Do You See What I See? (Part I)
A star, a star,
dancing in the night
With a tail as big as a kite
With a tail as big as a kite"
-Noël Regney
***
Truly He taught us to love one another
His law is love and His gospel is peace
Chains shall He break for the slave is our brother
And in His name, all oppression shall cease
-”O Holy Night” by Adolphe Adam in 1847 to the French poem "Minuit, chrétiens" (Midnight, Christians) written by wine merchant and poet Placide Cappeau (1808–18770).
“Do You Hear What I Hear” centered on hearing the words of New Testament writers contextually. The message dissipates with time and meaning becomes disjointed from the life of the author, the times of the author, and the author’s audience. Frank Wilczek describes hearing as a “time sense” and seeing as a “space sense” in A Beautiful Question (see earlier entry “Touch Me” for more on this). If we exert the effort to occupy the space of the original audience, not only can we see this world more clearly, but we can now hear the words more clearly as well. Positioning ourselves in close proximity to first century Christians fosters understanding, empathy, and, hopefully, revelation.
We are talking about how to read and apply inspired words from a first century Hebrew apostle of Christ to a first century Christ community living in territory governed by Roman authorities and facing threats to the simplicity of the Gospel (as Paul described it), yet providing wisdom for today.
These are the questions I aim to address: who was Paul, what is the Good News, what was the dominant ethos in first century Rome regarding gender and social order, and how did Paul’s missionary strategy navigate assimilation of norms with subversion in order to advance the Good News? At the heart of this is Paul’s experience with Jesus on the Road to Damascus.
Saul heard the words of the teachings and ardently defended them when Christians seemed to threaten his faith as he understood it. If the Christians were right, then he and all like him were culpable in the murder of the Messiah and his followers. If they were right, his anchor of religion and justification before God is undone. Saul heard law, perceived threat as unrighteousness worthy of condemnation and death, and related to others on this basis.
Then Saul encountered Jesus; he saw Him. As in Revelation, John heard one thing and then saw another. John heard that the Lion of Judah would open the scroll. But he did not see a lion; he saw a slain lamb. John encountered Jesus and several times throughout that letter, John hears one thing then sees another. This describes the revelation of Jesus to Saul as well. Saul heard the law his whole life and loved it and was zealous for it; it defined how he related to others. Then he heard Jesus and saw His overpowering light. He saw a living Messiah and not a dead law. Notice the change in Saul from that point on. He no longer persecuted Christians, but served alongside them. He no longer violently or rigidly defended the laws and teachings, but allowed Jesus to use him to shape communities based on mutual love and devotion to Christ. Paul taught that the ritual of circumcision is not binding, the issue is a circumcised heart. Yet, he circumcised Timothy in order for him to assimilate into Jewish culture and effectively spread the Good News. To the church in Corinth he admonished them to relate to each other out of love for Christ and of one another when deciding to eat or not eat meat sacrificed to idols.
Who was Paul? Paul was a student of Gamaliel, who taught his students Greek philosophy as preparation for them to lead in Greek-speaking communities. “Saint Paul's Application of Greek Philosophy” by Alice C. Linsley (Biblical Antrhopology at biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com) : “In addition, Paul absorbed much philosophy while growing up in Tarsus. In his hometown there was an outstanding philosophical academy. The Greek geographer Strabo considered the Tarsus academy to be better than the academies of Athens and Alexandria.” Even in his rabbinical training, Paul’s notion of being “all things to all people” emerges.
As a Pharisee, he was well schooled in the Torah. In fact, he would have memorized it early in life. Pharisees studied the Talmud, or the oral law that aided interpretation of the written law of Torah. Moses was the teacher, and Pharisees modeled themselves after their rabbi. He also believed in a messiah that would restore the world. They believed in a final judgement. They emphasized attention to individual prayer and assemblies. These ideas are evident in Paul’s letters also.
Mitchell G. Bard, TheComplete Idiot's Guide to Middle East Conflicts, NY: MacMillan,1999. Chart courtesy of Prof. Eliezer Segal (from jewishvirtuallibrary.com, “Ancient Jewish History: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes”) provides a succinct description of distinguishing traits of the Pharisees: their social class was of the common people; their authority was “disciples of the wise”; they practiced the application of priestly laws to non-priests; they were selective in appropriation of Hellenism (Sadducees welcomed it); they opposed usurpation of monarchy of Israel; they mostly supported the concept of free-will; they believed in a resurrection; they were not literalists (as were Sadducees) but supported sophisticated scholarly interpretation of the Torah, and equated Oral Torah with Written Torah. The Pharisees gave weight to the Writings and the Prophets, the Sadducees did not. During the Second Temple period, Pharisees and Essenes shared the ideas that the sacred could exist outside of the confines of the Temple.
These ideas give shape to the Paul we know. He addressed common people, he pointed to the examples of teachers, he exhorted all as priests in the Kingdom, he appropriated Greek philosophy to share the Good News, he taught that Messiah was of the line of David, he taught free-will but that the “powers” exert significant influence (thus the Good News of victory of the powers through Jesus- “the good I would do I do not do…who will deliver me from this body of death”), he testified of the resurrection, he used scripture non-literally (example of muzzle the ox referring to teachers and not a literal ox), he cited the Writings and the Prophets as pointing to the Messiah, and Paul described the Presence of God as belonging to all people and not a fixed Temple (removing barriers of access that kept people from the Presence of God).
It is said, regarding Paul’s exposure to Greek philosophy, that many young men of the house of Rabban Gamaliel studied “Greek wisdom” (Sotah 49b), a statement that was much discussed in the medieval debates on the study of philosophy. Gamaliel is also said to have bathed in a bath-house in which there was a statue of Aphrodite (Mishnah AvodahZarah 3:4), which practice he defended on the grounds that the statue was purely decorative and in no way dedicated to the goddess. The Jewish Religion: A Companion, published by Oxford University Press. This latter example sheds light on Paul’s wring to the Corinthians.
From “The Life and Epistles of St. Paul” by W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, Eerdmans. Gamaliel established a number of lenient ordinances, in particular, laws affecting women and non-Jews. He was a Pharisee, but anecdotes are told of him which show that he was not trammeled by the narrow bigotry of the sect. He had no antipathy to the Greek learning. He rose above the prejudices of his party. Our impulse is to class him with the best of the Pharisees, like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea. Candor and wisdom seem to have been features of his character; and this agrees with what we read of him in the Acts 3, that he was “had in reputation of all the people,” and with his honest and intelligent argument when Peter was brought before the council. The teaching and example of Gamaliel may have informed Paul in three ways: candor and honesty of judgment; a willingness to study and make use of Greek authors; and a keen and watchful enthusiasm for the Jewish law (www2gracenotes.info).
Greek philosophy is identifiable throughout Paul’s writing, presumably because his audience was heavily influenced by these thinkers as their ideas permeated the society at large. Some of the philosophers evident in Paul's letters include: Seneca, Epictetus, Aristotle, and Plato. Aristotle’s Politics is crucial to understanding the stratified social structure of ancient Rome. Aristotle and others gave good news to those in power. What was the Good News that Paul introduced to communities of first century Rome? The Good News started with a personal encounter of Christ Jesus.
What is the Good News?
Fear not then, said the Angel
Let nothing you affright
This day is born a Savior Of a pure Virgin bright
Long lay the world in sin and error pining
Till He appeared and the soul felt its worth
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices
for yonder breaks a new and glorious morn
…
To free all those who trust in Him
From Satan's pow'r and might
Oh tidings of comfort and joy Comfort and joy
-from God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen (circa 15th century)
The theology of the Good News is beautifully found in older hymns sung during the Christmas season. In songs like God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen, O Come Emmanuel, Silent Night, and Joy to the World we sing of the Messiah, come to earth to break Satan’s power and restore the world, one heart at a time. Transformed hearts drop all barriers and divisions to unite in love and goodwill for one another out of devotion to Christ Jesus.
The epistles were written in the ancient Roman world (first century) to new Christ followers. These Christ followers accepted the Good News of the Messiah Jesus. It is called (God’s) Good News, the gospel, euaggelion. This is the point of the entire New Testament. What is so good about it and what is the bad news of the present human condition? To understand this, we must see the world as they saw it. The epistles springboard from this position. To attempt to understand gender roles today without understanding what the Spirit was doing then is as anachronistic as Abraham Lincoln listening to an iPhone.
The Good News, as Paul described in his writings, as Jesus demonstrated and taught, looks like something. It has a certain image. As I understand Paul’s writing, he is saying that humans are enslaved to certain “powers.” God spoke to Cain and said “sin seeks to rule over you, but you should rule over it.” To keep it simple, these “powers” include sin (as an entity and not just bad things you do), hostility (including the law), ethnicity/ nationalism, and death. This is all rooted in the first eleven chapters of Genesis, where self-exaltation, sin, hostility, and violence reveal the heart that is not formed by the shema of Deuteronomy 6. The curse subjected us all to the authority of these powers and these keep us add odds with God and with each other. Inherent within the curse was mercy; one day a Messiah will come to break this curse, unseat these powers, and restore His kingdom. In this kingdom, the power of sin is removed, the hostility of the law is undone, ethnic barriers are erased, and death is inert. The peace of God will reign though His Spirit, infusing and transforming humans into New Humans. The life and teaching of Jesus was emblematic of living as New Humans in the New Kingdom. His gospel is a gospel of peace to a world marred in violence and rebellious self worship.
Ethos of first century Rome: social order
Pax Romana also offered peace if you accepted Rome and its system of governance. To some degree, accepting its gods was important also. The persecution of Nero stemmed from blaming Christians for the problems in Rome. Christians dishonored their gods by refusing to sacrifice to them and they were easy targets of blame since they were often poor and foreigners. When things went wrong, they were to blame. They did not worship the Roman gods and they were not accepted as members of Judaism, a well-established religion. Consequently, Christians were considered atheists or rebels- both anathemas to Roman government. Its vastness and overwhelming military prowess made resistance futile and failure to assimilate dangerous. It was a society with strict societal expectations. Elucidated in Aristotle’s Politics and evidenced within Rome, the Roman household was a microcosm of the Roman Empire (or, the home was a microcosm of the government). Unstable, chaotic family units would destabilize Rome. Aristotle addressed the paterfamilias (head of the household), but not the women, children, or slaves. Aristotle established that natural laws made men to rule. Women, children, and slaves were subject “by nature” to be ruled. The satisfaction of the paterfamilias was the primary purpose of the subordinates. He ruled his household as Caesar ruled Rome. All others were subjugated in Roman society.
I do not intend to exhaust this subject. The objective is to present a sketch of the household system of first century Rome, the background of Paul, and note the purpose of Paul’s letters to advance the Good News in this culture.
Book 1 of Politics describes Aristotle’s ideas about ruling principles. Within these ruling principles he puts man at the apex with women, children, and slaves in subordinate roles for the purpose of satisfying a man's daily wants. He outlines his biologic and “natural” derivations of this thought (much of which is unfounded but represented the thinking of the time). The bottom line, men were made to be the rulers. Women were made to be ruled. Wealth created opportunity and influence for women that ordinary women were not afforded. Rarely, such women were in the Senate and involved with the philosophical debates in some capacity. The fate of children and slaves were completely dependent upon being accepted by the head of the household. In fact, after a child was born, if the father did not approach the child and pick it up, it was to be killed or abandoned. To understand Paul’s message of the Good News, it is helpful to compare what he said to a shame-honor society centered on upholding the patriarchy. Reading the Torah from a Hebrew perspective, a narrative perspective, sheds light on the nature of these relationships and the Good News as well.
Remember in Genesis 3, the curse created hostility between man and woman. Before that, man and woman were in covenant relationship. Genesis 1 says that “male and female He created them in His image.” This is before He ever made woman if your read this chronologically or as an historic writing. However, perhaps like the three visions of the apocalypse in Revelation, these are differing perspectives of the same event. In Genesis 2, man’s side is split open by God. The word tsela is found 35 times in Old Testament scripture and is always translated as “side” and used architecturally. This is the only place it is translated as rib. So the literal phrasing, God split the male/ female image of God and made man and woman. God passed between the parts to close them up. The next example of something being split in two is in Genesis 15 when God initiates a covenant with Abraham. Here, God passes between the parts and the covenant is sealed. This paints a picture of covenant relationship. God initiates a covenant between man and woman and later between man and God. Thus, the two commands: to love God, to love Man. In this relationship, neither is ashamed and neither is dominant. Covenant relationship is central to scripture’s answers to the the bad news of the human condition.
Also, the word helper used in Genesis 2 is the same word used of God in Psalm 54:14. Ezer means helper, strength, or savior. Kenegdo refers to complement, or corresponding element. Woman (Eve, which is ‘life’) corresponds to Man (Adam, which is “dust”). The Divine breath of God animating dust and Life form a covenant relationship that resolves the only thing that is “not good”- man alone. This covenant relationship is horribly changed by the curse and these equal parts no longer serve one another in mutual submission but each seeking to dominate the other. This is the human condition of gender hostilities. Genesis 4 sets Mankind off in the direction it will go and the human condition is accurately described. Hostility, jealously, violence, and the need to dominate emerges as the way of life in this world. Ethnic groups are hostile to one another throughout the Hebrew scripture. The law creates enmity between God and man and between man and man (see Ephesians 2). What was true in first century Rome, is true today. What will end this cycle of hostility? There is Good News.
What are the threats to the Message?
The biggest threat to the Good News was that it would be seen as a overt rebellion against Rome or lost through intermingling with other philosophies, thereby forgetting the simplicity of the Gospel (the power of Jesus, not a philosophy). In fact, it was viewed as rebellion for various reasons and Christians were persecuted for it. The Good News of the Messiah having power over hostility, sin and death, restoring mankind to proper relation to God and each other, must not be compromised by assimilation with false teaching or unnecessarily disruptive practices. The community of Christ had to look like the culture externally, to some degree, yet operate from an entirely different internal engine. To this end, Paul addresses the first century Christ followers in Rome.
From Aristotle’s Politics , 1:12 :
Of household management we have seen that there are three parts- one is the rule or the master over a slave, which has been discussed already, another of a father, and a third of a husband. A husband and a father, we saw, rules over his wife and children both free, but the rule differs; the rule over his children being royal, and the rule one his wife is based on natural constitution. For although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female, just as the elder and full-grown is superior to the younger and more immature.
These ideas persist today. In fact, it is hard not to read Darwin’s concept of natural selection in these words. It seems ironic that we contend with Darwinism on one front, but embrace it on another. How does Paul speak to these ideas? Recall in the wrings of Paul how he countered these ideas. To Timothy, “don’t let anyone look down on you because of your youth.” To Philemon, treat Onesimus as a brother. Fathers, do not frustrate your children. Husbands, love your wives in the self-sacrificing way Jesus loves you. Wives, do not despise your husband, but love him. The royal law is the law of love, expressed in mutual submission, governing the Christ communities. This is how unity is formed, not in definitions handed to us by the powers and philosophies, but by the Messiah animating the hearts and minds of His followers in relation to God and to each other. The way of this world, with its shame-honor patriarchy, does not align with the New Kingdom.
Notice the triad of master, father, and husband. Paul addresses these relationships, but in a surprising way. In each pairing, Paul addresses the subordinate first: wife then husband, children then father, slave then master. In Aristotle’s writing, the only party worth addressing is the patriarch. He is the absolute ruler. In Paul’s letter to the Christ communities, he gives worth and dignity to the subordinates- a subversive act in a shame-honor society. It is tantamount to saying that the we are ruled by someone other than Caesar. These subordinates are not inferior in the New Kingdom, but active participants in the household of the Messiah. To these, the Good News is that you have a part to play in the New Kingdom. Seeing Jesus is the message. Paul’s writings encourage the communities to reflect the Imago Dei of Philippians 4.
This is a dangerous social experiment because it stands in opposition to the order of Roman society. Male and female, Greek and Jew, slave and free, eating at the table together a equals. At what point do you draw your line and say, no this line of enmity remains? The equestrian washed the feet of the slave. Women instructed men in “the more perfect way.” Aristotle addressed barbarians as those nature assigned to be ruled, yet Paul equates them to Greeks. This fits the whole narrative of the Book. All nations and people blessed and restored under the headship of Jesus the Messiah. Our new relationships will look more like the Garden, no more curse, no more struggle to dominate one another. Mankind is in covenant with each other, as equal partners, and in covenant with God, partners in tending to His good world.
There is danger that seeds of disrespect will take root in this new type of community. How will this social experiment look to the Greek and Roman neighbors? Who rules the household and community? Paul writes about maintaining a good reputation and not giving cause for anyone to speak evil against you or blaspheme in his letters. Misbehavior and chaos would harm the reputation of the entire movement and dishonor Christ. What is Paul’s strategy for proclaiming the Good News in a way that both adopts cultural norms and adapts them to advance the Gospel; to subvert and yet assimilate?
How did Paul navigate the tension of being an exile, a pilgrim, a stranger in a foreign land? From his training under Gamaliel, he sought to understand the culture in which he would be placed. Using the ideas of the culture, he found launching points for the message of the Good News. Like the slave rebellion in which Romans crucified 40 people, the way could not be overt rebellion. The way of the Good News, as Paul taught, was to accept the culture in which you find yourself and yet function from your position in the Kingdom. To Timothy, it meant circumcision. To the Gentile church, it meant no need to circumcise. To some it meant do not eat meat sacrificed to idols. To others it was ok. In Corinth, women prophesied, but they were instructed to do so in a culturally sensitive manner. The determining factor was not a law, but love. The royal law of Aristotle was one of power and rank. The royal law of Paul was of love and mutual submission. This is how a unified body grows, mutual submission and submission to its source, Jesus (love of God and love of each other again).
There are many examples of women of influence and status within the early church and old testament scripture. Women of God were both bold leaders and quiet servants. Just like the men. In Part II, I will provide a summary of some of the contentious writings of Paul and examine the themes, the concerns addressed, and how this all points to Jesus. If we read the writings of Paul, and they do not look like Jesus or His Kingdom, then our eyes are not on Jesus. Paul’s apocalypse reoriented his vision of the world. He was blinded, but in blinding him, Jesus gave him sight. The letters of Paul are writing to this end: call Christ communities to bring the light of Jesus to their culture. Seeing, as a “space sense”, allows us to occupy the space of Christ and invites others to do the same. As Paul occupied Christ space and the heavens were peeled back, so too we take Christ to the world. To see the light of Christ, others must not only hear, they must see Jesus in us. The Good News is not like the old news of the curse. The wisdom of Paul’s writings challenge us to assimilate the cultural norms, but be ruled by the power of the risen Christ and not the powers of the air. In an egalitarian society, it is not only reasonable (and I would contend more scripturally accurate) for the church to look like the culture, it is a barrier to the Message if we look more like Aristotle and less like Jesus.
