s representative before its God---the creation’s king and ruler as it were---that creation had become marred.  In what amounted to bringing himself honor through self-worship, in full knowledge of his desire to be like his Creator God with whom he was said to have regular and direct fellowship (presumably that he might best know how to be the divine image bearer in and for the creation), Adam fell from the position of authority into which he had been placed. 

Due to this, Adam was told “cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.  It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat the grain of the field.  By the sweat of your brow you will eat food until you return to the ground” (3:17b-19a).  So the creation itself was unable to escape the judgment that came to its representative.  How is this reflected in the Nebuchadnezzar story?  In much the same way that Adam had been driven from the garden of Eden, because of the king’s self-worship, when he was stripped of his rule and authority, the Creator God said to him, “You will be driven from human society” (Daniel 4:32a).  Adam had given up his full humanity, which is a fate that would come to Nebuchadnezzar as well. 

Yes, it must be understood that, in his fall, Adam gave up and rejected what it meant to be fully human.  Adam, having been made as the image of the Creator God for the world---designed to trust and honor and worship his Creator, lost that which the Creator God had apparently intended for humankind.  This realization makes Nebuchadnezzar’s plight of being “driven from human society” all the more fascinating. 

To this fact of being driven from human society, the God of Israel added that Nebuchadnezzar would “live with the wild animals” (4:32b).  With his dominion over creation taken from him, in which he was clearly placed by the Creator God (much like Nebuchadnezzar had been given power and a kingdom by that same God for a particular purpose and time) in a stewarding, care-taking, responsible, and God-like superiority over the beasts of the field (how would the Creator of all things treat His creation?), Adam’s expulsion from the garden now meant that he too was going to live with the wild animals. 

Why?  Why is there this parallel in the stories of Adam and Nebuchadnezzar?  It is because, quite frankly, humans become what they worship.  Adam, as Scripture seems to indicate, turned his thoughts upon himself, essentially worshiping the creature.  Nebuchadnezzar, in many respects, did the same.  With that being so, the Creator God drove both of them to join the realm over which they had previously ruled, and to live like the remainder of the created order---to live like that which they had now come to worship.  By over-reaching, both of them denied the Creator God’s purpose for them.         

Along with being driven from human society and living with wild animals, the covenant God tells Nebuchadnezzar that he “will be fed grass like oxen” (Daniel 4:32c).  As one continues to compare this king’s fall with the fall of the earth’s first ruler (Adam-the divine image-bearer that originally been given sovereignty over the creation), is it possible to find a corollary with this statement in the fall of man?  In a way, yes.