The last couple of weeks, I’ve been posting lessons for The Story, as part of my church’s adult Bible classes. I wanted to finish the lessons through the end of the semester, so that I’d not be trying to write curriculum while recovering from surgery. (I have an L5-S1 fusion scheduled for October 29.)
Well, I’m done, and I did not forget that we’ve been considering Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible
We can now move to chapter 7 regarding the Roman system of patronage. As is so often the case in a society, the most important rules are the unwritten rules, the ones that are too obvious to put into legislation. And part of the Roman culture that is understood, not explained, was patronage.
The authors offer this example —
Imagine a young baker named Marcus in the town of Philippi. Marcus learned to bake bread from his father. The family business stretched back to the founding of Philippi five generations back. Marcus’s family was, consequently, one of the founding members of the bakers’ guild. A hundred years ago, his ancestor had retired from the Roman army-he had baked bread for the army of Octavius Augustus during the glorious victory over Anthony. As a reward, his family, which had originated in the province of Lydia in Asia Minor, had been given Roman citizenship and land in Philippi. He had a true tripartite Roman name: Marcus Augustus Lydia.
When his father was young, Vesta (the goddess of fire and the protector of bakers) became angry and a fire destroyed the family bakery. Marcus’s father went to a wealthy widow, a cloth merchant who was also from the province of Lydia, to seek help. Julia Lydia loaned his father the money to rebuild the bakery. Thus began an enduring relationship. Today, Marcus sells all his bread to Lydia, including all the members of her extended household, which covers an entire city block of Philippi, plus all her other “friends” (the various merchants with whom Lydia does business). These customers give Marcus all the business he and his young sons can handle. He sells his bread at a reasonable price and his family makes a good (though modest) living. Lydia ensures that no one takes advantage of anyone else.
(Kindle Locations 1773-1776).
Roman society was highly stratified. It was unlikely that a poor person would become rich or that a rich person would become poor. Sons took on the trade of their fathers. Wealth and prestige passed from generation to generation. There were exceptions, of course, but they were rare.
However, the rich were considered to have a duty to those lower in the social hierarchy. They surrounded themselves with people for whom they’d done favors (“clients”). In a sense, by collecting a large group of loyal clients, they proved themselves to be good Romans and built up their honor and prestige.
The patron helped the client purely as a matter of charis, that is, grace. There was absolutely no legal obligation to help anyone. Moreover, the gifts that were given and the favors that were done did not require any response at all.
But it was expected, not required, that the person benefited would respond with pistis, that is, faithfulness or loyalty. They would speak well of their patron and be ready to serve the patron when called on to do so. They were not obligated to do anything for the patron, but it would be unthinkable not to return charis with pistis. Pistis is, of course, typically translated “faith” in the New Testament, although it’s sometimes translated “faithfulness.”
The patron-client relationship was defined, not by law, but by a relationship of gratitude and commitment to one another arising from doing favors for each other.
Thus, the authors urge us to think of our relationship with God more in terms of relationship than rules —
When relationships are the norming factor in the cosmos, we should expect exceptions.
In the ancient world, rules were not expected to apply 100 percent of the time. Israel did not keep the rules and God complained about it, but we often gloss over the reality that the rules had been broken for centuries. The covenant, however, was broken only when it became clear that the relationship was over (e.g., Hos 1:9). The end came when the relationship, not the rules, was broken.
(Kindle Locations 1816-1818). Ah! That’s a critically important observation. It’s not just a matter of God running out of patience — as though we are damned when God’s finite patience expires. It’s true, of course, that God is patient with us and that his patience can expire — but it expires based, not on how much patience God has, but based on when the relationship is severed.
This patron-client pattern also helps us better understand the meaning of “faith.” The 16th Century Reformation understanding that colors much of modern evangelical Christianity is that “faith” is what we believe, whereas Paul saw faith as defining a relationship formed on grace — a relationship in which the client takes on a voluntary obligation to serve his patron out of gratitude for favors done.
“Faith” is not just believing that Jesus is the Messiah, in the sense of “I believe in ghosts.” Rather, it’s believing that Jesus is the Messiah in the sense that “I believe in my wife” — meaning I believe in her integrity and commitment to promises made — and so I respond to her faithfulness with faithfulness.
To believe that Jesus is the Messiah is to believe that he is King of the Universe, and this implies a duty to submit and be loyal — but also a realization that he became King of Universe by paying the ultimate price for my sins.
Jesus offers charis — and he took the first step. I response with pistis, which is much, much more than believing that he died for me or believing that he is the Messiah. It’s all that plus a pledge of faithfulness. After all, we are saved by the faithfulness of Jesus, and so we are faithful to him.
What does faithfulness require? Well, it changes, you know, based on life circumstances and what I have to offer. It’s not easily defined by rules, because I can withhold nothing from my Savior. It’s about relationship, not rules, not there are no rules in a relationship.
As the authors point out, the result is a relationship that isn’t fully defined by rules. Yes, there are rules, but the rules aren’t the entirety of how the patron and client relate to each other. Rather, the rules give only the broadest outline, and the details work themselves out based on what the patron asks and what the client needs and has to offer.
As a result, the relationship is not broken merely by breaking the rules. Rather, when the relationship is destroyed is more a question of the heart. Obedience to the rules is, of course, an important indicator of one’s heart, but there’s no one-to-one correspondence.
Hence, Saul could sin in relatively minor ways (offering a sacrifice rather than waiting on Samuel, showing mercy to a defeated king) and be rejected by God for a hard heart, whereas David could sin in dreadful ways (adultery, murder) and yet find grace and forgiveness when he repents.
In short, God is not a rulebook and not a code of laws. God is a person who enters into relationships with his people because he wants to. And those relationships have certain rules, but the rules point toward the heart, because real relationships are matters of the heart, not merely adherence to rules.
Very interesting insight
This is similar to the Hippocratic oath which contains, “To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art; and that by my teaching, I will impart a knowledge of this art to my own sons, and to my teacher’s sons, and to disciples bound by an indenture and oath according to the medical laws, and no others.”
Thanks for mentioning that G-d is more than just laws.
Jay,
Your last couple paragraphs made me think of baptism. Some folks today think it’s a requirement for our eternal salvation. A rule that must be obeyed. Other folks today think of it as an act of public proclamation of our relationship with Jesus Christ, an ebeneezer on our lifelong spiritual journey, and our first act of obedience to God.
Applying your argument in this blog post to baptism, I’m inclined to say that our immersion is not a rule God requires us to adhere to, but rather our voluntary act of love in response to our grace-filled relationship with God.
ZBZ,
You mean my relationship with God might actually transcend ritualistic rule keeping? As though God might have higher goals in mind? Really??? Are you some kind of a change agent? The next thing you know, you’ll think God doesn’t damn those who worship him with all their hearts using guitars.
“In short, God is not a rulebook and not a code of laws. God is a person who enters into relationships with his people because he wants to. And those relationships have certain rules, but the rules point toward the heart, because real relationships are matters of the heart, not merely adherence to rules.”
True, but there is only one true relationship humans can have with God , Creator, and creation .
Worshiped, and worshiper, Master, and slave.
If the creation truly worships the creator to the point of slavery as Paul said we should, we will do all in our power to obey his every command. Or as you put it his rules. I do believe baptism was one of those commands.
We can’t pick and choose, whether we obey or not. and it is a matter of the heart, but even the heart can’t lie to God, and get away with it. You can’t tell God you are giving your all, and only give part. I believe Ananias, and his wife was an example of what happens to those who try.
Since the beginning of man (who god created ) and angels before man tryed to prove they were equal to or maybe even greater than God. Lucerfer as far as I know was the first. and he has put it in the minds of men ever since his attempt to prove himself equal failed. But if anything can be said about Satan, he is not a quitter.
He not only claimed equality himself, but told man Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (ye shall be as gods)
Paul warns about this in his talk with Timothy.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
(well we don’t really have to do everything God tells us to do, he loves us, he is such a pushover)
We have actually become to believe those lies pushed by Satan, we would be well served to reject such things. The theory goes this way Jesus is equal in every way to God the creator. The bible tells us we shall share in Jesus’ reward, therefore equality abounds. Jesus is equal to God, we are equal to Jesus, what does that make us, equal to God of course.
“there are no rules in a relationship.”
As the authors point out, the result is a relationship that isn’t fully defined by rules. Yes, there are rules, but the rules aren’t the entirety of how the patron and client relate to each other. Rather, the rules give only the broadest outline, and the details work themselves out based on what the patron asks and what the client needs and has to offer.
I don’t believe this was taken from the book of Job.
“Hence, Saul could sin in relatively minor ways (offering a sacrifice rather than waiting on Samuel, showing mercy to a defeated king) and be rejected by God for a hard heart, whereas David could sin in dreadful ways (adultery, murder) and yet find grace and forgiveness when he repents.”
Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.
Psa 110:1 [[A Psalm of David.]] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
(David not only acknowledged to the LORD his transgressions , but also the blood of Jesus as his savior , Just as we are required to do today))
Hbr 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Hbr 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
I don’t see any difference in the redemption of David, from the redemption of Laymond.
We both were redeemed by faith in God, and the blood of Christ.
If you’ve ever experienced a rule (or law) that you had trouble complying with, you know that rule keeping in of itself won’t ever cause compliance. You will sneak around and break the rule, pretend the rule doesn’t apply to you, find excuses that excuse you from keeping the rule, or just outright break the rule. That’s the best rule keeping can do. That’s an outright lesson from Romans. But a relationship is a link between two that can change the heart. You may be changed from the inside and often without your conscious self even realizing that change has occurred. That is, until you suddenly realize that you have been complying successfully and fully without consciously trying to keep the rule. The relationship has changed you whereas you yourself were unable to affect the change that you desired. That’s God. That’s Jesus. That’s the Holy Spirit.
Doug,
Thanks. I wish I’d said that. Very well put.
Jay, and Doug, are you saying that if you don’t like God’s rules, just keep doing them and you will get used to it. Is that obeying God out of love or habit. Well keep on doing that, and maybe God won’t notice that it is just a habit. I don’t recall any of God’s rules that weren’t for my own benefit . I trust that God’s rules are looking out for me. I believe that is what many people do when they attend church. They attend out of habit, not public worship/ praise of God.
Laymond,
My wife insists that I throw away my drink cans, but she won’t divorce me if I don’t. And yet I clean up my own cans (most of the time). Why? Well, not because of the rule and fear of her wrath — rather, it’s the pleasure that comes from doing things that please someone I love.
But it’s also true that I know there are times when it’s okay not to clean up my own cans, such as while I’m recovering from back surgery. I can leave my Diet Coke cans out because I know that the “rules” are truly rules, but they don’t define our relationship and thus should be interpreted and applied in relational terms. Because I know she loves me, too, I know she’ll not make me tear out my stitches and hurt myself throwing away drink cans.
I’ve suggested to her that we really should write all this down, so that I know exactly when it’s okay to leave my drink cans out — so that I never risk her wrath and retribution. But, of course, you know I’m not being serious because people who love each other work these things out, with a great deal of grace going in both directions. That is, even if she and I sometimes disagree on when I must throw away my own cans, we’ll remain happily married and in relationship. That’s grace. And pistis.
Because she loves me, she extends me grace. Because I love her, I try to be faithful — and try to follow the rules — all the while interpreting the rules in light of our relationship, and not as geometric axioms that admit of no exceptions or stretching.
Laymond,
I did not say that. What I said was God and Doug in relationship can produce more compliance to what God desires in Doug’s life than Doug could ever produce on his own. When Doug tries to do it on his own, he is in essence taking over God’s role in Doug’s life. , The creature replacing the creator, that is idolatry. If one takes away God’s role in one’s life, are they not practicing idolatry?
Jay, some rules are not really rules at all, just suggestions. “pick up your cans, or look like a pig” is a suggestion. but if your wife is anything like mine there are real rules in our marriage. going out with other women is one I would not push, if I expected to maintain our relationship. Ignoring her wants and needs is another (and there are others) . And when Jesus tells me to be baptized, I won’t push against that either. and ignoring God’s commands is like ignoring his wants, and needs.
If he didn’t want or need you to do something, he would not have commanded it.
“When Doug tries to do it on his own, he is in essence taking over God’s role in Doug’s life”
I totally disagree, when you do what God wants, you are completing God’s role in your life..
God won’t be in your life, without your help.