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.

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 31)

As one continues to consider the talk of riches and the desire to obtain them, substituting the love of money for the love of neighbor, Paul can be heard to go on to say that if you must engage in competition, “Compete well for the faith and lay hold of that eternal life you were called for and made your good confession in the presence of many witnesses” (1 Timothy 6:12).  It is when these words are heard as part of a call to be a counter-cultural witness, that surely they are better understood. 

Paul takes no issue with those that possess wealth, nor does he desire Timothy or other believers to look down upon them as part of the cosmic role reversal that takes place as the church rightly images out the tenets of its Lord.  Rather, as should be expected from Paul, he desires that encouragement and edification be the order of the day, with self-sacrifice and preferential treatment coming to the fore as the practice of love. 

That expectant tone can be heard when traveling a few lines further in the text and hearing “Command those who are rich in this world’s goods not to be haughty or to set their hope on riches, which are uncertain” (6:17a).  Why?  “For we have brought nothing into this world and so we cannot take a single thing out either.”  Rather, they are to set their hope “on God who richly provides us with all things for our enjoyment” (6:17b). 

Yes, it is the Creator God that should be looked upon as the ultimate patron, provide all things (not Caesar).  For this reason, and to their own benefit, “Tell them to do good, to be rich in good deeds” which are works of public benefaction, “to be generous givers, sharing with others.  In this way they will save up a treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the future and so lay hold of what is truly life” (6:18-19).  They will lay hold of what is truly life, rather than the fleeting and fickle notion of public honor which is normally the measure of a man, as he goes about providing a firm foundation for himself and his family, that his honor may go on and on.  This pales in comparison to that which honors Jesus.

In beginning to round out this study, having explored the counter cultural elements in Paul’s letter to Timothy, and having heard Paul instruct Timothy (and by extension the household congregations in which Timothy has a hand) in an engagement that stands against the prevailing culture, and doing so for the purpose of transformation spurred by the witness of service and sacrifice, it is right to marvel at the subtle genius of the cosmos encompassing, restorative, and often paradoxical plans of the God of creation.  One is reminded that while yes there is a commandment to come out and be separate, that separation is only a portion of the preparation for a full engagement with this creation that groans for the revelation of the sons of the covenant God and the ultimate re-creation that is heralded by that revelation. 

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.    

Speaking In Tongues (part 11)

Throughout this first letter to Corinth, Paul’s concern is with the body and its unity, and he adamantly opposes anything that might throw that body into disharmony, divisiveness, or stratifications along customary lines in a way that would decrease the witness and the societal and cultural and global effect of the body of Christ.       

While continuing to link the act of eloquent speech with other speech acts performed amongst the gathered church, one must also continue to consider this issue of divisions with the church.  Though the divisions are obvious when Paul is mentioning the factions that are aligned with various teachers or apostles, they don’t quite come to the fore unless one is attuned to the cultural situation.  Divisions or stratifications, as would have been common within the variety of voluntary meal-table-based associations in Corinth, were based largely on wealth and social status, which were linked with one’s honor standing.  This can be seen quite readily with Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s Supper. 

An unfortunate reality of the Corinthians fellowship at the meals that were held in remembrance of Jesus (the Lord’s Supper), was that they were conducted in much the same manner as the meals of other associations that would also include a commemoration or honoring of their object of worship.  The make-up of the church in Corinth would have ranged the entirety of the socioeconomic scale, reflecting the constitution of the city at large.  The meals of the associations, which existed for a variety of reasons, would have been divided and stratified based on social and economic status. 

Those with wealth and honor would eat the best food and wine, being served first, whereas those with lesser means, traveling down the socioeconomic scale and the honor roll, would eat food and wine of much lower quality, or perhaps none at all (think of the socially upending story of Jesus turning the water into wine for an excellent example from the Jesus tradition).  As evidenced by what can be viewed in the eleventh chapter, this situation was very much occurring in the Corinthian church. 

In that chapter Paul writes “Now in giving you the following instruction I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.  For in the first place, when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.  For there must in fact be divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident” (11:17-19).  Based on knowledge of the culture, with a very basic awareness of associations and their meal practices, one notes that the divisions here mentioned go beyond alignment with a particular individual, and that they are reflective of standard practice.  

Additionally, an observer is now clued in to the fact that those who are “approved” are those with honor---those who have status in, and the respect of the community-at-large, though this should have no bearing on their standing in the church.  With this in mind Paul continues: “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 have 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?  What should I say to you?  Should I praise you?  I will not praise you for this” (11:20-22). 

Speaking In Tongues (part 6)

Having set the stage for a basic presentation of the honor and shame culture and how it might relate to the church in general and the Corinthian church in particular in connection to the action of speaking in tongues, it is very much worth taking some space to provide a basic outline of the functionality of honor and shame in the world in which both Jesus and the early church arose.   

An important first century Roman Stoic philosopher by the name of Seneca, in writing about honor from within an active and functioning honor and shame system, had this to say: “All our arguments start from this settled point, that honor is pursued for no other reason except because it is honor.”  This says much about the value system of the Greco-Roman world, though those that live within the confines of western civilization cannot readily relate to such a sentiment, primarily because the pursuit of honor has been primarily replaced by the pursuit of material possessions and wealth. 

Though it can certainly be the case that wealth and material possessions were attendant to honor in Paul’s world, this would not necessarily be the case.  Even if modern perceptions of honor and shame has been skewed, one can still peruse the wider world in order to find the systems of honor and shame still in operation much like it was operating in Corinth.  Christians throughout the world still live within cultures in which one’s true status is largely determined by the values of honor and shame, and are in the enviable position of being able to more easily identify with and understand the situation with which Paul deals in his first letter to Corinth.  In a world so governed, the primary motivation for performing a good deed (public benefaction) or for living a life marked by virtue, was the attainment of honor. 

The opposite end of the spectrum from honor, of course, was shame.  As was alluded to earlier talk about Jesus, a person might seek to increase his honor by publicly shaming a rival through insults, reproach, physical abuse, confiscation of property, and even public execution.  Mention of Jesus in connection with this leads to a helpful aside, in that Jesus’ insistence that His disciples turn the other cheek, go the second mile, bless when cursed, and offer the undergarment when sued for the outer garment, gain substantial meaning when understood alongside concerns of honor and shame.  Everything that Jesus suggests be done essentially as part of a mission statement, which He then lives out through His passion, would be immediately viewed as honor-disavowing and shame-accruing. 

So how exactly was it determined who was possessive of honor and who leaned towards the shameful end of the spectrum?  There was no formal system by which honor was assigned.  There were no checklists to follow.  Rather, public consensus, which is always shifting, plays the most important role.  The shifting sands of public consensus meant that one would always have to be on guard, not only performing according to wider public opinion, but also doing one’s level best to shape public opinion and drive the public debate concerning what is honorable and what is dishonorable/shameful.  This can be loosely referred to as a governing construct known as the “court of public opinion.”  

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 8)

A more minor example, in which nearly all would be able to engage and which would be instrumental in its application in an era and an area in which one’s daily food was a constant concern and in which debt and debt slavery were extraordinarily pressing and very real problems, would be something like the brother-directed insistence that “You must not lend money at interest and you must not sell him food for profit” (Leviticus 25:37). 

The need to borrow is here wrapped up with the need to purchase food, so the directive takes aim at capitalizing on misfortune in the area of life’s basic necessities, and doing so in such a way that increases the likelihood that slavery will result.  This is not a blanket statement, insisting that it is wrong to sell food or anything else for profit or that it is even necessarily wrong to charge interest, as the prohibition against charging interest is definitively linked to a brother’s ability to obtain the necessities of life (he’s not buying a new laptop or a car).  Surely, it is possible to differentiate between charging interest for that which is not wholly necessary, with ideas about that which is wholly necessary complicated by modern day cultures that are bent on acquisition and the portrayal of all things as needs. 

However, one must note that in this section of Leviticus the prohibition is provided context by “If your brother becomes impoverished and is indebted to you, you must support him… Do not take interest or profit from him, but you must fear your God and your brother must live with you” (25:35a,36).  This does not deny that some would be wealthier than others, nor does it offer up a value judgment on the mere fact or presence of wealth (wealth defined as the excess of what is needed), but it does have an underlying message that the Creator God’s people are to be conscientious of the plight of their brothers and to be ready to have their hand out to make ready assistance, though this is a matter for another dissertation. 

It would be far easier, in a manner of speaking, for Christians of the first century (and for Christians of the twenty-first century who live outside of the remarkably affluent western world) to relate to these words from Leviticus, and to engage in such activity as part of their call to be benefactors for their communities.  Imagine what would be stirred by a person, operating in the marketplace during times of scarcity and need, who, seeing all as brothers and potential brothers within the always advancing kingdom of the covenant God, sold his food at no profit to himself. 

What if that person, acting counter to the supply and demand equation in that time of scarcity, which would naturally see prices for scarce items rise, actually began selling sustenance items at below his own cost, so as to bring down the cost (at least temporarily, as that person would quickly exhaust his own supply and be unable to restock, having sold his inventory at a loss)?  What if that person did so as an obvious sacrifice on his or her part, and did so as a conscientious actor for the kingdom of God?  Would that not be a monumental display of costly love?  Would that not be living out the cross?  Would that not be the power of the resurrection and the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) at work?  Again, this is not meant to be applied at all times, as it is unsustainable in practice, but it does inform the body of Christ of its need to engage with the world at multiple levels, as the kingdom of the Creator God invades every aspect of life, never saying “I go here and no further.” 

Compassionate Brother (part 17 of 18)

Jacob did not squander his wealth, though as has been seen, life was a bit wild for him.  Like the prodigal in his exile from his father’s house, fortune had eluded Jacob though others had gotten rich at his expense.  The son of the famed parable is said to have experienced the effects of destitution, as a terrible famine grips the land.  Seeking whatever income he could find, he attaches himself to a citizen of that country, much like Jacob was attached to Laban because of the need to pay him for all of the wives (and children until the wife debt obligation is met), and is sent to feed the citizen’s pigs. 

Naturally, as the hearers of Jesus’ parable were predominantly Jewish, and because they would naturally assume that the family in the story is Jewish, they would see this as an attempt by the man to get rid of an unwanted hanger-on, expecting that the young Jewish man would resolutely refuse to lower and defile himself in such a way.  This was viewed as a possibility in Laban’s business deal with Jacob, which, based on Laban’s actions after striking the deal, might be taken to have indicated a desire to rid himself of Jacob. 

Eventually, while feeding the pigs but while still hungry, the young man in the parable is said to have come “to his senses,” saying “How many of my father’s hired workers have food enough and to spare, but here I am dying from hunger!” (Luke 15:17), and so hatches a plan to return to the home that he had left in shame and dishonor.  Similarly, Jacob comes to his senses.  With the documented hostility that he is experiencing, he wonders why it is that he remains where he is, when he could return to his father’s house, rather than continuing to serve under a man who clearly did not want him around any longer. 

The younger son however, knows that he has shamed himself and his family, and knows that harsh consequence up to and including the possibility of death, await him if he returns to his father’s house.  Owing to that, and considering the fact that his father’s hired workers earn enough to feed themselves with money to spare, he devises a plan that will allow him to gain one of those positions, so as to be able to pay back his father over time, and in the process allow him to regain the honor that he had lost.  So he says “I will get up and go to my father and say to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.  I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me like one of your hired workers.’” (15:18-19) 

This is the same thing that can be seen with Jacob.  He cannot simply return to the house that he left, covered in shame, having dishonored his father and his brother.  He has a brother that has previously declared his desire to kill him, and a father that he greatly dishonored.  Therefore he must devise a plan.  Clearly, because his father (though it was done unwittingly) passed the covenantal blessing on to him, his primary concern is with the wrath of his brother, thus the planning taking place with the division of the families, and then the gifts of animals, with the message passed along by the servants. 

Effectively, with the language that is heard on the lips of Jacob, bowing to the ground as he refers to himself as Esau’s servant while also referring to Esau as “my lord” and telling him that seeing his face is like seeing the face of God, it is almost as if Jacob can be heard saying something like “I have sinned against heaven and against you; treat me like one of your hired workers.” 

Compassionate Brother (part 15)

One could go on at great length in discussing the honor and shame connotations so as to be able to gain a more robust reading of Scripture, but it seems as if the point has been made.  Considerations of honor and shame are more than necessary if there is a desire to rightly understand the stories and movement of Scripture, as this cultural component looms large.  Approaching the text from this angle allows a reader to make sense of the stories on their own terms, rather than reading terms and ideas into them (however noble or uplifting those things might be) that simply are not there. 

Additionally, as was previously said, proceeding along these lines allows for the narrative to be heard as it would have been heard by the people for whom it was written, while also allowing for a better comprehension of the movement of Scripture, and therefore an enhanced ability to comprehend and serve the God that is said to be revealed in and through those Scriptures.  This then, of course, allows a divine image-bearer to better understand the words and deeds of the God that was made manifest in human form, that being Jesus of Nazareth.    

So what has been seen in the course of this study?  What is it that prompted travel down the path that has revealed that Esau, perhaps surprisingly, was the compassionate brother?  To answer that question, the story of Jacob must be reviewed in broad terms.  Jacob, as is known, was one of two sons.  He was the younger of fraternal twins.  In a deceptive and dishonorable action, he secured for himself the blessing of his (purportedly dying---a deception in its own right) father---a blessing that rightfully belonged to his brother.  This generated anger on behalf of his brother, and most likely on the part of his father as well (due to the shame that would have been generated by the deception).  It is said that his brother was determined to kill him, so rather than staying, Jacob left, putting distance between himself and those that he had dishonored, ending up in the house of his uncle Laban. 

As was seen, Jacob lived a rather interesting and tumultuous life.  In particular, the report of his wives competing for his attention and his affection, with them offering up their female servants as wives to their husband, is revealed as being rather riotous.  When one considers the lifestyle, the adjective “wild” comes to mind.  By all indications he worked very hard for his uncle.  It appears to be the case that his labor served to increase his uncle’s wealth (and honor), but when it came to his own wealth, possessions, and honor, though he had surreptitiously secured the blessing of his father (which promised the richness of the earth along with plenty of grain and new wine), it was as if his life was gripped by famine.  Seeking to rectify this situation, he struck a deal with his uncle.  Though at first it seems like a legitimate agreement, closer inspection reveals that Laban may very well have intended to cause Jacob to become discouraged and despondent over his situation, possibly hopeful that this would result in Jacob leaving (and leaving behind his wives and children that would have been the property of his uncle). 

Eventually, after realizing that there was nothing more to be gained by staying where he was, and continuing to live in what was going to be a difficult and ultimately unsatisfying situation, Jacob expresses a desire to return to his father’s house.  He shares with his wives the reasons for acting on this desire.  However, there is the problem of his dishonored and angry brother, not to mention the dishonored and angry father, whose son had brought shame on the entire family.  Jacob had no idea how Esau would respond, and he figured that it was likely that he would meet up with Esau somewhere along the journey to his father’s house.  With this in mind, he devises a plan by which he will attempt to soothe his brother, even if it means dishonor for himself. 

Compassionate Brother (part 10)

Israel had labored under Egypt’s oppression, enriching Egypt at their expense, just as Jacob had done for Laban (at least initially).  Israel yearned to be free from Egypt’s yoke, just as Jacob would eventually come to yearn to leave what had become the insufferable employ of Laban.  As Jacob is said to have received a message from his Lord to “Return to the land of your fathers and to your relatives” (31:3), so too would Israel hear the voice of their God through Moses. 

When Israel left Egypt it is said that “The Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians, and they gave them whatever they wanted, and so they plundered Egypt” (Exodus 12:36).  Though it comes in a slightly different order, this is not at all dissimilar to the record of Jacob becoming “extremely prosperous” (30:43), which generated the complaint from his brothers-in-law that “Jacob has taken everything that belonged to our father!  He has gotten rich at our expense!” (Genesis 31:1b)  Rachel’s taking of her father’s household gods would fit right into this milieu (while also demonstrating, in something of a correlation to the coming story of Israel’s exodus, that Laban, and therefore Egypt, was powerless to change what was happening). 

In continuing this comparison, it is worthwhile to back up to the thirtieth chapter of Genesis and find a precursor to Moses’ repeated requests to Pharaoh to free Israel, as “Jacob said to Laban, ‘Send me on my way so that I can go home to my own country.  Let me take my wives and my children whom I have acquired by working for you.  Then I’ll depart, because you know how hard I’ve worked for you.’” (30:25b-26)  Laban’s response is mildly Pharaoh-esque (remember, this narrative is part of a compilation for a post-exodus people), as he does not accede to Jacob’s request.  He sends Jacob back to the fields with a new deal (much like Israel’s work is made more difficult after Moses’ first reported encounter with Pharaoh upon his return to Egypt).  Of course, much as it would eventually be true for Israel in Egypt, it will not be long at all until Jacob has plundered all of the wealth of Laban and departs. 

As the Exodus narrative is heard, and as it is allowed to cast light on the Genesis narrative (as the Exodus narrative is likely to have been more important to Israel than the Genesis narrative, especially when it comes to their self-understanding and the interpretive model of their God’s interaction with them and with the world in the ongoing theme of exile to exodus that dominates their historical narrative), one finds that “When it was reported to the king of Egypt that the people had fled, the heart of Pharaoh and his servants was turned against the people, and the king and his servants said, ‘What in the world have we done?  For we have released the people of Israel from serving us!’  Then he prepared his chariots and took his army with him.  He took six hundred select chariots, and all the rest of the chariots of Egypt, and officers on all of them” (Exodus 14:5-7).  It is at this point that the results of the two stories of Jacob and Israel radically diverge, as the armies of Egypt are said to have been destroyed at the Lord’s hand, whereas Laban, after overtaking and confronting Jacob, ends up kissing his grandchildren and his daughters goodbye, blessing them and returning to his home (31:55).   

It is important to draw out these Scriptural connections, as past is almost always prelude to present.  The words of the prophets, when they would come, draw on a collective understanding that is structured upon the history of Israel---a history which stretches back to Abraham.  If one recognizes the importance of Israel’s foundational narrative (the Torah/Pentateuch), then one is in a position to gain deeper insights and appreciation of such things as the parables of Jesus.  Thus, as stated earlier, one gains deeper insights into the character of, and appreciation for the Creator God that chose out a people to uniquely bear His image and accomplish His purposes in and for His creation.

Compassionate Brother (part 9)

After Jacob has broached the subject of departing from Laban’s household and service and received the initial response from his wives, those wives continued on to say “He not only sold us, but completely wasted the money paid for us!” (Genesis 31:15b).  Reinforcing the idea of their father’s diminished standing (and honor), they add “Surely all the wealth that God snatched away from our father,” as they echo the words of Jacob (that were an echo of the words of Laban’s sons), “belongs to us and to our children.  So now do everything God has told you” (31:16). 

Here, Jacob, realizes his plight and comes to himself, while his wives have confirmed his thinking.  In response, “Jacob immediately put his children and his wives on the camels.  He took away all the livestock he had acquired in Paddan Aram and all his moveable property that he had accumulated.  Then he set out toward the land of his Canaan to return to his father Isaac” (31:17-18).  One problem still loomed large, which was how he was going to deal with his aggrieved brother.  Undeniably, if he had shamed his uncle Laban, then he had also shamed his brother through his deceptive act.  Indeed, if he had shamed his brother, had he not also shamed his father and his entire family, for was he not guilty of defrauding his father as well?  This appears to be a larger problem than it has traditionally been presumed to be.      

As one begins to examine Jacob’s return trek to Canaan, bearing in mind the dishonoring of both his father and brother that took place many years earlier (he will have to deal with this, and of course it is on his mind), one must also bear in mind that Genesis and Exodus (and the whole of the first five books of the Bible as presented) constitute a continuous narrative.  Just as it is impossible for to understand Jesus apart from some level of comprehension of second Temple Judaism, it is impossible to understand what is going on in Exodus apart from an understanding of Genesis. 

At the same time, the reader of Scripture is in the position, along with those that would have heard or read the Genesis and Exodus narratives together as the story of how Israel came to be a people, of allowing Exodus to inform a more thorough understanding of Genesis.  Learning to take in the entire narrative in a way that will dictate the way that the entirety of the narrative is consumed will allow for a more complete comprehension of the movement of Scripture, and subsequently an improved comprehension (and service of) the Creator God that is therein revealed.

Why make mention of this here?  It is because of what can be found in association with the story of Jacob’s departure from Laban.  In verse nineteen of the thirty-first chapter, it is reported that “While Laban had gone to shear his sheep, Rachel stole the household idols that belonged to her father” (31:19).  The passage then turns immediately back to Jacob, saying “He left with all he owned” (31:21a).  This is an interesting interlude, as it has already been reported Jacob had gathered up all of his property and had “set out toward the land of Canaan to return to his father Isaac” (31:18b).  So, with the inclusion of the story about the stealing of the household idols---a story that will play out in short order, though it does not seem to have much ultimate bearing on the story going forward, one has to wonder why it is mentioned. 

On the surface, together with the fact that “Jacob also deceived Laban by not telling him that he was leaving” (31:20), it provides the pretense for what comes next, when the story records that “Three days later Laban discovered Jacob had left.  So he took his relatives with him and pursued Jacob for seven days” (31:22-23a).  When Laban catches up with Jacob, he protests this treatment by Jacob (remembering the conflict and contest of honor and shame) and concludes his protest with “Yet why did you steal my gods?” (31:30b).  Obviously, all of this serves a greater purpose.  How would this story be heard by a post-exodus Israel?  Naturally, they would hear their own exodus story in the tale of Jacob’s departure from Canaan, his time spent in labor, his departure from Laban to return to his homeland, the taking of the household gods, and Laban’s pursuit. 

Compassionate Brother (part 7)

While the deal that he has struck with Jacob, together with his actions, take on the appearance of a desire on Laban’s behalf to keep Jacob working for him indefinitely, it could also be understood as an effort by Laban to cause Jacob to rebel and leave.  Understood from this angle, one could consider the possibility that Laban is striking a deal with Jacob that will theoretically enable him to fund the acquisition of his wives and children, while Laban takes steps to ensure that Jacob, while attempting to do so under the terms that he himself has proposed, will be unable to accomplish this goal.  It is conceivable that in Laban’s mind, this will cause Jacob to take an extreme action.  Jacob will either come to realize that his efforts will be encumbered in futility, and will take it upon himself to leave---leaving his wives and children behind.  Alternately, Jacob will attempt to leave, taking with him wives and children that still, financially, belong to Laban. 

If the first option is chosen, then Laban will have gained himself women and children (which will result in greater wealth and honor).  If the second option is chosen, then Laban will have a basis upon which to take Jacob’s wives and children by force, especially if it is understood that Jacob, by leaving with his wives and children while his debt is still unpaid, has presented a grave challenge to Laban’s honor---a challenge that would be begging to be met by force. 

Something like this can be seen in the thirty-first chapter of Genesis.  When Jacob does indeed leave, he is pursued by Laban.  When Laban questions Jacob about his abrupt departure, Jacob responds by saying “I left secretly because I was afraid!  I thought you might take your daughters away from me by force” (31:31).  Either way, with his actions it seems clear that Laban actually desires to rid himself of Jacob.  With Jacob’s sons coming of age, Jacob, in Laban’s eyes, has outlived his usefulness.  Jacob’s sons can now do the work that their father had performed, and do so on a more grand scale.  If Laban can successfully remove Jacob from the picture, and because it appears that they are still his property, then they can do that work for Laban, rather than for Jacob. 

Additionally and importantly, Jacob’s continued presence with Laban constitutes a threat to Laban’s authority and his honor.  If one understands that honor is a limited good, and that a rise in the honor possessed by one individual would automatically mean the diminishing of the honor that is possessed by another individual, then at least part of Laban’s motivations can be easily comprehended.  Jacob however, in spite of all of these machinations, is undeterred.  He does not acquiesce to the poor treatment and depart.  He effectively counters Laban’s plans.  Through careful breeding practices, Jacob accomplishes what it is that he set out to accomplish, becoming “extremely prosperous.  He owned large flocks, male and female servants, camels, and donkeys” (30:43). 

To make this point, chapter thirty-one opens with a report on the disposition of Laban’s sons towards Jacob.  There it is reported that “Jacob heard that Laban’s sons were complaining, ‘Jacob has taken everything that belonged to our father!  He has gotten rich at our father’s expense!” (31:1).  Bear in mind that the honor competition is also at play here.  Jacob’s obtaining of riches is owing to the fact that, in line with the interesting breeding practices that were employed by Jacob even after Laban had attempted to undermine he and Jacob’s arrangement, “the weaker animals ended up belonging to Laban and the stronger animals to Jacob” (30:42b).  Clearly, Laban was well aware what had happened.  Though he had attempted to force Jacob to depart, Jacob had gotten the upper hand.  Now, with the words that were on the lips of his sons, it is clear that Laban’s honor had been diminished.  Little wonder then, that “When Jacob saw Laban’s face, he could tell his attitude toward him had changed” (31:2). 

Experts In The Law (part 11 of 11)

Naturally, having heard what was said by Jesus in the fourteenth chapter and the parable that followed, this mention of the burning desire for places of honor at banquets will not be lost on Luke’s hearers.  They, as should any educated and culturally aware observer, make the connections.  The final nail is driven into their figurative coffins as Jesus informs His hearers (and Luke’s hearers), that these experts in the law, “devour widows’ property” (20:47). 

They devour widows’ property?  This is unconscionable!  How do they do this?  Is there evidence of this?  Absolutely there is evidence, and Jesus immediately points His hearers to the evidence as He “looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box.  He also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins.  He said, ‘I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put in more than all of them.  For they all offered out of their wealth.  But she, out of her poverty, put in everything she had to live on.’” (21:1-4) 

For too long this has been looked upon as Jesus offering a commendation to this widow, as she was willing to sacrifice all that she had for the Temple as a sacrifice to the Creator God.  However, in light of all that has led up to it, and in the wake of Jesus’ symbolic judgment against the Temple, it demands to be understood as a rebuke to the Jerusalem Temple, its system, and all associated with it.  Indeed, when understood correctly, it should be concluded that Jesus sees the offering of this widow as a tragedy, as her property was completely devoured by a corrupt system (they devour widows’ property) full of robbers, which He had already condemned.  This becomes especially clear when one rightly incorporates the idea that Jesus is the true Temple. 

This Temple, already “adorned with beautiful stones and offerings” (21:5b), and its functionaries (essentially the powers-that-be of the day) should have been lavishing care upon this poor widow, exercising justice and mercy, rather than taking that which she could not afford to give.  This would have been the proper attitude of those that were supposed to be representing the faithful and gracious God of Israel.  However, with the portrait of the experts in the law that has been painted, there is nobody, reading or hearing, that is surprised at what has just happened, and that this poor widow has had her property devoured. 

It is little wonder then that the remaining mentions of the experts in the law to be found in Luke take the form that they do.  Along with the Temple, Jesus has condemned them, so it is no surprise to hear that “The chief priests and the experts in the law were trying to find some way to execute Jesus” (22:2a), that they played a role in an unjust and illegal trial in which “the council of the elders of the people gathered together, both the chief priests and the experts in the law” (22:66), and that “The chief priests and the experts in the law were… vehemently accusing Him” (23:10).  The point, which had begun to be made in the fifth chapter when Jesus takes up the role of the Temple by forgiving sins, adding healing to that role, with this immediately questioned by the experts in the law (their first mention), is that Jesus is the true Temple.  It would seem that Luke wants all to know that Jesus, as the embodiment of Israel’s God, is the place where the Creator God resides.        

Where Your Treasure Is (part 3)

Continuing on in chapter twelve of Luke, Jesus can be heard to say “Watch out and guard yourself from all types of greed, because one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (12:15).  This will be programmatic and quite significant for what comes later.  With this said, Jesus embarks upon a parable, saying “The land of a certain rich man produced an abundant crop” (12:16b).  With the mention of an abundant crop, and with the shared background of the knowledge of the Levitical/Deuteronomic blessings to be had for adherence to covenant responsibilities, Jesus’ hearers would likely and immediately take this as a sign that this man was blessed by the Creator God. 

What would or should also come to mind is the passage from Deuteronomy that says “Be sure you do not forget the Lord your God by not keeping His commandments, ordinances, and statutes that I am giving you today.  When you eat your fill, when you build and occupy good houses, when your cattle and flocks increase, when you have plenty of silver and gold and when you have abundance of everything, be sure you do not feel self-important and forget the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt, the place of slavery, and who brought you through the great, fearful desert of venomous serpents and scorpions, an arid place with no water” (8:11-15a). 

Such ideas would not be lost on a people that, though they occupied their promised land, stood under the yoke of Rome, and figuratively at least, were in the place of slavery.  Of course, this was the position of both Ezra and Nehemiah, who gave voice to a mindset that prevailed among the people through the hundreds of years following the return from Babylonian captivity and on into Jesus’ day,

(contrary to the Pharisaic claim of John 8:33 that “we are descendants of Abraham… and have never been anyone’s slaves”) as they insisted that even though the people of God had re-settled in the land, “we are slaves” (Ezra 9:9, Nehemiah 9:36).  According to what comes next in the eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, Jesus’ hearers would have expected the rich man to adhere to the proviso to “Be careful not to say, ‘My own ability and skill have gotten me this wealth’,” and to “remember the Lord your God, for He is the one who gives ability to get wealth” (8:18a).

This rich man, unfortunately, did not have the proper mindset, as “he thought to himself: ‘What should I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’” (Luke 12:17)  In answering this self-directed query, the appropriate response would have been to provide the excess to the poor of the land, as was repeatedly suggested to the covenant people in what is presumed to be their charter, but this was not the route that he chose, Jesus goes on to report that “he said, ‘I will do this; I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods.  And I will say to myself, “You have plenty of goods stored up for many years; relax, eat, drink, celebrate!”’” (12:18-19) 

It would seem that this theoretical rich man also has a portion of Deuteronomy in mind, though it may have been twisted and excerpted through his own personal translation.  The crowd that is listening to Jesus could have understood that this rich man with abundant crops that are clearly productive of excess, has selected portions of the fourteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, reading for himself “When He blesses you… you may spend the money however you wish for cattle, sheep, wine, beer, or whatever you desire.  You and your household may eat… and enjoy it” (14:24a,26a,c). 

They would have known that what he should have done was use the excess in such a way that “the resident foreigners, the orphans, and the widows of your villages may come and eat their fill so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work you do” (14:29b).  Unfortunately, he did not choose this path of action, and Jesus insists that “God said to him, ‘You fool!  This very night your life will be demanded from you, but who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’” (Luke 12:20)  Jesus punctuates the parable with “So it is with the one who stores up riches for himself, but is not rich toward God” (12:21). 

In This Is Love (part 5)

Continuing to qualify the insistence that Israel is the second entity in the line of definitively regarded sons of God, note must also be taken of Abraham.  Clearly, Abraham is given a covenant, and that covenant carries with it terms that will allow for the demonstration of his obedience.  In his case, the term was circumcision.  Also, righteousness is a term regularly associated with Abraham.  As one considers the divine promises that are said to be on offer to Abraham, it becomes rather clear that the Creator God reveals Himself to Abraham, and in turn reveals Abraham to the world. 

This revelation, when considered within the grand scheme of the Scriptural narrative, would seem to be for the purpose of destroying the works of the devil.  This becomes poignant in light of the fact that Abraham will come to be identified as the father of the faithful, with all of those that eventually gain status of being a part of the Creator God’s covenant people, both before, during, and after the time of Christ, referred to as children of Abraham. 

Abraham may not have thought of himself as having the role of destroyer of the devil’s works, and this may be true of Adam as well, but this study is concerned with the worldview of the author, and with what that means for the worldview that would have undoubtedly shaped his communication to the church of the Christ.  It must be well-noted that Abraham makes his Scriptural appearance after what is said to be the height of man’s rebellious activity, which was the event generally referred to as the tower of Babel, as mankind is reported to have gathered together in one place for the purpose of making a name for themselves.  In this, it is implied that mankind is thereby rejecting the Creator God’s implied command to inhabit the whole of the created world. 

This rejection of responsibility could quite plausibly be identified as the work of the devil, and it can be nicely equated to what Adam had done.  Consequently, Abraham’s call represented the beginning of the Creator God’s corrective measures, and one is almost always well served by bearing in mind that the church (the covenant people of the Creator God) does not strictly begin with Jesus and His disciples, but rather with Abraham.       

In an continuation of this process of qualifying Israel as the explicitly referenced son of God of Scripture, the study is also forced to make reference to the son and grandson of Abraham.  These two, Isaac and Jacob, are set forth as in-line recipients of the Abrahamic covenant and its blessings.  Therefore, if at the bottom line, Abraham’s covenant-connected call was to destroy the works of the devil, then so too was that the call and charge of these two men as well.  However, it should be recognized that the call to do this destroying of the devil’s works was not nearly as overt as it would be for the descendants of Jacob. 

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s roles appear to be more oriented towards being a blessing to those that surrounded them, primarily (it would seem) through the amassing and distribution of the wealth that is understood to represent the direct blessing of their God, thus providing them with the ability to function in that world-blessing role.  Not only would this be a matter of being able to meet physical needs, but the great wealth which all three came to possess without having to resort to domination and oppression, would inevitably lead to numerous inquiries, from all manner of men, as to the reason and source of such wealth.  

Deceit & Judgment (part 2 of 2)

With this somewhat clear presentation of idolatry as the reason for judgment to fall upon Israel, one can then go on to make sense of reading about children that “are always thinking about their altars and their sacred poles dedicated to the goddess Asherah, set up beside green tress on the high hills and on the mountains and in the fields” (Jeremiah 17:2-3a).  Following that, the God of Israel says, “I will give your wealth and all your treasures away as plunder” (17:3b).  So here an explicit connection is made between idolatry and the material wealth of the people.  Before that point is reached here in chapter seventeen however, the reader will have stumbled across some words that should help to properly shape the conception of the true problem of idolatry that was being presented here by the people of Judah. 

In the sixteenth chapter, when the Creator God gives Jeremiah an answer to give to the people that might find themselves questioning the reason for the judgment and disaster that was going to befall them, He says to tell them, “It is because your ancestors rejected Me and paid allegiance to other gods.  They have served them and worshiped them.  But they have rejected Me and not obeyed My law” (16:11).  That sounds pretty bad, but it does not end there.  The covenant God continues His answer with “And you have acted even more wickedly than your ancestors!  Each one of you have followed the stubborn inclinations of your own wicked heart and not obeyed Me” (16:12). 

What is to be found in that statement?  Effectively, it is self-idolatry---the same old sin from the time of the garden---which always seems to get a far harsher reaction and treatment from the Creator God than the simple worshiping of wood and stone.  It is with this conception of self-idolatry that one can then move back to the Creator God’s statements about the human mind and its deceit and incurable “badness.”  Following that statement then, one finds “I, the Lord, probe into people’s minds.  I examine people’s hearts.  I deal with each person according to how he has behaved.  I give them what they deserve based on what they have done” (17:10). 

What does this have to do with idolatry or self-idolatry?  Well, connecting the thoughts concerning idolatry and wealth and treasures found just a few verses before, the reader goes on to learn in the next verse about “The person who gathers wealth by unjust means” (17:11a).  This is what follows talk of the human mind being more deceitful than anything else and incurably bad.  It could be said that the person who gathers wealth by unjust means is guilty of self-idolatry, especially in light of the statement in Deuteronomy that the Lord “is the One Who gives ability to get wealth” (8:18b). 

Surely, it can be said that a Creator God-granted ability to get wealth will see wealth accumulated by just means, and will therefore result in proper worship of the God that gave the ability, and Who therefore gave the wealth.  Wealth gained by unjust means will result in worship of what provided for the accumulation of wealth, which is the marred and falling-short-of-the-divine-image heart and mind that is said to have come about because of the desire on the part of the first humans to be like their God.  Because of this, it can be surmised that not only was idolatry, along with its companion of self-idolatry, the reason for the judgment that came upon the people of the covenant God, but one can also now understand that the gathering of wealth by unjust means, which will generally be connected with idolatry and with the extension of suffering and oppression, was a reason for that God’s judgment as well. 

Law To Become Void (part 1)

But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a letter in the law to become void. – Luke 16:17  (NET)

Before Jesus gets to the words presented above, He told a story about a manager that had been irresponsible in the handling and management of the assets of his master.  Without here delving too deeply into the parable itself, it can be posited that his irresponsibility eventually resulted in dishonesty, though this dishonesty was heavily dependent upon the prevailing and determinative honor and shame culture, as the steward ultimately pins his hopes on his master’s concern about his own honor standing in the community. 

Unfortunately, to the western reader, there are a number of nuances to that particular parable that escape notice, including the fact that the initial termination of the steward in the story would not necessarily be understood as an event of finality, but rather, the beginning of a negotiation, which would have most likely ended up with the steward not losing his position.  Because it is the world in which they walked, and as they were steeped in the honor and shame culture and the push and pull that goes along with that, Jesus’ audience would have been able to grasp these nuances almost inherently---as familiar as breathing. 

After telling the parable, Jesus says, “The one who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and the one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much” (16:10).  As Jesus continues to point back to the one framed as the dishonest manager, He says, “If then you haven’t been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will entrust you with the true riches? (16:11) 

As one considers the application and interpretation of the parable that is provided by Jesus, it is necessary to remember that this particular story, and its application, follows the three parables of the fifteenth chapter of Luke (the parables of the sheep, the coin, and the “prodigal”).  Along with that, one must consider Jesus’ audience, and that He is reported to be speaking to “the Pharisees and the experts in the law” (15:2a), who had offered up the complaint that Jesus “welcomes sinners and eats with them” (15:2b). 

This particular accusation was true, as Luke begins his record of Jesus’ dealings in this section of the telling of his story with “Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming to hear Him” (15:1).  So when Jesus is speaking about those who are faithful in a little and dishonest in a little, His original audience, along with the audience of Luke’s Gospel, must keep in mind that He is directing His comments towards the Pharisees and the experts in the law.  The same is true of His statements concerning the handling of worldly wealth and the true riches. 

Considering the nature of His audience, Jesus’ comments were quite direct, as He continued on to say “And if you haven’t been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you your own?” (16:12)  With the clear statement at the beginning of the fifteenth chapter in regards to the Pharisees, who were the self-appointed (in many respects) guardians of the law and the traditions of the elders, and their being included with the experts in the law, it is reasonable to surmise that Jesus is reprimanding these groups in regard to their handling of the law.  

Isaac's Life Of Exodus (part 4 of 6)

When Isaac had been blessed in the land, with the wealth of tremendous reaping, this did not exactly go over well with the Philistines.  Though his wealth is not attributed to anything beyond providence of God, this gaining of wealth in the land of Abimelech (Gerar) is a repetition of that which had been experienced by the original bearer of the covenant of blessing.  Abimelech gave Abraham “sheep, cattle, and male and female servants” (Genesis 20:14b).  Isaac is said to have had “sheep, cattle and such a great household of servants” (26:14a).  Not only did Abraham receive such things as gifts, he was also told “Look, my land is before you; live wherever you please” (20:15).  In response, “Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, as well as his wife and female slaves so that they were able to have children” (20:17).  We read that Abraham did this, thereby becoming the exemplary of divine blessing that God had ordained him to be (rather than the deceiver of these people), “For the Lord had caused infertility to strike every woman in the household of Abimelech because he took Sarah, Abraham’s wife” (20:18).  Interestingly, the revelation of divine blessing that Abimelech and his household received was precisely the same blessing that Abraham would receive, and which would enable him to even have a household.  Abimelech’s wives were barren, as was Abraham’s wife. 

It would be immediately after Abraham prays and the Lord restores fertility to Abimelech’s household, that the Scriptural record confirms that “The Lord visited Sarah just as He had said He would and did for Sarah what He had promised” (21:1).  The Lord brought life to Sarah’s womb, and also brought life to the womb’s of Abimelech’s wives.  In a culture in which having children was highly prized, and in which not having children was a source of shame (with shame being the near equivalent of death in an honor and shame society), the God of Abraham becomes the God of vindication, of exodus, and of resurrection for Abimelech and his household, just as He will also show Himself to be for Abraham.  How incredibly fascinating that God does for Abimelech, through Abraham, what He promised to do for Abraham, doing it for Abimelech before He did it for Abraham.  How difficult it must have been for Abraham to pray for fertility to come to Abimelech’s household while awaiting the same to come to him.

Whereas Abraham is well appreciated by Abimelech, even after attempting to defraud him, and whereas Abraham becomes a blessing for Abimelech and the Philistines, the same cannot be said of Isaac.  His growing wealth produced the effect that “the Philistines became jealous of him” (26:14b).  In response, “the Philistines took dirt and filled up all the wells that his father’s servants had dug back in the days of his father Abraham” (26:15).  Rather than hearing what Abraham heard, which was “live wherever you please,” what Isaac heard, through these actions by the Philistines, was “please leave.”  Just in case he did not get the point with the filling of his wells, which would his continued dwelling there impossible anyway, “Abimelech said to Isaac, ‘Leave us and go elsewhere, for you have become much more powerful that we are’” (26:16).  As Israel would tell its story, this would be a natural parallel to Israel’s experience in Egypt, when “a new king, who did not know about Joseph, came to power over Egypt.  He said to his people, ‘Look at the Israelite people, more numerous and stronger that we are!  Come, let’s deal wisely with them.  Otherwise they will continue to multiply, and if a war breaks out, they will ally themselves with our enemies and fight against us” (Exodus 1:8-10a). 

This rejection of Isaac by the Philistines is not unfortunate, in that it forces Isaac into the mold that we have come to expect, which is that of exile and exodus, and a yet a further reminder of the God of movement.  Abraham went to Egypt, underwent a figurative oppression through having his wife “taken” from him, grew in numbers and power and gained great wealth, saw plagues come upon Pharaoh’s household, and was then expelled from the land.  Later, Israel went down to Egypt, and though the sequence is not necessarily the same, they grew in number, were oppressed, saw plagues come upon the whole of Pharaoh’s household (the Egyptian empire), and were then expelled from the land, gaining great wealth as part of the expulsion.  Isaac went to Gerar, grew in wealth, suffered the oppression of local opposition through the stopping of his wells (almost like a military siege), and was asked to leave.  We only lack evidence of some type of plague upon the Philistines or upon Abimelech’s house to complete the nearly identical picture (in events, if not in sequence).  This story of exiles and exodus and movement is the story that Israel was able to tell as they sought to understand and to reveal their God. 

In being exodus-ed, as he was actually in exile from the land promised to his father when in Gerar---yes, exile can even entail growing in wealth and enjoying God’s blessings and being a blessing, in fact, God will later demand that His people seek the good of their oppressors, when exiled to Babylon, “Isaac left there and settled in the Gerar Valley” (26:17).  Upon arrival there, making the point that the earlier stopping up of the wells that are essential to life can be equated with forcing Isaac to leave, the first thing that happened was “Isaac reopened the wells that had been dug back in the days of his father Abraham” (26:18a).  In this, not only is Isaac mimicking Abraham, but he represents something of a forerunner to Israel in their post-Egypt wilderness experience.