Category: Paul’s Letters

Are Miracles Possible?

On By Jovan PayesIn Biola University, Christian Apologetics, Christology, Early Christianity, Essays, Miracles, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Popular Essays, Resurrection, Talbot School of Theology, Theology2 Comments

The question of whether miracles are impossible strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. Its viability hangs on one significant miracle: the resurrection of Jesus. Paul argued,

 if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (1 Cor 15:14 ESV)

If the bodily resurrection never happened, because it is impossible, then the traditional Christian faith is catastrophically and irreparably compromised. In response, I will first argue there is evidence for a creator-God necessary for miracles to occur, then demonstrate that anomalies (like miracles) require intelligent causation. Finally, I will look at the resurrection as a case study.

The Creator-God

The evidence for the existence of God is cumulative in nature. This means there is a body of positive evidence combined to support the case that the universe is created by a personal Creator-God. Furthermore, God as creator is separate, or outside, of this creation. This Creator-creation relationship would allow, then, for the possibility of miracles:

if God exists then miracles are possible.[1]

Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks
When Skeptics Ask, rev. ed. (Baker, 2013)

Natural theology affirms that the created world is host to evidence positively supporting God’s existence and justifying belief in him. There are four broad categories of arguments from natural theology:[2]

  • Cosmological (argument from causality, from effect to cause),
  • Teleological (argument from fine-tuned and intelligence-laden design),
  • Moral (argument from the objective value of morality and ethics), and
  • Ontological arguments (argument of a necessary uncaused Being).

These arguments represent a preponderance of the evidence that justifies belief in a personal ethical Creator-God.

A strong case can be made for the existence of God with the Kalam cosmological argument.[3] The first premise may be stated as “the universe had a beginning.” The evidence from the second law of thermodynamics affirms that the universe is experiencing entropy, a running out of useable energy. This points to the finite nature of the cosmos and points to a beginning when the universe was “fully charged.” The second premise affirms, “the universe was caused to exist.” What caused it to exist? Or had it come into being out of nothing? The evidence from nature (natural theology) points to a powerful (creation), ethical (morality), and intelligent designer (DNA) which brought these phenomena into existence. The reasonable conclusion is that a supernatural being created the universe into existence, this is God.

Not all Causes are Naturally Recurring

In response to the above supernatural claim, proponents of a naturalistic worldview argue that the existence of miracles would render the scientific method impossible to practice. This is only an assumption because there are different kinds of scientific ways of understanding causation, for not all causes are natural. A difference must be made between “operational science” which studies “regular patterns in the present from which predictions can be made,” and “forensic science” which studies “past singularities.”[4] The study of photosynthesis which takes into account how sunlight, carbon dioxide, and water, are converted into food by plants (operational science) would be conducted differently than a study of a singularity like the creation of the Mt. Rushmore monument (forensic science).

Miracles would no more disrupt operational science than would the reshaping of a naturally formed mountainside into a monument bust relief at Mt. Rushmore, or the carved-out ruins of Petra Pella. The use of intelligence and power offers a different source for causation than the naturally regular patterns in the world. The question remains how to decipher in what way miracles interact with the regular patterns of nature (disrupt, break, suspend). This difficulty of understanding anomalies like miracles or “the Big Bang” is not proof that such anomalies are incompatible with known scientific theory. It suggests we still have much to learn.

The Resurrection

A religion that is consistent with the picture of God derived from natural theology should have evidence of supernatural activity (historical reliability, fulfilled prophecy, etc.).[5] As noted already, the central figure of the New Testament, Jesus Christ, is presented in the historical setting of first-century Palestine, in which his teaching ministry is substantially interwoven with supernatural activity (healings, exorcisms, telepathic and empathic actions). The most significant miracle is his post-mortem bodily resurrection from the dead following his execution by means of crucifixion. Is this just legendary material that has been added, or are these ancient documents reliable eyewitness testimony to the most important miraculous event of human history?

The study of the historical reliability of the New Testament demonstrates that it has the strongest transmission history of any work from antiquity. It has preserved the eyewitness testimony of its authors who acknowledge the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. (1 Cor 15:1–11 ESV)

Their ancient words have been preserved in over 5,000 Greek manuscripts.[6] These documents contain doctrinal traditions which include the Divine Lordship of Jesus, his bodily resurrection, and his miracles, so early (within less than a decade of the actual events) that there is no room for legends to displace Christianity’s core historical truths.[7]

The question “did Jesus rise from the dead?” must then be taken seriously. The death of Jesus is one of the surest known historical facts of Christianity.[8] Despite many attempts to theorize that he successfully survived the crucifixion, the medical evaluation[9] of the historical descriptions of his wounds points out that he was a “dead man” before the spear was thrust through his side (John 19:34). The belief that Jesus appeared bodily to his disciples after his execution is another known fact of Christianity, which transformed his disciples and converted unbelievers (e.g., James). The early disciples shared their witness that Jesus was raised from the dead by the power of God, many of them dying for their claim that they saw Jesus bodily raised.

Conclusion

The short version of this brief essay’s argument is, “if God exists, then the supernatural anomaly of the miraculous bodily resurrection of Jesus, as historically reported in the New Testament, is possible.” The possibility of the miraculous is, therefore, quite reasonable.

Endnotes

  1. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013), 71.
  2. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 9–19.
  3. James P. Moreland, “Transcript: Arguments for the Existence of God” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.); Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 10.
  4. Geisler and Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, 74–77.
  5. James P. Moreland, “Transcript.”
  6. Geisler and Brooks, 101–05; Joe Hellerman, “Handout: Defending the Gospel Accounts of Jesus” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d).
  7. Lee Strobel, “Handout: The Case for Faith” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  8. Known historical facts of Christianity are taken from Craig Hazen, “Handout: Evidence for the Resurrection” (Class lecture, Defending the Faith course of Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada, CA, n.d.).
  9. William D. Edwards, Wesley J. Gabel, and Floyd E. Hosmer, “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association 255.11 (March 1986): 1462.

The Role of An Amanuensis in the Letters of Paul

On By Jovan PayesIn 2004, Biblical Criticism, College Work, Freed-Hardeman University, Greco-Roman World, New Testament, New Testament Background, New Testament World, Paul's Letters, Research Papers, Social Conventions

The New Testament was not dropped out of heaven in its present form. Instead, it was produced by means of human ability and human ingenuity. No disrespect is given to the dogma of plenary inspiration of Scriptures if one examines the methodologies used to produce God’s breath into written form (2 Tim 3:16).[1] It is a matter of respect when such a course of action is taken.

The literary composition of the New Testament is unbalanced in that 78% of its 27-volume anthology is comprised of epistolary literature. In other words, the Christian canon is principally made up of letters. Among these letters stand those of the Apostle Paul, 13 in all which bear his name. Among the many controversies which surround the letters of Paul, few are underestimated as the Pauline use of an amanuensis, a profession more accurately designated “secretary.”[2]

Secretarial work is one of the most pervasive labors undergirding the production of most of the New Testament;[3] it is also at times one of the most controversial issues to sift through. This is particularly highlighted in the study of the role, more accurately the influence, of the secretary in the Pauline corpus. The principle issue controverted is “the degree of freedom that a letter writer might give to his or her scribe in the choice of wording.”[4]

Although it is true that a secretary in the Greco-Roman world was given liberties in word choices when applied to Paul the letters which bear his name are authentically Pauline according to Greco-Roman standards no matter what level of secretarial influence. This is demonstrated by three lines of evidence. First, there was a wide spectrum of secretarial freedom typical of ancient letter writers which were viewed as genuine epistolary conventions. Second, irrespective of the secretarial freedom in word choice, there were genuine methods of controlling the final product by the author. Third, Paul’s emphasis on the authenticity in his letters demonstrates a high level of security precautions as a part of letter composition.

Preliminary to considering the arguments below, observe that there must be an understanding and appreciation for how a different culture works.[5] The methods of communications may differ from the present modern world, but they were authoritative in the ancient world in which these documents were originally penned. Modern standards must be placed to the side. With this one precautionary principle, the value of the present arguments will be seen clearly. Consider the following three arguments.

Secretarial Freedom

First, each level of secretarial freedom was viewed as a genuine method of letter production.

E. Randolph Richards observes that the sender “could grant to the secretary complete, much, little, or no control over the content, style, and/or form of the letter.”[6] From his extensive evaluation of ancient letters, the role of a secretary, in general, was fourfold. The secretary may have contributed to the production of a letter as a verbatim recorder, as an editor of a preliminary letter, as a co-author with an emphasis on linguistics, or as the composer free of any set verbal content.[7] Jerome Murphy-O’Connor suggests three roles, eliminating co-authorship as a viable role of a secretary and placing that as a different type of compositional endeavor, which seems appropriate.[8]

As a verbatim recorder, the only controversial issue is whether or not there was a shorthand method able to follow dictation viva voce (i.e. at the speed of speech), for syllabim dictation (at the speed of handwriting) is basically free from controversy. Alan Millard observes that there is evidence of a shorthand ability to copy viva voce for the Latin language, but that the evidence for a Greek system is questionable due to poorly preserved manuscripts.[9]

Richards, on the other hand, persuasively argues that this Latin shorthand system derived itself probably from a comparable Greek system because discussions among Latin manuscripts employ Greek words to describe their shorthand system, thus implying a dependence on a prior Greek system. Moreover, there are early second century A.D. fragmentary manuscripts of Greek shorthand available and the evidence has a very wide geographical distribution across the Mediterranean world.[10] Murphy-O’Connor extends the link earlier than the second century A.D. to the first century B.C.[11] The point is, that a secretary could potentially follow the author at the speed of their speech in shorthand, and at the very least at the speed of writing. Dictation was not a problem.

The secretary may serve as an editor of a preliminary letter. In the production of the final copy of a letter, the secretary at times, if not always, was given the responsibility to correct or adjust the grammar and syntax of a verbalized letter or a prewritten letter that was appended by the author.[12] As Robson observes:

Where he did not compose, St. Paul would dictate: this would enable him to be conversational and oratorical at will. He could deliver some portion of a missionary sermon, or answer a series of questions, or parry and thrust with an imaginary opponent in the fashion of the diatribe, at will.[13]

E. Iliff Robson, “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books,” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1917)

The secretary would then harmonize the quick fluctuation of argumentative paradigms Paul employs, as in the Roman letter. There is nothing ingenious about this procedure.

The secretary would likewise be given the task of composing free of any set verbal content. There were times in ancient epistolary composition when an author would request his secretary to be a substitute author.[14] In this respect, the secretary was given a considerable amount of freedom to choose the wording. Moreover, Richards observes that “a writer usually does not reveal that his letter was actually composed by a secretary.”[15] Consequently, the reader would not necessarily know it was a secretary who composed the letter. But there is adequate evidence to demonstrate that if the recipients were familiar enough with the author that they could recognize the handwriting, style, and argumentation methods and distinguish between a letter written by their friend or by their friend’s secretary.[16]

In one sense, the fact that the secretary could do this is difficult to account for in New Testament letters since there are no extant autographs. Definite factors come into play in this regard, which alleviates some of the curiosity that this point highlights in one’s mind. As Richards notes, “the letters, especially official and business letters, had a very set form, vocabulary, and style.”[17]

Consequently, certain letters already had a predetermined template to follow, similar to modern word processing computers, the only difference is that the secretary had to produce a new template each time. Moreover, this was very advantageous for the illiterate population of the Greco-Roman world.[18] Also, there is no evidence to suggest that this was extensively done within personal letters. The point which needs to be emphasized is that there were specific and genuine needs for this method. Observe the next line of reasoning for methods of controlling and authenticating the secretary’s actions.

Measures of Authorial Control

Second, there were genuine methods of controlling the activities of the secretary.

The principal controlling agent was the author who would read the final rough draft or the final draft before it was dispatched.[19] The importance of this is demonstrated by the case of Quintus, the brother of Cicero, on his first Roman appointment. Quintus employed his secretary Statius as his “chief” secretary to read the letters composed by other secretaries without Quintus’ personal attention. Cicero advises Quintus to read the letters that go out in his name because he had already suffered professionally because of his action. The implication here is irrespective of who penned the letter the author is held responsible for every word and sentiment.[20] It is very enlightening that Quintus was not discouraged from having his secretaries write documents in his name, but he was rebuked for not having read them himself before dispatching them.

A second method of demonstrating control over the content irrespective of the type of freedom given to a secretary is the subscriptions written in the author’s handwriting.[21] These subscriptions generally repeat and summarize in the author’s handwriting the main content of the letter to demonstrate that the author is fully aware of the material which is being sent in his or her name.[22] Yet, one must respect the extant evidence and note that not all letters in the Greco-Roman period had subscriptions of the exact same length.[23] Each letter must be approached on its own terms and one must not assume that all letters have this subscription.[24] Nevertheless, there were security measures available for any kind of secretarial influence and freedom.

Paul’s “Security” Precautions

Third, Paul’s emphasis on the authenticity in his letters demonstrates a high level of security precautions as a part of letter composition.

The internal evidence of the New Testament demonstrates that the Apostle Paul had a high degree of care for the churches to which he ministered. This will demonstrate what was more likely for Paul to do with regards to the type of security measures he would place in each letter. For example, in 2 Corinthians (an undisputed Pauline letter[25]) Paul demonstrates his unyielding concern for the church in Corinth to persevere to a more stable spiritual plateau by foregoing a door of evangelism providentially opened by the Lord so he could minister to them (2 Cor 2:12–13).

Again, in 1 Corinthians the Apostle Paul demonstrated his high level of concern when he sent Timothy to minister to them in his stead. He sent Timothy because he would remind them of his ways (1 Cor 4:14–17). In a sense, Timothy was a surrogate for Paul’s presence, an emphasis which is identical to the purposes of dispatching a letter,[26] allowing each party to share in each other life.[27] The point of emphasis made here is that Paul was very careful and had concerned for the well-being of the church. It is very natural to assume, then, that he would procure whatever items needed to guarantee their spiritual safety (1 Cor 8:13).

Observe an additional line of reasoning. Within the New Testament letters which bear Paul’s name, there are six letters that bear explicit marks of a collaboration with a secretary (see Fig. 1). These references demonstrate the subscription of authenticity and generally include a summary, however brief, of the content of the letter. Galatians 6:11 and Philemon 19 are somewhat problematic for they may both refer to the entire letter or the point where Paul inserts his authoritative “seal of approval” as a mark of genuineness.[28] The point that needs to be considered here is that Paul demonstrates his inclusion of security measures in his letters.

Figure 1: This illustrates the widespread use of an amanuensis in the letters of Paul. See also P.Duke.inv. 7 (AD 5/6) and P.Duke.inv. 22 (30 BC–AD 640) as papyri examples of dual handwriting styles differentiating between the secretary and the author.

Moreover, what shall be said for the letters which do not have a subscription (2 Cor, 1 Thess, Eph, Phil, and the pastorals)? In 2 Corinthians 10:1, the Apostle Paul inserts his name into what some would consider a major section of the letter. The Apostle makes an emphatic statement autos de ego Paulos parakalo humas, which literally means “and I myself (Paul) entreat you.” It is reasonable to conclude that the passage is the beginning of Paul personally writing until the end of the letter,[29] but some scholars disagree with this conclusion.[30] However, since their conclusions are just as speculative, consistency points to 2 Corinthians 10–13 as a lengthy subscription or another letter appended to a completed letter.

The Thessalonian correspondence is somewhat unique in that the second epistle has a stronger authenticating subscription (2 Thess 5:17) than that of the first letter (1 Thess 5:27–28), that is why it is treated here. However, the case is strong that both letters are collaborations between Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1 and 2 Thess 1:1). Paul often takes the lead in the discussion.[31] By viewing the subscription in 2 Thessalonians 5:27–28 as a final authenticating mark, 1 Thessalonian’s ”gentle” subscription receives bolstering.

The pastorals are regarded as disputed-non-Pauline works.[32] This position is based primarily upon vocabulary and style differences calculated by a computer. These differences may be harmoniously accounted for by including the use of an amanuensis.[33] However, Harry Y. Gamble has suggested that “such theories” may satisfactorily explain a divergence in vocabulary and style, but not for the “conceptual and situational differences.”[34]

Richards makes a rather compelling case demonstrating from ancient letters that because of the “use of secretaries, letters were not rejected on the basis of style analyses alone.”[35] In other words, just because the letter sounds different that is no grounds for marking it as inauthentic because a secretary may influence style. Richards also demonstrates there were special seals used to enclose a letter; consequently, had Paul not given a subscription,[36] he could have (because this was typical) closed up the letter with a seal.[37] This may account for the Philippian letter being void of a postscript. Perhaps this is why Gamble concedes that there are other things that make “Pauline letters […] even more complex than is usually assumed.”[38]

The letter to the Ephesians poses itself as a unique epistolary production in that among the writings of Paul this was probably a circular letter written for a broad multi-congregation setting.[39] Abraham Malherbe provides parallels illustrating that Ephesians served a comparatively similar purpose as the literature of contemporary philosophical schools to provide general guidance for conventional everyday needs.[40] In this light, and with its traditional connection to Colossians, and Philemon (Col 4:10–14; Philem 23–24, and Eph 6:21), it is probable they were sent together.[41] The subscriptions in Colossians 4:18 and Philemon 19 would seemingly have sufficient authenticity for the letters associated with them, assuming there were no other authenticating measures we are unaware of.

The last argument above has been the longest to formulate. What must be remembered is that the Pauline corpus employs and contains subscriptions and other authenticating items. Differences in vocabulary and style are not sufficient to dismiss any letters of Paul because, according to Greco-Romans criterion, a secretary may so influence a letter that it may sound distinct. Nevertheless, since there are security measures employed, there is an implicit understanding that Paul would be in a position to verify the letter before sending it by means of a courier. Also, he may have had confidence in the secretary’s work such as Timothy, Silas, Titus, and Tertius (Rom 16:22).

Where from Here?

The controversy will more than likely continue. The degree of influence Paul’s secretary had over the composition of the corpus may never be totally realized or understood. It must be remembered that the freedom a secretary had in word choice varied according to need, author, and document; nevertheless, the author was held accountable for every word. That may be uncomfortable for some today, but this study is not a matter of what one wants the evidence to say, it is about what was more likely–probable– to happen.

The freedom of the secretary was a genuine method of letter writing, but it was not the only kind of role they played in epistolary production. There were methods to check the work of the letter before it went forth. Finally, Paul’s character based upon the internal evidence of the New Testament letters suggests that Paul would have and did procure the security procedures of the day to secure the message.

Consequently, the letters which bear his name are authentic according to Greco-Roman standards irrespective of secretarial influence.

Endnotes

  1. Wayne Jackson, Background Bible Study, rev. ed. (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2000), i.
  2. E. Randolph Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of Paul (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991), 11.
  3. Richard N. Longenecker, “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters,” in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 109.
  4. D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 233–34.
  5. Stanley K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Library of Early Christianity 8, ed. Wayne A. Meeks (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989), 28.
  6. Richards, Secretary, 23.
  7. Ibid., 23–24.
  8. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995), 8–16, 16–34.
  9. Alan Millard, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 2000), 175–76.
  10. Richards, Secretary, 41.
  11. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 11.
  12. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 13–14; Richards, Secretary, 44–47.
  13. E. Iliff Robson, “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books,” JTS 18 (1917): 291.
  14. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 14.
  15. Richards, Secretary, 52.
  16. Gordon J. Bahr, “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century,” CBQ 28 (1966): 466–67; cf. Richards, Secretary, 92–97.
  17. Richards, Secretary, 49.
  18. Ibid., 50.
  19. Ibid., 52.
  20. Ibid., 51.
  21. Longenecker, “Form, Function, and Authority,” 108.
  22. Gordon J. Bahr, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters,” JBL 2 (1968): 28-30
  23. Richard N. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles,” in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, ed. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 291.
  24. Roy Bowen Ward, “How to Study the New Testament,” in The World of the New Testament, ed. Abraham J. Malherbe. Living Word Commentary 1, ed. Everett Ferguson (Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984), 171.
  25. See Charles B. Cousar, The Letters of Paul, Interpreting Biblical Texts (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 89; Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction, 262.
  26. Cousar, Letters of Paul, 30.
  27. Stowers, Letter Writing, 28–29.
  28. Frederick Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament (1899; repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 191; Longenecker, “Form, Function, and Authority,” 108; Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 28; Richards, Secretary, 179–80.
  29. Richards, Secretary, 125–26.
  30. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer, 30–31.
  31. Ibid., 19–20.
  32. Cousar, Letters of Paul, 163–64.
  33. Longenecker, “Ancient Amanuenses,” 292–94; Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction, 359–62.
  34. Harry Y. Gamble, “Amanuensis,” ABD 1:72.
  35. Richards, Secretary, 97 (cf. 92–97).
  36. Longenecker, though, believes Paul did (“Ancient Amanuenses,” 292).
  37. Richards, Secretary, 93.
  38. Gamble, “Amanuensis,” 72.
  39. Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction, 309–11.
  40. Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook, Library of Early Christianity 4, ed. Wayne A. Meeks (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 149–160.
  41. William Barclay, The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians, rev. ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1975), 168–70. Granted, critical scholars tend to discount the authorship of Paul of Philippians, Colossians and Ephesians.

Works Cited

Bahr, Gordon J. “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 465-77.

—. “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 2 (1968): 27-41.

Barclay, William. The Letters to the Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians. Revised ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster, 1975.

Carson, Donald A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Cousar, Charles B. The Letters of Paul. IBT. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.

Field, Frederick. Notes on the Translation of the New Testament. 1899 ed. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.

Gamble, Harry Y. “Amanuensis.” Pages 72–73 in vol. 1 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Longenecker, Richard N. “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” Pages 281–97 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.

—. “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters.” Pages 101–14 in Scripture and Truth. Edited by Donald A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

Malherbe, Abraham J. Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook. LEC 4. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1986.

Millard, Alan. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, 2000.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995.

Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991.

Robson, E. Iliff. “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books.” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1917):288-301.

Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. LEC 8. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1989.

Ward, Roy Bowen. “How to Study the New Testament.” The World of the New Testament. Edited by Abraham J. Malherbe. The Living Word Commentary: New Testament 1. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press, 1984.

Church, Let’s be Gentle (Gal 5:22–23)

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Christian Leadership, Church Discipline, Galatians, Holy Spirit, New Testament, Paul's Letters, Spiritual Formation

Hardships come in all shapes and sizes. They often harden the people that survive them. Sometimes we are surrounded by so many troubles, their downpour is palpable. Our political climate resides on a hairpin trigger; any response to the “pandemic” seemly places you at odds with various camps at once.

There is remote education, remote working, adjusted schedules, reduced workforce and its accompanying reduced income and on we may go. Never have we had to adjust so quickly in so many fields, and rethink all of our social/cultural connections at once. It has not been done without incurring major trauma and frustration. The medical sector has gone to such protective measures that people have died alone, void of human touch; people are fighting diseases without the side by side support of their loved ones and communities. Yet, we somehow find the strength to cheer, “we’re all in this together.”

Many of our churches have likewise had to adjust and adopt methods that have been viewed, for the most part, as luxuries, out of reach and impractical. Among the many churches, broadcasting sermons and worship is for the bigger, tele-evangelist type churches. Embracing a new way to gather together, embracing additional formats allowable in the scriptures for assembling and spiritual communion. This has not happened without various forms of turmoil, infighting, the testing of fellowship, and in some cases suspicion.

It makes me think that the church needs to be reminded to be gentle.

The Fruit of the Spirit

A study on “the fruit of the Spirit” is badly needed right now. It is the outflow of our relationship with God. These fruits provide us the resources for enduring and succeeding as God’s people during stormy weather.

What was Paul getting at in the “fruit” of the Spirit”? The word “fruit” (karpós) has a wide range of meaning: it may be translated as “fruit, grain; harvest; result, outcome; deed, action; return, gain, advantage; tribute, praise (of the lips); offspring (Lk 1:42) descendant (Ac 2:30).”[1] The word ranges from the literal to the metaphoric and context helps to limit how fruit should be understood.

Fruit is the natural outcome from a plant, a living being, or a process. Fruit bears the distinguishing characteristics of its source. A banana is the fruit of the banana tree, an apple is the fruit of an apple tree, etc. A child is the offspring (fruit) of her/his parents. An error is the outcome of misinformation or a distortion.

For example, Jesus speaks of the spiritual caliber of a person based upon the fruit of their actions and teaching:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15–20; English Standard Version)[2]

The Psalms, likewise, speak of one’s spiritual outgrowth based on a connection to the Word of God:

He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. (Psalm 1:3–4)

These examples are samples of a greater body of biblical examples for the spiritual character of the fruit metaphor.

This metaphor directs our attention to a spiritual harvest procured from the child of God’s relationship with the Spirit. It certainly points to the important spiritual realm of our activity. Paul does not point to a spirituality detached from the world. No, God’s people must embrace that the spiritual realm bleeds over into our natural (flesh/human) world because our faith is grounded in both realms of activity.[3]

This means that Christians derive the wellspring for their actions from God’s leading, and this then frees us from any obligations to act like the customary fallen fleshly/human world. We are freed to live a life anchored to our relationship with God.

This is part of the big picture drama of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. Throughout Galatians, he displays how freedom and obligation work together in tension as Christians live freed by Christ to be obligated by the ethic of love.

For freedom Christ has set us free [theology of freedom]; stand firm therefore [ethic of obligation], and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1)
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. (Galatians 5:13–15)

These are not competing themes. I like how Charles K. Barrett (1917–2011) puts it,

There is no conflict but rather an indissoluble union between the theology of freedom and the ethics of obligation. Nor is there any equation of a compromise between the two in which each is watered down so as to accommodate the other. Freedom is real freedom, and any attempt to restrict it must be firmly refuted. But obligation is real obligation too, and there must be no attempt to evade it.[4]

Freedom and Obligation (1985)

In other words, the regenerated child of God is freed by the gospel and a life that is lived in light of God’s redemption will their obligation anchored in loving others. God’s people must certainly live with this tension: (1) a theology of freedom to live out in the natural world the love of God bred by the gospel message, and (2) the ethic of obligation that a Christian and the church is bound by to embrace the grace of God and the purpose of Christ’s death.

Making Sense of Gentleness

The most important way to understand how a word is to be understood is its context, otherwise, we may import misleading ideas into a text. Word studies are additional way to appreciate the limits of a word’s meaning. I like to look at how the ancients used the words of the New Testament, as it often provides a better sense of what Paul is saying and means.

Secular Sense. New Testament Scottish scholar, William Barclay (1907–1978), was one of the best wordsmiths of his era. His knowledge of the classics and Greek literature was astounding. In his little book, Flesh and Spirit (1962), he illustrates six ways the concept of “gentleness” (praútēs) was used in ancient secular Greek.[5]

  1. Gentleness as a soothing quality in the face of difficulty, hardship, or bitterness.
  2. Gentleness of conduct breeds a spirit of cooperation, especially when those with the power to act behaved differently.
  3. In the midsts of any argument, gentleness is the attitude and culture created where “cooler heads” prevail without losing one’s temper.
  4. The ability to take things lightly, whether going through an unpleasant experience, or, to not overreact to important things.
  5. It is used to speak of animals which have become obedient and have learned control and discipline.
  6. The most common use: Gentleness is seen in the portrayal of a person’s character in which strength and gentleness go together, where passion and gentleness find a balance in high degree.

The modern sense of “gentleness” carries more of the qualitative sense of “mildness of manners and disposition” (Merriam-Webster), or being “kind, calm, or soft…” (Cambridge Dictionary). There is some similarity to the ancient sense, but as Barclay points out the ancients held a more robust sense of the power and impact of “gentleness.”

New Testament Usage. I want to use Barclay’s spectrum to illustrate how the New Testament uses “gentleness” (praútēs), a term that appears eleven times (1 Cor 4:21; 2 Cor 10:1; Gal 5:23, 6:1; Eph 4:2; Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:25; Tit 3:2; Jas 1:21, 3:13; 1 Pet 3:15). We are illustrating here how to best understand the word in the context of four New Testament case studies, and then we will look at our passage in Galatians 5:23 (and 6:1).

1 Corinthians 4:21: What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?

In a context of correction and restoration, Paul offers this rhetorical question. The phrase “spirit of gentleness” may be translated as “a gentle spirit” (cf. Gal 6:1). In other words, this is a question about the kind of “frame of mind” the Corinthians wish Paul to arrive in.[6] The emphasis is on either whether the Corinthians want Paul to arrive with a soothing attitude (1), or with a culture of love generated by a cool temper (3). These seem to be the better options of the sense here.

2 Corinthians 10:1: I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away!

When Paul addressed a slanderous charge against him that in person he was timid and in letter he is aggressive,[7] the apostle appeals to the Corinthians by “the meekness of Christ” or “Christ’s meekness.” This is clearly a reference to the balanced character of Jesus Christ who is both meek (praútēs) and gentle/forbearing (epieíkeia). In the face of conflict, Paul will appeal to the disciplined character of Jesus to be his guide (6).

Colossians 3:12: Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved compassionate hearts kindness humility, meekness, and patience...

As in Galatians 5:22–23 and Ephesians 4:2, our word appears in a list of virtues of proper conduct. In fact, much has been said about the parallels between Colossians and Ephesians, where in the latter walking in a manner worthing of the Christian calling includes walking “with all humility and gentleness, with patience bearing with one another in love” (4:2). As part of a virtue list, these contexts provide a “big picture” character portrayal to which the child of God must endeavor to pursue. It is vital to breed unity and cooperation in the body of Christ by being actively gentle (2).[8]

2 Timothy 2:25: correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth...

Paul outlines a program for Timothy on how to engage his opponents. It should not be done through bitter quarreling (2:24) but through “correction… with gentleness” (2:25). Quarreling and correcting are opposites in this context, all quarreling is inconsistent with a servant’s method of engagement, but not all correcting is quarreling. Gentleness must shape the quality of the correction. The emphasis is perhaps on the cool headed attitude (3) or a lack of overreaction to these confrontations (4).

The key takeaway from these examples is that we must make an attempt to understand how the original readers of the text would have understood praútēs, the word often translated “gentleness” or “meekness.” It is not a passive “Clark Kent” unassuming mildness, instead it is a proactive personal virtue necessary to create a culture of community.

The Fruit of Gentleness (Gal 5:23; 6:1)

When Paul lays the vice list of the “works of the flesh” side by side with the virtue list of the “fruit of the Spirit,” he is outlining what freedom in Christ looks like. The realm of the flesh enslaves whether it be the Law of Moses or it be living exclusively by our natural conventions.

The realm controlled by the Spirit, provides freedom from such constraints. We are no longer bound by the Law (for the Jews) or our vice-filled conventions (for gentiles), but are lead by the Spirit to produce a new character (the fruit/outcome).

the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Galatians 5:22–24

The character portrayed here gives us the content of the ethic of obligation. We are free in Christ to create a new creation, an Israel of God (Gal 6:15–16). This obligation has communal implications. God’s people are must look out for each other and hold each other accountable.

Paul moves quickly from “the fruit of the Spirit” to one example of application in Galatians 6:1 which has to do with restoration:

Brothers if anyone is caught in any transgression you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

Galatians 6:1

I repeat what I said earlier, gentleness is part of a “big picture” character development necessary for the child of God. It must be pursued. When Christians are actively gentle its breeds unity, cooperation, and healing in the body of Christ. This fruit of the Spirit “enables the Christian to correct the erring brother without arrogance, impatience, or anger.”[9]

This fruit of the Spirit provides the gentleness and tolerance in the face of difficulties to do the better–often harder–thing.[10] Sometimes church discipline is practiced in such a punitive way that that permanent expulsion is the only outcome. We should meditate, however, on the following words,

Do not amputate [them], as a piece of gangrene flesh, from the church body, but so handle [them] as to restore [them]. Also do not do this in a proud, Pharisaical spirit.[11]

J. W. McGarvey and Philip Pendleton,
Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (1916)

The process of restoration requires the connective tissue of a Spirit-led gentle community and a humble self-evaluation. J. Louis Martyn rounds out my thinking here:[12]

The restoration, then, is to be completely devoid of lasting stigma. It is to be carried out with the gentleness that is one of the marks of the Spirit-led community […] and also with circumspection. For, as the next clause indicates, all are subject to missteps. Indeed, because every member of the community […] is on the battlefront pictured in 5:17a, everyone is subject to the tempting power of the Flesh.

Galatians (2008)

Freedom and Obligation

Gentleness provides us with one virtue where the theology of freedom and the ethic of obligation are found in Christ is clearly illustrated. Here we conclude with a few examples.

  • When church controversies occur that leave us upset, heart broken, or disheveled, God’s people are free in Christ to break from the destructive behaviors we were once bound to. Our obligation is to be gentle in the face of conflict with those that have hurt us and that we disagree with.
  • When our society is embroiled in controversy and unrest, remember we have been liberated from any cultural tests of loyalty (political party, hashtag movements, etc.), because our obligation is to love our neighbor with cool-headedness and Christlike character.
  • When we are tempted to act out in self-righteous anger, we are freed to acknowledge our own sins that God has forgiven, and can then look in the mirror to see that our commitment to the gospel obligates us to treat others with Spirit-led community.

Love is the obligated ethic of the Christian (Lev 19:18) and it is the proving ground of true discipleship (John 13:35):

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:18)
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)

Gentleness is the method and shape of how we administer love during the various difficulties the Christian faces.

This means I must learn to do things differently. I must learn to be cool headed and kind when dealing with fallen Christians. I must learn to face the prospect of things out of my control with the balance of calmness and patience.

All of God’s people must learn to reflect the character of Jesus described by Isaiah in the following way:

a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. (Isaiah 42:3; Matthew 12:20)

Endnotes

  1. Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993), 92.
  2. Unless otherwise noted all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016).
  3. Walter Russell, “Does the Christian Have ‘Flesh’ in Gal 5:13–26,” JETS 36.2 (1993): 179–87.
  4. C. K. Barrett, Freedom and Obligation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 70.
  5. William Barclay, Flesh and Spirit (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 112–14.
  6. Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 378.
  7. Wayne Jackson, A New Testament Commentary (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publication, 2011), 359.
  8. F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 152, 334.
  9. Friedrich Hauck and Seigfried Schulz, “πραΰς, πραΰτης,” TDNT 6:650.
  10. Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (1953; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 208.
  11. John W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans (1916; repr., Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1950), 284.
  12.  J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 547.

Bibliography

Barclay, William. Flesh and Spirit: An Examination of Galatians 5:19–23. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1962.

Barrett, Charles K. Freedom and Obligation: A Study of the Epistle to the Galatians. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1985.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Hauck, Friedrich, and Seigfried Schulz. “πραΰς, πραΰτης.” TDNT 6:645–51.

Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AYB. Vol. 33A. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

McGarvey, John W., and Philip Y. Pendleton. Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans. 1916. Repr., Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1950.

Newman, Barclay M., Jr. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to he Churches of Galatia. NICNT. 1953. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976.

Russell, Walter. “Does the Christian Have ‘Flesh’ in Gal 5:13–26.” JETS 36.2 (1993): 179–87.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.

War in Peace: Everyday Spiritual Battles

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Ephesians, New Testament, Paul's Letters

Jesus once said, “Sufficient for the day is its own trouble” (Matt 6:34c). With these words he finalized his exhortation regarding anxiety over the everyday stresses of our lives: food and clothing (6:25-33). In fact, this kind of stress is quite distracting (Grk. merimnao), it even robs one of trust in God’s providential care for those who seek his kingdom first (6:33). In order to overcome this battle, the Lord provides us with the weaponry; our weaponry is the right perspective framed by God’s word.

Never has this been more exemplified than by Jesus himself when tempted by Satan; three temptations all designed to challenge the Lord’s perspective of his own identity (cf. “if you are the Son of God” 4:3, 6). Each temptation was nullified by an appeal to the Word of God (cf. “it is written” 4:4, 7, 10).

Since the very beginning, Satan has always been aggressive in his attempts to devour us with his schemes (Gen 3:1; Job 1:6-7; 1 Pet 5:8); but, we can resist him with our faith (1 Pet 5:9).

War in a Life of Peace?

The wave of temptations which pass through a person’s life may be moral, spiritual, doctrinal, and even philosophical; the battle being waged is subsidized by Satan and his emissaries (Matt 25:41; Rev 12:9). Consequently, the scale of the battle he wages is the size of the number of people who have ever lived (Rev 20:2; John 8:44).

The apostle Paul calls attention to the war Satan wages against Christians as well (Eph 6:12). He describes his assaults as “flaming darts of the evil one” (Eph 6:16), but in the final analysis they are just “schemes” (Eph 6:11). These schemes (Grk. methodia) are simply sophisticated deceptions designed to take advantage of a person’s weakness.

Satan’s methodology is to employ calculated deceptions in order to rob the Christian of their moral integrity, their spiritual vibrancy, their doctrinal purity, and to provide philosophical confusion.

He portrays himself as a bringer of “light” when in fact he brings spiritual decay (2 Cor 11:13-15). This activity is designed to undermine Christian peace (Luke 1:79; John 16:33; Acts 10:36; Rom 5:1; 2 Cor 13:11; Eph 2:15).

Close-range Spiritual Carnage

The picture of our warfare is described by Paul in the following way, “for we do not wrestle against flesh and blood” (Eph 6:12).

First, notice the conflict is not a physical one; instead, it is spiritual and ideological. Whatever and whoever Satan may use to oppose God and his people are forces he employs in his spiritual arsenal (Eph 6:12).

Second, the idea related by the word “wrestle” (Grk. pale), is that of close-quarter hand-to-hand combat on the field of battle. The word suggests that while we may be “under siege” as a faith, we have an individual role to stand and fight in battle (Eph 6:11, 13). Nevertheless, victory has already come to the Christian, because Jesus has “overcome the world” (John 16:33).

Third, Paul speaks of the “spiritual forces of evil” besieging us (Eph 6:12). The probing issue here is: what is evil? We can identify evil as crime and hatred; terrorism and genocide. Movies even tend to define evil as an ancient boogie-man creature. However, evil can be seen in religious and spiritual expressions – particularly of false teaching.

Ultimately, evil is behavior that is lived in rejection of God and His will (1 Tim 1:3). Bruce Morton writes an important reminder to God’s people in his excellent book Deceiving Winds:

When we decide to let the Bible collect dust, then we are left with more than merely a literary vacuum; we sow the seeds of what will become evil. Evil has more than a social and civil definition; it is spiritual. And the siege is more than ethical. It is doctrinal as well.[1]

Timothy was warned that defection from the faith would come as a rejection of God word, and the reception of false teachers (1 Tim 4:1-3; 2 Tim 4:1-5). False teaching is evil (Gal 1:6-10; 2 Pet 2:1-22; Jude 3-13).

The Armor of the Christian

Using the language of a war and battle, Paul calls the Christian to “put on the whole [= full] armor of God” (Eph 6:11). The Christian withstands because this armor has already been put on (6:14-18).

The armor represents those aspects of the faith which are foundational for a relationship with our Creator (truth, righteousness, gospel of peace, faith, salvation, the Word). What has saved you will now defend you.

Finally, an element of the Christians weaponry is prayer (6:18). David Williams observes that it is not compared to a piece of armor, but that instead prayer is comparable to “the battle cry of the Christian”.[2] Prayer is described differently than the armor. The armor is already put on, but prayer is an ongoing element of the fight because of its need:

(1) for every circumstance of life, (2) for the duration of life, (3) for every facet of life, and (4) for all the saints.[3]

David J. Williams, Paul’s Metaphors (2003)

A Final Word

As we conclude, there is both a warning and an encouragement in Paul’s discussion of the armor. Evil exists and Satan uses it to deceive us with ideologies and religious experiences that feel right. Be encouraged, however, for we already have the entire arsenal to defend ourselves –Christian faithfulness and the Bible revealing God’s teaching.

Along with this, He will never leave us behind on the field of battle (Heb 13:5-6).

Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” So we can confidently say, “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?” 

Hebrews 13:5-6, English Standard Version

Endnotes

  1. Bruce Morton, Deceiving Winds: Christians Navigating the Storms of Mysticism, Leadership Struggles and Sensational Worship (Nashville, TN: 21st Century Christian, 2009), 67.
  2. David J. Williams, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 222.
  3. Williams, Paul’s Metaphors, 222.

Grace Greater Than Past Associations (1 Tim 1:12–14)

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, Commentary, Discipleship, Essays, Freed-Hardeman University, Pastoral Leadership, Paul's Letters

[Chapter submission for the 84th Annual Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship (2020), Henderson, Tennessee. This is part of the “Anticipating the Future: My Story is His Story” Series. Our Place in His Story: Remembering the Past, Anticipating the Future (Link to book). Listen to the audio lecture as delivered clicking here.]

Everyone has a past. Every conversion to Christ has a past from which it starts and a future to which it clings. Early in Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians he wrote of their decisive change from paganism to the faith and hope that is found in Christ, noting, “how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess 1:9–10). [All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise stated.] This is the basic grammar of the Christian life: a conversion to serve God awaiting future deliverance at the return of Jesus. Between these two bookends (the past and future) the Christian experiences grace which is greater than our all past associations.

The Past is Worthless

In his autobiographical moments, Paul affirmed that the grace he experienced as a Christian—and apostle—surpassed any value attached to his past Jewish heritage. For example, in Philippians 3, Paul weighs the value of his life outside of Christ against what he finds “in Christ.” His past and present reads much like a “pros” (present) and “cons” (past) list. His past was filled with Israelite hubris and Jewish accolades (3:5–6). Richard Peace well observes,

not only was he blessed by birth with impeccable religious credentials, but as the result of his own accomplishments he had risen to the pinnacle of first-century Jewish spirituality. (31).

Richard Peace, Conversion in the New Testament (1999)

On paper, he was truly a “Hebrew of Hebrews” and it showed. Paul had been a blameless Benjamite Pharisee who zealously persecuted the church. Yet, at the time, his “zeal for God” was “not according to knowledge” (Rom 10:2). On the other side of the ledger, the “gain” (kérdos) this activity afforded him —Jewish “street cred”—amounted to being “loss” (Phil 3:7, 8) and “rubbish”[1] (3:8). Real “gain” is found in Paul’s slogan, “to live is Christ, and to die is gain [kérdos]” (Phil 1:21). Why? Paul had attained a full and realized relationship with Jesus Christ (3:8–16) manifested in the Lord’s “grace” (1:2, 7; 4:23). This is what every Christian shares in, grace that is greater than one’s past associations.

1 Timothy 1:12–14

Lost in Speculation (1 Tim 1:3–7)

Another important autobiographical statement by Paul is found in 1 Timothy 1:12–14.[2] Contextually, it comes off the heals of his reminder to Timothy that he was charged to address the dangers of “certain ones” (tís) bringing into the church religious “speculations” (ekzétesis) which emerge from teaching other doctrine(s) (hetero + didaskaleín) and indulging in myths and genealogies (1:3–4). Paul’s stress for doctrinal purity is well established. In Galatians 1:6, for example, Paul is opposed to any desertion to a “different gospel” (héteron euangélion). In Ephesus, the “end game” of those teaching other doctrines was simply “the inquiry” into the theoretical which subverts the actual carrying out of the plan of God (oikonomía; Knight 75) empowered by faith. The economy of God’s plan is not empowered by theory but by a Christian whose love is saturated by their pure heart, good conscience, and sincere personal faith (1:5). A Christian, distracted by “overthinking,” untouched by the work of God in their life will never be able to truly carry out their call to share the gospel of Jesus (1:6–7).

Healthy Teaching Restrains Evil (1 Tim 1:8–11)

There is no sin in exploring the contours of the faith nor engaging in deep religious and theological conversations, but this must never hinder teaching the law of God with its concrete condemnation of sin in all of its forms. Paul mentions thirteen types of “lawless” ones (1:9–10) for whom the law properly applies (nomímōs, 1:8). Paul affirms it is the primary purpose of the law “to restrain evil doing” (Guthrie 74) and this is why those that teach other doctrine(s) (1:3) fail in their endeavor to be “teachers of the law” (nomodidáskaloi, 1:7). Their speculations only offer that which is “contrary” (antíkeimai), and different (héteros),[3] to what is “healthy teaching” as concretely found and expressed in the law (1:10). This is the source of the convicting component of the gospel message, for through it God convicts humanity of sin but he does not leave sinners in their judgment. He incorporates them into the economy of his plan. This may be restated as, “no matter who you are, no matter where you have been, no matter what you have done, there is a place for you in the kingdom of God” (Payes). This key principle is the foundation for Paul’s own autobiographical thanksgiving in the next verses (1:12–14).

Thankful for the Grace of Jesus (1 Tim 1:12–14)

Paul frequently uses the Greek word chárin (grace, thanks, gift, favor, etc.) in his letters (100 times). In fact, he opens and closes all of his letters with chárin. This segment of 1 Timothy likewise opens (1:12) and closes (1:14) with this word, but with two different emphases—gratitude and favor (MM 684). Paul’s gratitude to his Lord Christ Jesus recognizes not only the enabling power (endunamóō) he receives from the Lord, but also the confidence placed on Paul to serve in his ministry (diakonía). Participating in the economy of God’s saving plan gave the apostle the experience of an overflowing “grace” (chárin). Paul never forgot his past, grace does not delete the past. It is clear that Paul’s past as “a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent” served as a motivation for his gratitude and zeal (Petrillo 18). His example demonstrates that God’s grace and mercy provides the means to cross the bridge from condemnation (1:8–10) to arrive at the healing place which creates the pure heart, good conscience, and a sincere faith (1:5) within the “foremost” sinner (1:15).

Paul’s “unbelief” (apistía) was met with the Lord’s compassion (eleéō), his “sins” and lawless behavior was met with the embrace of “the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” (1:14). When Paul was brought into the “in Christ” relationship mercy was shown to him, he did not have to earn it. In his case, however, his rebellion was in ignorance while zealous for God (cf. Rom 10:2); nevertheless, he was in sin, and he acknowledged that God initiated a relationship with him out of compassion. Luke records this divine extension of mercy and Paul’s response (Acts 9:1–19; 22:16). On paper, Paul should stand condemned, but God does the overflowing abundant thing by empowering him to be an example to every believer after him (1 Tim 1:16).

Grace Greater than the Past

If one is not careful there is no greater enemy than the past. The powerful functions of the brain to store and to recall memories, decisions, mistakes, sins, and to imprint on them feelings anew can leave a person in an emotionally dangerous depressive cycle. If ever there was a divine commentary to how the human conscience lives in agony face to face with the evil done in the body it is David and his penitential prayer in Psalm 51. It is felt in the imperatives of the first two verses: have mercy, blot out, wash me, cleanse me. David makes these petitions trusting in God’s “steadfast love” (chesed) and “abundant mercy” (rōb + rahamim). Grief over moral failure is real, it hurts, and it lingers; however, the Lord provides the healing presence of his Spirit to find “a clean heart” and a renewed “right spirit” (10–11). It will require working through grief and regret, and to take these weaknesses that will always be there, and allow God to supply the power of his overflowing grace to take such weaknesses and turn them into strengths (2 Cor 12:9–10). There are some Christians who will never let go, they will hold grudges, but God’s grace is greater than past moral failures and greater than the self-righteous critics.

The reason grace is so powerful is that God turns human expectations on their heads and forces his people to reorient themselves to accommodate how the grace of God is rolled out. The Scottish wordsmith theologian, William Barclay (1907–1978), wrote about “the essential grace” in his volume The Mind of Paul. There are a few points to appreciate. First, “grace always moves in the realm of winsomeness, of loveliness, of attractiveness, of beauty and of charm” (154). Second, “grace has always in it the idea of a gift which is completely free and entirely undeserved” (155). For Barclay, grace always has an esthetic value, it can be appreciated for its beauty and attractiveness, and it also can be exchanged without quid pro quo. Third, God’s grace is inexhaustible as well as “undeserved generosity” (161–62). Indeed, Barclay affirms:

Grace is not a thing of narrow limitations, it is not a thing measured out in painstakingly accurate quantities with just enough and no more, as an ingredient might be in a recipe for some concoction; in grace there is a certain infinity; a certain complete adequacy; a certain inexhaustibility and illimitableness. No demand that can ever be made on it can exhaust it or strain its capacity and its power. (Barclay 163)

William Barclay, The Mind of Paul (1958)

It enabled Paul to embrace and celebrate the Christian experience of grace in all of its surpassing capacity (2 Cor 9:8, 14; Rom 5:20; Eph 1:7, 2:7).

Grace empowers the child of God to move forward, it is not a crutch to revert back into lawlessness. There is no cheap grace with God. Grace is rich and deep, but it is not an excuse to continue in sin (Rom 6:1–2). The connection between immersion and grace is firmly established with the Christian’s identification with Jesus’ resurrection, for the risen Christian emerges to serve God in grace (6:3–14). The past is not ignored, but the legal metaphor[4] based on the Roman slave trade is employed to paint the transition in ownership explains how Christians went from servants of sin to become “servants of righteousness” and experiencing the grace of God (Rom 6:15–23). Grace enables the Christian to serve God unimpeded.

A Personal Aside

It is easy to get lost in the academic side of this study, but grace is not a sterile observable entity. Grace is an environment of generosity designed to rehabilitate those made in the image of God through the gospel (2 Cor 5:17). Over twenty years ago, I was on a street corner in the Mission District of San Francisco. I was a drug dealer and user. I abused alcohol. I was sexually immoral. I was in a gang. I was violent. I was a criminal. I contributed to the urban system of violence and fear. I was a sinner. But by the grace of God, I had the opportunity to read about Jesus in a Bible I found under my bed. The beauty of his grace was attractive. I desired it and wanted to share it with others. I traded in my old life for a life in Christ and was immersed for the forgiveness of my sins (Acts 2:38).

I never expected to be a preacher—I never expected to live past 18 years old. Today I am more than twice that age, and by the grace of God I preach the gospel and share it with my community in Bakersfield, CA. I’ve had some serious growing pains in the course of my Christian life. Some will only see me for my mistakes. Others have spurred me along because they too know that the grace of God is greater than our past associations and failures. Let us all ever be so minded.

Endnotes

  1. The word skúbalon is translated variously as “dung” (KJV, NET, CSB), “rubbish” (ESV, NABRE, NASB95, NKJV, NRSV), “refuse” (ASV, RSV), or “garbage” (CEV, NIV2011). Some think this word is either a swear/crude word (i.e, the s-word) or the closest thing to it. It certainly is a word that may literally mean “dung” (Sir 27:4) so in this sense it is construed as a vulgar word (TDNT 7:446; Wallace); however, the available lexical data does not support its use as an invective curse word (Manning). According to Friedrich Lang’s research, skúbalon is found to be an apt religious and philosophical analog for human “corruptibility” and “worthlessness” (TDNT 7:445). This appears to be clearly Paul’s point as he intensifies from “loss” to skúbalon; as in, his past is “all worthless trash” (ERV). It would have provided some shock value but not because it was a curse word.
  2. While some scholars argue that certain internal and contextual factors surrounding 1 Timothy—along with 2 Timothy and Titus—are not in keeping with the traditional view that Paul is its author (Dibelius and Conzelmann 1–5), they are however far from definitive (Knight 21–52) and do not make Pauline authorship impossible (Guthrie 58). The present study presupposes Pauline authorship for the thirteen letters traditionally associated to him.
  3. The ASV reads, “if there be any other thing [héteros] contrary to the sound doctrine” (1:10), which more clearly keeps at the forefront Paul’s use of héteros than the rendering of the ESV, “whatever else [héteros].”
  4. For further reading on the legal metaphor in Romans 6 see, Francis Lyall, “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles,” TynB 32 (1981):81–95. 

Works Cited

Barclay, William. The Mind of Paul. 1958. Repr., New York: Harper & Row, 1975.

Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Herm. Edited by Helmut Koester, et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

Guthrie, Donald. The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary. 2d edition. TNTC. Vol. 14. Edited by Leon Morris. 1990. Repr., Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009.

Knight, George W., III. The Pastoral Epistles. NIGTC. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. 1992. Repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.

Lang, Friedrich. “skúbalon.” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Vol. 7. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Lyall, Francis. “Legal Metaphors in the Epistles.” TynB 32 (1981): 81–95.

Manning, Gary, Jr. “Did the Apostle Paul Use Profanity?” Biola University Good Book Blog. 2015. Accessed 30 Sept. 2019.

(MM) Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. 1930. Repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.

Payes, Jovan. “Leaving a Street Gang for Christ.” Gospel Advocate Blog. 2015. Accessed 30 Sept. 2019.

Peace, Richard V. Conversion in the New Testament: Paul and the Twelve. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Petrillo, Denny. Commentary on 1, 2 Timothy and Titus. Abilene: Quality Publications, 1998.

Wallace, Daniel B. “A Brief Word Study on Skúbalon.” Bible.org. 2007. Accessed 30 Sept. 2019.

Soul-Winning for Jesus: Obedience of Faith

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Carolina Messenger, Conversion, Discipleship, New Testament, Old Testament, Paul's Letters, Practical, Publications

Many phrases summarize Paul’s letter to Rome such as justification, righteousness, gospel, or God’s sovereignty. Another important phrase found in Romans is “obedience of faith” and bookends the letter at its beginning (1:5) and at its close (16:26). This is the desired result (“to bring about”) of the Father’s work of salvation in Jesus Christ.

Those seeking to enjoy the redemptive blessings of God’s righteousness and salvation are called to respond with a faith in God that is obedient to his call and his word (Rom 1:16–17). Paul’s quotation of Habakkuk 2:4, “The righteous shall live by faith” (1:17), further establishes his point. This is the nature of biblical faith and when sharing the gospel it is imperative to remember that faith is not biblical if it is not obedient. This has significant implications to the Christian’s efforts to share the victory message of the gospel with their neighbors.

The Shape of Faith

Words are the patterns by which people think. It is key, therefore, to clear the air on a common misconception. For some, faith resembles a blind leap into the dark. It is a gut feeling devoid of reason. Taken in this way, the only relationship between faith and reason is that they are on opposite poles that never touch. Furthermore, faith in God, the Bible as the word of God, or in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension are purely a feeling. It is pure fideism. Biblical faith is a response to evidence (Heb 11:1).

Biblical faith is both relational and responsive. Paul explains that the gospel of God is supported by a series of lines of evidence. The gospel was promised prophetically in the Old Testament (1:2) and centered on the Davidic lineage of Jesus (1:3) whose claim to being the Son of God is established by the resurrection from the dead (1:4). On this basis, the apostles are commissioned to share the gospel designed to induce an obedient faith from the world and the church (1:5–6). Faith relates to the worthiness of the evidence of the gospel message that God acted in the world through Jesus and his cross (2 Cor 5:18), and responds with actions that reflect that trust in God and the gospel.

Living by Faith

In Romans 1:16-17, Paul explains that faith is not only a first response to the gospel but also frames the lifestyle of the Christian. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Roman letter hangs on his quotation of Habakkuk 2:4, “The righteous shall live by faith.” Paul evokes the contrast God makes in his response to a frustrated Habakkuk. The wicked live faithless and so digress into immorality (Hab 1:12–2:5). By contrast, the righteous organize their life by what faith in God requires (2:4). Two things are affirmed here: (1) faith is anchored in God’s actions and word, and (2) faith reshapes one’s priorities and actions. Let us explore these two points a bit further.

First, when sharing the gospel it is imperative to anchor a person’s faith in God and his word. Biblical faith in God does not emerge without believing God exists and acts in history (Acts 14:15–17, 17:24–31), the Bible provides divine truth (Eph 3:4–5), and has sent his son as demonstration of his love (Rom 5:6–8). Indeed, this “obedience of faith” is reflected in the Genesis story of Abraham. Paul, by the Spirit, picks up on this in Romans 3–4, when he parallels the justifying faith of Abraham with the faith of the person who comes to obey God and walks before him in faith (3:21–26).

Indeed, “Abraham believed God” (Rom 4:3; Gen 15:6). Abraham was “fully convinced” that God was “able to do what he promised” (Rom 4:21). Until a person has a conviction in God and his word, saving faith has no fertile soil to blossom from (Rom 10:6–13; Mark 16:15–16).

Second, faith reshapes one’s priorities and actions. The words of Habakkuk are quoted two other times in the New Testament (Gal 3:11; Heb 10:37–38). In each passage, there is an emphasis that biblical faith — saving faith — reshapes the Christian’s priorities. In Galatians, Paul argues that faith provides access to the gift of the Spirit. In Hebrews, the writer affirms that because of faith the converted believer can endure hardships because their priorities have changed. It is written, 

“And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Heb 11:6).

Personal faith is nurtured through the study of the scriptures and leads gospel obedience (Rom 6:17–18; 1 Thess 2:13). As Jesus affirmed,

 “It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me” (John 6:45).

Concluding Thoughts

In order to show the difference between “agreement” and “faith,” evangelist Windell Fikes learned to asked: (1) “Do you believe what the Bible says?,” (2) “Do you want to do what the Bible says?,” and (3) “Do you want to do what the Bible says right now?” In other words, biblical faith is expressed in obedience to God’s word.

Jesus would say, 

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46).

Jovan preaches for the Highland congregation in Bakersfield, CA.

This article originally appeared in The Carolina Messenger. To subscribe for FREE click here.

A Brief Look at Patronage as Background for the New Testament

On By Jovan PayesIn 2017, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greco-Roman World, Interpretation, Luke, New Testament, New Testament Background, New Testament World, Paul's Letters, Research Papers, Roman Empire, Romans, Social Conventions, Technical Studies, Women Studies
college papers

The present study is an inquiry into the interconnected reciprocal nature of patronage in the Greco-Roman imperial social setting, as one background component from the New Testament world. One would be wrong to think that such a social dynamic’s presence was minimal. In actuality, patronage and its vocabulary not only appears specifically in the New Testament (Luke 22:25; Acts 10:38; Rom 16:2; Philm 17-20, Phil 4:14-20, etc), but the social reciprocal dynamics in which its value and cultural powers are also assumed (shame, honor, unity, gratitude, fellowship, etc.). The reader who knows what to look for will see it in numerous contexts shaping the life of the body.[1] Unfortunately, the many elements vital to the matrix of patronage can only be pointed to. Yet, as Bruce J. Malina observes, it was “the most significant form of social interaction in the limited-good world of the first century is an informal principle of reciprocity, a sort of implicit, non-legal contractual obligation, unenforceable by any authority apart from one’s sense of honor and shame.”[2] The challenge in this paper is to briefly and accurately describe it.

In seeking to understand the New Testament accurately, scholars propose various exegetical principles and contextualizing models to accomplish this task.[3] The process here requires an approach which appreciates the cultural background of the New Testament to contextualize its vocabulary. This, Albert A. Bell reminds, is the “crucial part of understanding any written text.”[4] Greco-Roman words have a socially conditioned context that the modern reader may not readily identify. “Without a comprehension of the sociological dynamics of that world, our understanding… is terribly superficial at best and woefully mistaken at worst.”[5] The most crucial need for the reader of the New Testament, then, is to be able to bridge the cultural and time gap between the original (native) context and the reader’s contemporary context. This linguistic and cultural divide can be managed. In advancing a cultural-anthropological reading model, Jerome H. Neyrey argues that one can avoid ethnocentric and anachronistic readings of Paul (and the New Testament) by appreciating the difference between reading him as member of the same culture (an emic reading), and by reading him informed by the analytical and descriptive works of specialists and ethnographers (an etic reading).[6] As one gets closer to this “emic reading,” the modern reader comes closer to better appreciate the symbolic universe of Paul’s and Jesus’ culture.[7] The goal here is to gain a realistic perception from “native informants” which can illustrate and contextualize patronage as a Greco-Roman phenomenon.[8]

The presentation to follow will demonstrate how significant the social form of patronage was in the daily life of the Greco-Roman world, it will outline the vocabulary of patronage in Latin and Greek primary sources, it will sharpen this outline to differentiate between political and social patronage, and then offer a realistic scenarios that can illuminate reading the New Testament in its social and cultural world.

Daily Significance of Patronage

In modern analogy, patronage was like an ancient informal “welfare system.” Social services, like the modern model of the United States, would have been quite foreign. Instead, patronage was a cultural phenomenon in which there was a reciprocal relationship between the upper class and the lower class. It benefited lower classes with protection and patronage by means of reasonable support (legal, financial, medical, marital, etc.) for public support, the running of errands, odd jobs, escorting through streets, and providing social honor in exchange (a return). In exchange for the daily allowance (sportula), the client was at the patron’s call. Thus, it was a form of social investment between patron-client; interestingly, even slaves of wealthy households were known to have clients who hoped the slave could use their influence upon their master.[9] Greco-Roman and Christian scholarship is unequivocal about the daily and social significance of the patron-client network of relationships.[10]

Martial, in his colorful Epigrams, clocks what city life was like in the urbs (4.8.1-4): “The first and second hours wear out clients greeting their patrons.” The imagery evokes the crushing nature of the daily dependence of clients upon their patronus. A step further, Juvenal shows how important this allowance of money was for the everyday professional and collegia with his sarcastic words in the Satires (1.95-126):

For no deity is held in such reverence amongst us as Wealth; though as yet, O baneful money, thou hast no temple of thine own; not yet have we reared altars to Money in like manner as we worship Peace and Honour, Victory and Virtue, or that Concord that clatters when we salute her nest.[11]

This fits the common view that the patron-client phenomena were important to the daily life of every social stratum of the Greco-Roman world. To this point, Jérôme Carcopinodescribes that whether employed or unemployed, freedman or the parasite do-nothing, aristocrats or lower plebeians, clients “were no sooner out of bed than they were in the grip of the duties inseparable from being a ‘client.’ […] there was no man in Rome who did not feel himself bound to someone more powerful above him by the same obligations of respect, or, to use the technical term, the same obsequium.”[12] This honor-bound relationship allowed those in various professions and collegia to survive by means of this small daily “dole as their main source of revenue.”

Patronage in Latin and Greek Sources

Extant Greek and Latin sources (literary and epigraphic) speak of patronage, benefaction, and euergetism (good-doing) from political and social perspectives. Ideas such protection, assistance, help, advocacy, and philanthropy appear. Consider the following samples. It seems that patronage was initially borne out of political power and civic duty, but that distinction apparently broke down over time into a social network between the upper and lower classes in the Greco-Roman world among the rich, the poor, the freedman and freedwoman.[13]

The Roman historian Livy stretches back about four centuries to the early Roman Republic and recounts the story of Cincinnatus, the famed aristocratic plebeian consul, turn poor plebeian farmer, turn dictator, turn savior of Roman (History of Rome 3.26-29). According to Livy, his actions as dictator were reciprocated with honor and status. Livy frames (stylizes?) the response of the army as recognizing “the benefit [beneficii] they had received at his hands,” honored him with a golden crown, and “saluted him as their protector [patronum salutaverit]” (History of Rome 3.29.3). They had become his “clients,” and Cincinnatus would use this social bond to his advantage to “clear” the charges against his son Caeso who was on the run for charges of murder. The protector of Rome, then, returned his powers of dictator and returned to the rustic farm life. Later, when Augustus consolidates his power, Tacitus recounts his use of “gratuities” (donis) among the military and the poor (Annals 1.2). Michael Grant[14] interprets this as Augustus letting “it be understood that the old institution of patrons and clients had been recast, so that henceforward all the people were his own, personal clients, including the poorest citizens.” Thus, as principis Augustus and the emperors after him would portray (politically?) to the citizens of Rome and its subjects a bond of reciprocal loyalty.

Greek sources also illuminate various aspects of patronage. In the fifth century BCE, Sophocles frames the tragic Oedipus as gratefully exchanging protection from Thebes and “help [prostátisi] of the dread goddesses” who reigns in their districts, with obtaining “a great savior [sōtēr’] for this city, and troubles for my enemies” in him (Oedipus at Colunus 455-460). The Apocrypha[15] likewise points to the political upheavals in the Maccabean storyline connected to concepts of patronage. In 2 Maccabees, Simon slanders Onias, who is designated “a plotter against the government the man who was the benefactor [tòn euergétēn] of the city, the protector [tòn kēdemóna] of his compatriots, and a zealot for the laws” (4:2).[16]

In 3 Maccabees 3:13-29, “King Ptolemy Philopater” declares to his “generals and soldiers” that despite his goodwill (philanthrōpía), a desire to do good (eū poiēsaí), and to honor (timēsai) in the Jewish temple (3:15-17), the Jews “manifest ill-will toward us” and are “the only people among all nations who hold their heads high in defiance of kings and their own benefactors [euergétais], and are unwilling to regard any action as sincere” (3:19). The accommodative and benevolent king (philanthrópōs 3:20) declares that such rebellious Jews should be arrested, bound, and deported and that any who harbor them should be severely punished (3:25-29). Eventually, Philopator descends upon the Jews but is subdued by two angels. The king breaks down to pity and tears, and blames and threatens his “friends” (toís phílois):  “You are committing treason and surpassing tyrants in cruelty; and even me, your benefactor [euergétēn]” (6:24).

Political and Social Patronage in Rome

In the Greco-Roman world of the first century CE, there appears to be evidence distinguishing between political and social patronage. This can be confusing since sources often use terms like benefactor, euergetes, and patron in the process of discussion. The masculine form of the Greek prostát– (see verbal use above for “help”) is somewhat problematic. It is often considered synonymous with the Latin patronus. Interestingly, the New Testament the feminine form προστάτις is used in Romans 16:2 and translated as patron and benefactor (ESV; NIV, NRSV, HCSB). Erlend D. MacGillivray[17] takes exception to the view that these two forms are completely synonymous. The masculine appears in both Attic Greek and in the Roman Empire and carries both legal and a variety of leadership benefaction roles, but not the feminine form. MacGillivray argues that applying the masculine meaning upon prostátis is exegetically problematic for this reason. Benefaction is in view, but one must distinguish between political patronage from some interpersonal social networking.

MacGillivray argues that understanding prostátis depends, then, upon understanding the fluid nature of ancient Mediterranean reciprocal dynamics, recognizing the patron-client model is far too limiting and misleading. There is a difference between the narrow and nuanced meaning of classical patronage and the broad euergetistic/altruistic benefaction. While epigraphical gratitude evidence shows that prostátis and prostátes imply civic prestige, the nature of the evidence is, however, often weak to force synonymity. Part of the problem stems from the near normative templates in honorary Greco-Roman epigraphs that do not always neatly distinguish between the various kinds of patronage. Thus, the presence of these terms do not prove exclusively a classical patronage/patronus; consequently, MacGillivray’s work argues that prostátis and prostátes are not demonstrably synonymous.

R. A. Kearsley[18] extends this trajectory and explores several first century CE gratitude (honorarium) inscriptions shedding light on the first-century distinction between political and social patronage. These aristocratic women are named, Iunia Theodora and Claudia Metrodora, and are celebrated as female benefactors/patrons who operated in mid-first century CE Asia Minor. The cities of Lycia (Myra, Patara, Tel-messos) recount the influence of Theodora. Theodora apparently had multiple-citizenships, she freely shared her wealth, applied influenced for political and commercial purposes, and is described consistently in benefactor terms (sōphronōs, philolúkios) in Lycia. Such amounts to Theodora functioning as a social benefactor. On the other hand, Metrodora of Chiot Island likewise held multiple-citizenships, did hold political office as magistrate (stephanephoros), which required benefaction toward the people although she surpassed such requirements. She functioned in banquets, directed imperial games, gymnasiarch, public bathhouse donation, basileia in Ionia, and was praised for her public virtue. She was a benefactor as part of holding office.

Realistic Patronage Scenarios for Reading the New Testament

The above illustrations provide insight into the deep and ancient tradition of patronage and how such played out in various settings. There are two passages where patronage vocabulary is explicitly found in the New Testament.

First, in Luke, the political aspect of patronage is evident in Jesus’ counter-intuitive teaching on greatness. Jesus corrects the “greatness debate” among the disciples by saying,

“The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors [euergétai]. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves” (22:25-26).

Frederick W. Danker observes, euergétai “served as a title for rulers in Syria and Egypt… In many cases the title would conceal tyranny under extravagant expenditure” (cf. Greek Esther 16:2-3, 13-14).[19] One might argue that Jesus is taking for granted a political euergétai known to abuse such roles, and parts from the fundamental principle of the patron-client relationship: “a service performed or a favor done shall not be transformed into status and honor.”[20] Jesus’ leadership principle, then, is that one serves detached from the demands of reciprocity and the honor and status it brings (cf. Acts 10:38).[21]

Second, in Romans 16:1-2 patronage appears to have a social component. Paul commends Phoebe to the church as “a servant of the church at Cenchreae” and as one who should be helped —reciprocally— “for she has been a patron [prostátis] of many and of myself as well.” Caroline F. Whelan[22] relates this passage to the context of Roman reciprocal social conventions within associations (collegia). Whelan maintains that women not only had the Roman legal standing to operate their wealth independently of guardians, they also functioned as civic patrons for collegia. Secondly, comparable “recommendation” letters reveal two types of reciprocal relationships. There is the superior-inferior recommendation rhetoric, and two, the social-equals recommendation rhetoric; each reflecting in some sense the inherent nature of reciprocity in Rome’s social structure, the matrix of which fuses together the economic and social. Romans 16:1-2, then, points to one of these realistic scenarios. Whelan argues that the patronage between social equals (amica, friends) is probably in view. Phoebe needs Paul’s influence among those addressed in Romans 16 (thus the recommendation), but as “equals” such rhetoric is not for his own social benefit. Instead, it is a gesture of gratitude for her own social activity as a social patron (euergetistic) to the collegia of the church in Cenchrea.

Conclusion

Robert Wilken asserts: “We have a distorted view of the history of early Christianity… The historian of Christianity has given the impression that the rest of the canvas is simply background for the closeup —relegating the general history of the times to an introductory chapter of vague generalities.”[23] Hopefully, this paper provides a closer, native (emic) reading. The smaller the cultural and linguistic gap is, the more accurate the reading. May this paper accomplish its task, to gain realistic perceptions from primary sources which can illustrate and contextualize patronage as an important Greco-Roman imperial phenomenon.

Endnotes

  1. David A. deSilva, “Honor and Shame,” “Patronage,” DNTB 518-22, 766-71; Donald Walker, “Benefactor,” DNTB 157-59; Halvor Moxnes, “Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts, ed. J. H. Neyrey (1991; repr., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 241-68; Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 66-69.
  2. Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World (Louisville: John Knox, 1981), 80.
  3. Ralph P. Martin, “Approaches to New Testament Exegesis,” in New Testament Interpretation, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 220-51.
  4. Albert A. Bell, Jr., Exploring the New Testament World (Nashville: Nelson, 1998), 2.
  5. M. Robert Mulholland, Jr., “Sociological Criticism,” in Interpreting the New Testament, eds. David A. Black and David S. Dockery (Nashville: B&H, 2001), 171.
  6. Jerome H. Neyrey, Paul, In Other Words (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 13.
  7. Neyrey, Paul, 14-17. Neyrey’s distinctions and concerns have value, but he makes a hardline dichotomy between Paul as one who receives supra-cultural insight (i.e., from God) and Paul as a fully incarnated product of his times (18). This distinction ignores Paul’s stated role from God. This is one of Mulholland’s four critiques of this model, it tends to be human-centered, often grounded in dynamic models foreign to the Roman world, imposes the model on the evidence, and lends itself to sociological reductionism (“Sociological Criticism,” 178-80).
  8. David A. deSilva, The Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretation (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1999). The “native informants” are “our best instructors” (xi).
  9. Bell, Exploring the New Testament World, 191-92.
  10. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 67; Florence DuPont, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, trans. C. Woodall (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993); Micahel Grant, A Social History of Greece and Rome (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1992).
  11. Juvenal, Satire 1.95-126, http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/juv-sat1eng.asp.
  12. Jérôme Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, ed. Henry T. Rowell, trans. E. O. Lorimer (1940; repr., New Haven: Yale University, 1968), 171.
  13. Grant, Social History of Greece and Rome, 30, 54, 70-76, 114-119.
  14. Grant, Social History of Greece and Rome, 75-76.
  15. See also the verbal, and substantival, usages in Wisdom 3:5, 11:5, 13, 16:2, 19:13-14; 2 Macc 8:6; 4 Macc 8:6; Greek Esther 16:2-3 = 8:12c (tōn euergetoúntōn), 13 = 8:12n (euergétēn). Of these sources, Mordecai is framed as sōtēra and euergétēn (cf. God in LXX Psa 12:6, 56:3, 114:7).
  16. Quotations for the Old Testament Apocrypha are taken from New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible (Nashville: Nelson, 1989). The Greek text is from Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996).
  17. Erlend D. MacGillivray, “Romans 16:2, prostátis/prostátes, and the Application of Reciprocal Relationships to New Testament Texts,” NovT 53 (2011): 183-99.
  18. R. A. Kearsley, “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul,” TynB 50.2 (1999): 189-211.
  19. Frederick W. Danker, Jesus and the New Age According to St. Luke (St. Louis: Clayton Publishing, 1979), 222.
  20. Moxnes, “Patron-Client Relations,” 261.
  21. Halvor Moxnes, The Economy of the Kingdom (1988; repr., Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004), 158.
  22. Caroline F. Whelan, “Amica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe in the Early Church,” JSNT 49 (1993): 67-85.
  23. Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University, 1984), xiv.

Bibliography

Bell, Albert A., Jr. Exploring the New Testament World: An Illustrated Guide to the World of Jesus and the First Christians. Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1998.

Carcopino, Jérôme. Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People and the City at the Height of the Empire. Edited by Henry T. Rowell. Translated by E. O. Lorimer. 1940. Repr., New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1968.

Danker, Frederick W. Jesus and the New Age According to St. Luke: A Commentary on the Third Gospel. 1972. Repr., St. Louis, MO: Clayton Publishing, 1979.

deSilva, David A. “Honor and Shame.” DNTB. 518-22.

deSilva, David A. The Hope of Glory: Honor Discourse and New Testament Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1999.

deSilva, David A. “Patronage” DNTB. 766-71.

DuPont, Florence. Daily Life in Ancient Rome. Translated by Christopher Woodall. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

Grant, Michael. A Social History of Greece and Rome. New York, NY: Scribner’s Sons, 1992.

Kearsley, R. A. “Women in Public Life in the Roman East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul.” TynB 50.2 (1999): 189-211.

MacGillivray, Erlend D. “Romans 16:2, prostátis/prostátes, and the Application of Reciprocal Relationships to New Testament Texts.” NovT 53 (2011): 183-99.

Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insight from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta, GA: Knox, 1981.

Moxnes, Halvor. The Economy of the Kingdom: Social Conflict and Economic Relations in Luke’s Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1988. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004.

——-. “Patron-Client Relations and the New Community in Luke-Acts.” Pages 241-68 in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Edited by Jerome H. Neyrey. 1991. Repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.

Mulholland, M. Robert, Jr. “Sociological Criticism.” Pages 170-86 in Interpreting the New Testament: Essays on Methods and Issues. Edited by David Alan Black and David S. Dockery. Nashville, TN: B&H, 2001.

Neyrey, Jerome H. Paul, In Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letters. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1990.

Walker, Donald D. “Benefactor.” DNTB. 157-59.

Whelan, Caroline F. “Amica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe in the Early Church.” JSNT 49 (1993): 67-85.

Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1984.