Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 28)

Verse one of chapter six also introduces yet another counter-cultural element.  As one is careful to understand that the slavery mentioned herein is not the race-based slavery with which most in the western world are familiar, but more likely the debt-based (or subjugation-based) slavery that was prevalent in the world of Paul, one reads “Those who are under the yoke as slaves must regard their own masters as deserving of full respect” (1 Timothy 6:1a).  Though some take Paul to task here for not simply condemning slavery, which would have been the ultimate counter-cultural move (and ultimately counter-productive at that point), or for not ordering Christian masters to release their slaves, this is really not the issue at hand.  At the same time, this was probably not a sensibility possessed by the tiny church at this point. 

Slavery was a social institution that provided stability, while also providing life’s basic necessities for the one forced into slavery, along with a mechanism for the erasure of debts and the achievement of a state of freedom.  It was not necessarily a permanent situation, and it was not necessarily a state that was indiscriminately inflicted upon a class of people.  Slaves could and did become free men.  Some slaves would hold slaves of their own, who had become indebted to them.  Slavery, in some cases, was preferable to freedom, especially if freedom meant going without food, clothing, and shelter.  If one wants to see Paul’s treatment of the issue of slavery, an observer would need to look to his letter to Philemon (in which Paul sends a believing, runaway slave back to his believing master, who were both going to be a part of the same body of people that worshiped Jesus as Lord). 

In the case of Timothy, and with his words, Paul is being quite counter-cultural.  Inside the church, it was well understood that there were no class-distinctions, and that all were equal.  Outside the church, however, was a different story.  Clearly, with the words of the first verse, Paul is addressing an issue with Timothy involving slaves that were part of the church body, whose masters were not a part of the church body. 

This is quite a bit different than the picture painted by the letter to Philemon, or for that matter, that of the circular letter that has come to be called Ephesians, or the letter to the Colossians.  Both of these letters, along with the letter to Philemon, offer instructions to both slaves and masters, though the “instructions” in Philemon (Paul presents them as requests, as the letter is quite rhetorical in nature) are primarily directed to the recipient.  Such is absent from this letter to Timothy.  Paul deals only with the response of slaves to their masters. 

The encouragement to “regard their own masters as deserving of full respect” would represent quite the change of pace in that day, as most slaves, as can be imagined, probably treated their masters with a grudging respect.  Naturally, it is not difficult to surmise that this would have been quite the counter-cultural witness, which provokes Paul’s additional statement that “This will prevent the name of God and Christian teaching from being discredited” (6:1b).  The Christians had enough issues with being called atheists, while also being viewed as seditious and disruptive of social order and harmony, so the last thing that was needed was to sow seeds of disruption and potential recalcitrance in this area as well. 

In addition, this conferring of respect, in light of the knowledge of the humanity that the Creator God truly expected, in which situations of master and slave did not exist, would certainly be an act of love, self-sacrifice, and preferential treatment that could only be explained by the activity of the Spirit of that God through believers.  Again, this is not to sanction the social arrangements, but rather, to “prevent the name of God and Christian teaching from being discredited.” 

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 4)

Though the patron-client system functioned at multiple levels, in which the client of one patron could also have clients of his own, it would be obvious that the most noble of families could have large numbers of clients supporting them in their endeavors.  Along the same lines, entire kingdoms or nations, once conquered and made subservient, could become clients to the Roman commander that had conquered them.  Such was the way of the world. 

Of course, if clients had clients, and if this reached all the way down to the basest level of society, it would also hold true for the other side of the ladder.  Even a noble family would be the clients of a more honorable family, with this being the case all the way up to, in the days of Jesus and subsequently of the Apostle Paul, the Caesar himself.  Ultimately, all were looked upon as clients of Caesar, who was faithful and loyal to his subjects.  Those subjects, in turn, were to be faithful and loyal to Caesar.  This ideal was embodied in the common phrase “ek pistis eis pistin,” which is often translated as “from faith to faith”.  The Apostle Paul borrowed this common and well-known phraseology and subversively put it to use in his letter to the Romans (1:17).

It is this system of patronage that truly formed the foundation of the Roman state.  Not only did it serve to create stability, but the unwavering loyalty of clients could aid certain families in retaining power for extended periods of time.  At the same time, it created something of a welfare network, which was especially useful within an empire that lacked the means (or, at least, did not direct those means) to support those most in need and incapable of providing for themselves. 

The client system that surrounded a patron would look out for its members, ensuring that no harm would come to its own.  If one member of the client group would be struck down by poverty, the other clients, and most likely the patron as well, would see to it that the one in need could get a loan.  In the worst case, they would see to it that their fellow client would receive a decent funeral.  If the patron was unable to provide assistance personally, he would orchestrate the assistance (gaining honor), perhaps asking other clients to come to the aid of another that had fallen on hard time. 

In continuing to explore the patron-client dynamic of Paul’s day, one can look to Seneca---a Roman philosopher, statesman, dramatist, and humorist that was a contemporary of the Apostle Paul.  Seneca wrote: “Let us, therefore, show how acceptable a gift is by loudly expressing our gratitude for it; and let us do so, not only in the hearing of the giver, but everywhere.  He who receives a benefit with gratitude, repays the first installment of it.”  This statement would reflect the general attitude of a client towards his patron, who would be looked upon as the source of gifts.  For what it’s worth, Seneca himself was a tutor of the Emperor Nero, later becoming an advisor.  Most assuredly, he would have considered Nero to be his patron, so though these words would be generally reflective of the patron-client relationship, they would most likely be penned with the Caesar in mind.