Exodus 21:6 and the textual difficulty – how the Septuagint solves a textual confusion

The two different readings of the text “bring him to the judges” and “bring him to God” in Exodus 21:6 show two different manuscript traditions. Different readings like this show not only the odd state of Hebrew Bible text critical studies, but also provide a possible original meaning that led to the two different texts.

The Hebrew text of Exodus 21:6 is difficult for a few reasons. These reasons caused several manuscript traditions to change it to try and clarify or “fix” the difficulty. This can be seen through the logic of the Hebrew Bible and its surrounding documents in the Ancient Near East that are available.

The first reason that Exodus 21 creates problems is that it is a law code. As it is a law code, the traditions are often seen as far older than the remainder of the text. The text, of course, was not written as it was happening (diary type literature did exist, but the book of Exodus clearly is not one). Rather, Exodus was written at the very earliest after the entire narrative was complete. As such, the law codes were present before (and perhaps for quite a long time before) the rest of the text. Therefore, we do not know if it was from the exact time period of the rest of the text or if it is an older tradition preserved with a newer framework. Further, law codes are lists of laws often without much elaboration. Here we have a point law about slavery without a clear explanation of exactly what that entails.

The more important confusion comes in when the context itself is considered. The text reads,

“But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, my children; I will not go out free’, then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.” (Exodus 21:5-6)

Note the text says that one should bring him to God. What does that mean? One would assume, in the book of Exodus, that it must have something to do with the tabernacle, tent of meeting, or some connection to the central worship center. However, where this text gets confusing is the discussion about bringing him to the door or doorpost. What does this suggest? The fact that there are two options makes it seem that there is no single place where the master should take the slave. Later generations must have been confused – if one is to take the slave to the location of God (later the temple), why is it not specific? What is one supposed to do? How is that taking him to God?

The question is even more confusing with the use of doorposts in the Hebrew Bible. Doorposts are commonly associated with religious connotations, but not the door of the temple. Instead it is the door of one’s own house.[1] Consider Deuteronomy 6:4 (one of the key texts in the whole Hebrew Bible) –

“Hear O Israel, the Lord your God, the Lord is one…And these words I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and the frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on our gates.” (Deut. 6:4, 6-9)

The doorpost here is clearly seen in one’s own house rather than on a single community location. This had led to many questions – is this a ceremony done in one’s house or done in the tabernacle? If it were in one’s house, it would suggest a more personal way of being religious than was previously considered in the Hebrew Bible. If it were in the tabernacle, then this would be a previously unknown locale at the tabernacle and would indicate a special significance to a spot that is otherwise unknown.

Cyrus Gordon has argued that the surrounding culture had a very similar ceremony to the practice of a slave oath, which was found in the household. Gordon noted that the Nuzi tablets, dating back to as early as the 18^th century B.C.E. (though probably closer to the 14^th-16^th) indicate a type of dedication ritual in one’s house. Text H V 52 reads as follows:

“And the judges said to Akkapu: ‘Take the oath of the gods (ilani) against the witnesses.’ And (this is) the declaration of Akkapu. Before the judges he replies (?): ‘I struck Akapshenni’ Akkapu was afraid of the gods. Akapshenni won the case.”

Gordon points out that there is clearly an oath to the gods one takes in legal cases as proof of the veracity of the statements. What is most striking is the word ilani used for gods here. There is a much more common term used for gods generally in Akkadian that is not used here. This term is the term for household gods – indicating a household ritual.[2]

Other scholars have noted that there is at least a little evidence from the Ancient Near East that the door of the temple could be used ritually. Charles Fensham considers the Laws of Eshnunna (a text that might be roughly as old as the Nuzi tablets) for this collaboration. The Law of Eshnunna 36-37 reads: “The owner of the house shall swear for him an oath in the gate of the temple Tishpak.”[3] Here, is nearly the lone reference to the gate of the temple having a ritual function, but it is possible.

The solution of some manuscripts was to interpret this as a corporate rather than a household phenomenon. The Septuagint reads, “to the judges of God.” The Aramaic Targum Onkelos simply reads “to the Judges.” The Syriac also has this reading. In all of these cases, the translator has moved the ritual out of the household without question to solve confusion. If one must go to the judges, then it is clear that he or she will not be doing it in one’s own home.

There is no way to finally prove which reading is best, but the principle of difficulty leads an interpreter to follow the reading of “to God.” The Hebrew text of bringing him to God at the doorpost clearly is confusing (see discussion above). Given that, it is unlikely someone might have changed it to make it more confusing by introducing it. Probably the later editors saw this confusion and attempted to solve it by simply changing the reading “to the judges” rather than “to God.” It is possible, as E. Meyer points out that the corporate cult, as it became more organized, was threatened by the household ritual and thus attempted to change it to the corporate.[4]

Cyrus Gordon significantly notes that it is very possible that this passage reflects the reading “bringing him to gods” rather than god. The Hebrew term Elohim clearly makes this possible etymologically. Gordon argues that given this code does not appear anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible (note that in the version in Deut. 15:17, the “to God” is deleted to solve the problem), it came from the Ancient Near East when monotheism was not expressed in the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, what is being discussed are these household gods who would have a ritual in one’s own home.[5] This is a hard point to prove here, but if it were true, it would provide another stimulus for the Septuagint, Targums, and other texts to avoid correct this strange passage.

The implications of this reading does suggest an early view of household ritual that did fall out of favor later in the tradition as the temple cult went on the rise. This text might give some insight into that early world and provides a new context for where and how the household functioned in the early days of the religion of Ancient Israel.[6]

---

[1] Another key “doorpost” moment in the Hebrew Bible is found in the Exodus from Egypt where the people put the blood of the lamb on the lintel of their door. Note that once again, it is one’s personal house rather than a single location of the community.

[2] Gordon, Cyrus, “Elohim in its reputed meaning of rulers, judges” Journal of Biblical Literature, 54 (3) 1935, 139-144.

[3] Fensham, F. Charles, “New Light on Exodus 21:6 and 22:7 from the laws of Eshnunna” Journal of Biblical Literature, 78 (2), Je 1959, 160-161.

[4] Meyer summarized well in Gordon, “Elohim in its reputed meaning,” 139-140.

[5] Gordon, “Elohim in its reputed meaning” 139-144.

[6] The term Ancient Israel is used with the recognition that for the period before Joshua, they were not truly “Israelites,” but it is likely that the books that are preserved for us were compiled and finished when they were self defining as being in the land and belonging to it.

Review of Elaine Pagels, Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, & Politics in the Book of Revelation

Elaine Pagels, Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, & Politics in the Book of Revelation. New York : Viking Penguin, 2012. 246 pages. $27.95.

Elaine Pagels’s new book discusses not only the content and purpose of the Apocalypse of John, but the significance of the Apocalypse of John for the several centuries after it was written, how it came to be included in the canon, and its interpretation and use in new contexts. As with the majority of Pagels’s monographs, this book is written to be very accessible to a large audience without sacrificing scholarly integrity.[1] Pagels’s greatest contribution to the study of the Apocalypse is found in focusing less on the writing of the Apocalypse (and thereby steeping the study in Jewish Apocalyptic literature) but rather the reading of it in its own context and several centuries following its original publication.

Pagels begins, in chapter 1, describing the culture surrounding the apocalypse and what caused the original composition. She focuses on the social world of the text and places it within the context of Asia minor. After the seeming failure of the Jewish revolt, the expectation was that Christ would come soon to establish his kingdom (thereby explaining both future hope and the seeming delay).[2] The message was particularly poignant in Asia minor where the government had built lavish temples after Octavian defeated Antony (when the government in Asia minor had sided with Antony, it quickly built many temples to the benefit of Octavian to gain favor).[3] The excess of temples and Greek religion in Asia minor might well have caused John[4] to write the anti-Roman propaganda leading toward the perfect peace of messianic expectation.

The end of the first chapter presents the meaning of the text of the Apocalypse in its own context. Pagels has a relatively standard discussion of the imagery of cosmic battle with the government borrowing from the Jewish Apocalyptic tradition. Pagels focuses on Ezekiel and Daniel as helpful sources for this extrapolation.[5] Pagels does not go into all of the fine details of the borrowed imagery as her presentation of the book is not the causes and sources for writing, but the effect of the reading of the text. 

Her second chapter argues that in its context, the Apocalypse was written not as much opposed to Rome as opposed to alternate prophecies – most notably that of Paul. Pagels, seeing texts as a key to discovering distinct communities, sees this community as a community of Jews who are opposed to Paul’s openness to Gentiles.[6] She further notes that the text clearly is presented as opposed to alternate prophecies (the precise thing Paul claims in Galatians 1).[7]

In order to frame the conversation of the opponent being Paul, Pagels must prove that the opponents to the Gospel are members of the Jesus movement. While she is by no means new in this view, it does run counter to some common characterizations of the apocalyse.[8] The most striking evidence she cites is found in Rev. 2:9 (the supposed letters to the other churches): “I know your affliction and poverty, even though you are rich. I know the slander on the part of those who say they are Jews but are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” Pagels rightly notes that the author does not contrast this with those who say they are Christians but are not. The author of this text probably does not see himself as separate from Judaism. Rather, he is writing about the Jewish messiah whom he believes he has found.[9] The opponents in 2:14 are considered to be within the group already (not external Romans persecuting them).[10]

Pagels argues that the specific challenges mentioned by the author would fit nicely with Paul’s arguments from Galatians, Romans, and 1 Corinthians. The major complaints surround sexual immorality and food laws.[11] The Apocalypse argues against a figure leading the false teaching: “I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols.”[12]  Paul in 1 Corinthians explicitly permitted food sacrificed to idols (though in the right contexts).[13] The argument against sexual immorality makes it seem that Paul would not be the target of the attack as Paul does not argue for rampant sexual misconduct.[14] However, Pagels reminds the reader that the text is presenting itself as preparing readers for a cosmic battle which included a full HRM (holy war as found in books such as Joshua). In that context, sexual abstinence was a standard purity restriction.[15] Thus, Paul’s allowance for sexual activity (1 Cor. 7) would violate this principle – a practice followed by the Qumran community.[16] 

The critique of Rome then is used not as a reaction against government persecution as much as Roman cultural accommodation that the author sees occurring in his own community. The evidence for actual persecution from Rome is notoriously slight at the end of the first century. Some commentators have gone so far as to argue that there was not any persecution and that the conflict was invented by the author to show difference.[17] Pagels builds upon this concept by arguing that Rome is used only insofar as it is the symbol of the gentiles who are infiltrating their pure group.[18]

Pagels then uses her skills in Nag Hammadi and alternate cosmologies to show what an apocalypse would have meant to the readers of this text. She notes that in times of persecution, apocalypses tend to be created as found in early Christianity given the flurry that were created.[19] Apocalypses do not solve the crisis through theological argument but through personal experience – visions and life after death.[20] The reader was invited to be involved in the revelation and it was expected these would be written down (thereby encouraging the readers to have revelations themselves).[21] Citing other Apocalypses from antiquity (“secret books”), the reader is in fact encouraged to have revelations on their own in order to have a personal transformation.[22]

Pagels argues that the use of the Apocalypse changed in the second century when Christianity was persecuted by the Roman authority. Different figures used the Apocalypse in order to justify new and sometimes politically dangerous views. Montanus famously depended on the Apocalypse in order to empower himself and his prophetesses to have their own revelations.[23] Early heresiologists (particularly) further struggled with the Apocalypse as he tried to separate politics from religion.[24] However, others, such as Irenaeus – held it in an awkard position. Irenaeus both opposed the secret gospels with the dangerous conclusions, but felt that the apocalypse explained the situation he was experiencing. To tame the apocalypse, he tied it closely to the Gospel of John (claiming a shared authorship). Further, he tied the Apocalypse to the book of Daniel, introducing concepts such as the Antichrist which presents the idea that right action (the purity rules mentioned above) needed to be paired with right belief – a concept that makes sense to Daniel, but was not an original portion of the Apocalypse of John.[25] All of these innovations, according to Pagels, were due to applying the Apocalypse to attack a group it never intended – Romans who were outside the group.

The final chapter of text argues that the opponents in the apocalypse shifted to heretics after the persecution of the empire ended and that it was from this stimulus that the book became part of the canon of scripture. The apocalypse has no use when there is no tension and persecution. As such, it was beginning to be used less and less until Athanasius of Alexandria used it to argue against the new enemy – Arians and Melitians in the fourth century.[26]

Athanasius directly identified the false teachers in the Apocalypse as the false teachers of his own day. Pagels describes the difficult position of Athanasius and the politics of the fourth century, particularly focusing on the Melitian and Arian controversy. She then describes the social problem of the monastic movement in Egypt and the struggle Athanasius had winning them over (ultimately succeeding with his composition of the Life of Antony).[27] Athanasius then identified the false teachers as spiritually evil and based it upon the Apocalypse.[28] The ironic moment is Athanasius, doing violence to the text by applying to a completely new audience, is closer to the original view of making the opponents insiders than most modern readers who assume the opponents are Romans.

One of the fundamental challenges to the authority of Athanasius was the way the Bible was being used in Egypt. Monks often had diverse libraries which included many of the “secret” books that encouraged diversity in revelatory experience rather than conformity. In order to solve this problem, Athanasius wrote his Festal Letter including a closed canon list, which Pagels argues was the first time the Apocalypse was definitively included in any canon list.[29] Pagels emphasizes that a canon list is not so much written for what should be included as excluded – all the “secret” books were to be discouraged in order that the diversity of religious experience would decrease, and that heresy would therefore decrease.[30]

The Apocalypse is presented at the end of the text in order that it could become the standard work that was written in opposition to all heresies that might try to creep into the text. Further (as with most apocalypses), it does argue at the end of the text that it be sealed and not edited.[31] This then was supposed to be considered for the whole canon and strengthened Athanasius’s argument for conformity.

Pagels’s argument and discussion has much that is helpful. She argues here, much like in her other books that different texts need to be taken seriously as different groups with varying arguments. The diversity she presents continues from the text’s original composition through the fourth century (and an implied continuation throughout history). Some might argue that such a view is overly complex – it is clear that there was vast diversity in the early Jesus movements, but should readers depend that every text implies a separate group? The stronger argument would be one that shows evidence that groups exist like this text. Half of Pagels’s argument avoids this problem. She finds a correlation with a real group that is known in the New Testament who are the opposition of the text (Pauline communities). A stronger argument for her characterization of the view of John of Patmos might have argued for similar corroborating groups (strikingly lacking were discussions of Paul’s opponents at Galatia, Luke-Acts, or the Gospel of Matthew – all of which might create corollary groups, though they would not be the same).

The other problem caused by Pagels is some of her overstatement of a very good idea. She argues that Athanasius was the first to present the Apocalypse definitively on a canon list. While this is formally true, it makes it sound as if the Apocalypse was on the verge of being dismissed until Athanasius saved it in his letter (indeed she nearly states as much).[32] There definitely were canon lists that did not include the Apocalypse and some, such as Eusebius, who had a type of awkward view of it – that it was both one of the “sure books” and one of the “rejected” ones. However, the Apocalypse had been used consistently over the course of the Christian history far before there were canon lists at all.[33] The concept of canon lists (if one excludes the possible early date of the Muratorian canon) is a fourth century invention. Therefore, the fact that the Apocalypse was not included in a list might not be as significant as she intimates. This critique, however, is not to question how Athanasius used the Apocalypse – he surely did include it in a strict canon list as the capstone in order to homogenize Egyptian Christianity behind himself.

In all, this worthy book is highly recommended (with the companion volume of Paul Duff’s Who Rides the Beast?) for students of the Apocalypse and an explanation of how it shifted over time.

---

[1] There are a few moments where an academic reader wishes she would go into further detail and go through the more systematic process of proving her points, but she does cite the relevant sources that do that (some of which were written by her).

[2] Pagels, Revelations, 10.

[3] Ibid., 16.

[4] Pagels, as well as I, do not see this John of Patmos as the Apostle and the connection between the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse cannot be assumed and any connection needs to be proved.

[5] Ibid., 17-32.

[6] Ibid., 45.

[7] Ibid., 43.

[8] Pagels leans upon the excellent work of Paul B. Duff, Who Rides the Beast? Prophetic Rivalry and the Rhetoric of Crisis in the Churches of the Apocalypse (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) and David Frankfurter, “Jews or Not? Reconstructing the Other in Rev 2:9 and 3:9,” Harvard Theological Review, 94 (2001):  403-425. The idea that the opponents were Pauline, however, is an old one (which Pagels notes) that was common among the Tubingen school. However, the Apocalypse has often been seen as opposing “Gnostics” (Adolf von Harnack), Jews, and even Romans. For a common view, see Richarch Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).     

[9] Pagels, Revelations, 45-47.

[10] Ibid., 49.

[11] Ibid., 50.

[12] Rev. 2:20.

[13] 1 Cor. 8.

[14] Indeed, it is this context that causes Schussler-Fiorenza to think that the opponents are not Paul, but Paul’s opponents in 1 Corinthians who were accused as being sexually libertine – Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, “Apocalyptic and Gnosis in the Book of Revelation and Paul” JBL 92:4 (Dec. 1973): 565-581.

[15] Recall that purity regulations are not moral regulations. It is unlikely that the book of Revelation actually is opposed to sexual activity morally, but purity regulations are ritual requirements before one may properly worship.

[16] Pagels, Revelations, 50.

[17] Duff, Who Rides the Beast.

[18] Pagels, Revelations, 48.

[19] Ibid., 74-77.

[20] Ibid., 81.

[21] Ibid., 77-89.

[22] Ibid., 93-95 – such as can be found in Allogenes, Thunder: Perfect Mind, Apocrphyon of John, Secret Revelation of James.

[23] Ibid., 106.

[24] Ibid., 108.

[25] Ibid., 110-114.

[26] Ibid., 134-136.

[27] Ibid., 134-158. For a thorough study of Athanasius’s argument and strategy, see David Brakke, Athanasius and Asceticism, John’s Hopkins University Press, 1998.

[28] Ibid., 141-3.

[29] Ibid., 135, 159-160. 

[30] Ibid., 165-7.

[31] Ibid., 164.

[32] Ibid., 161.

[33] For a survey, see William C. Weinrich, Revelation Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture vol. XII (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2005) xvii-xxxii.

Critical response to a "Postmodern" video about Christianity

Recently I was exposed to the following youtube video that is a dramatization about the figure of Barabbas to portray an evangelical conversion message. Many of my friends have asked for my take on the work in detail. The video, according to youtube.com is from Caleb & Sol’s debut album “Afloat” and that is was written and spoken by Sol Rexius. The video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toEdT0VEHKI

This video encapsulates many of the things that deeply trouble me with modern Christian worship that attempts to be particularly “relevant.” I am not certain that Caleb & Sol intended this to be used in that context; however, I was directed toward it through a worship experience which was seen to be particularly relevant to a modern world. It is in this context that this critique finds its place.

I.               Biblical content

First, the accuracy of the video is exegetically questionable at best. The narrative about Barabbas is nearly completely created rather than being developed from the New Testament. As such, it presents a skewed version of the story to meet its own demands.

The New Testament provides scanty information about Barabbas. He appears in all four Gospels (as the passion story is one of the few elements that is in both the synoptics and the Gospel of John). The Gospel of Mark presents Barabbas as a figure who was taking part in an insurrection and had killed others: “Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection.”[1] The Gospel of Matthew adds that his name was Jesus Barabbas (Jesus being a common name) and that he was a notorious criminal: “Now at the festival the governor was accustomed to release a prisoner for the crowd, anyone whom they wanted. Ant that time they had a notorious criminal named Jesus Barabbas.”[2] The Gospel of Luke adds little: “Then they (the crowd) all shouted together, ‘Away with this fellow! Release Barabbas for us!’ (This was a man who had been put in prison for an insurrection that had taken place in the city, and for murder).”[3] The Gospel of John lightens the crimes Barabbas had done by claiming only that he was a bandit: “They shouted in reply, ‘Not this man, but Barabbas!’ Now Barabbas was a bandit.”[4] The texts, if they can be collated, argue that Barabbas was imprisoned for murder and insurrection (with the exception of the Gospel of John). There is no conversation of his sentence, his circumstances, or his future.[5]

The video in question creates a narrative about Barabbas that is both unsubstantiated and unlikely; instead, it creates a picture of the figure to serve its own needs. First, the video’s argument about Barabbas works in a context that Barabbas was sentenced to die. While this could have been the case, nowhere is this stated in the New Testament. The video likely invents this detail in order that it can show the aggressive stakes at hand and creates the one-to-one comparison with Jesus and Barabbas (though this type of comparison even the authors of the video might realize is absurd).

Secondly, the video wants to heighten the drama of the scene by suggesting that not only was Barabbas to be executed the same day and in the same manner as Jesus, but that while he was waiting to be executed, he could hear the crowd outside – perhaps implying that Barabbas would have been one of the thieves on the cross crucified next to Jesus. Not only is this unsubstantiated (we have no idea if Barabbas was even charged, much less that the charge was crucifixion and that the sentence was to be enacted that day) it puts Barabbas in a strange place of introspection that is highly unlikely – though necessary for the emotionalized argument that the video tries to portray.

Third, the video makes an interpretative leap that is simply inaccurate – that Jesus dies in place of Barabbas. Nowhere in the Gospels is it presented that Pilate sentenced Jesus to Barabbas’s crimes. Rather, Pilate sentences Jesus to death due to treason – he considered himself “King of the Jews.” If Jesus had simply taken on the errors of Barabbas in some type of vicarious atonement for Barabbas, the argument of the gospels would be annulled. The Gospel of Mark presents Jesus as the Suffering Servant of God who fulfills the role found in the servant songs of Isaiah on behalf of the community of the world. The Gospel of Luke presents Jesus dying as an innocent martyr who will be an ideal and present among the martyrs to die later in the text (what we call the Book of Acts). The Gospel of John presents Jesus as the Passover lamb being slaughtered in order to die on behalf of the community as a whole. Jesus’s crucifixion will have other uses throughout the New Testament, but all of them have one element in common – the work that Jesus does on the cross is universal. If Jesus had only taken on the charge given to Barabbas, Barabbas would be set free, but the argument of the Gospels would be lost.

 The argument that Jesus took on Barabbas’s errors probably was developed based on a reading of Romans 1-4 that are often considered the “Judicial model of salvation” – the idea that humans have sinned greatly and therefore deserve to be punished according to their sins. Jesus, then takes on the penalty of the sins himself, satisfies the punishment in his death, thereby atoning for the errors and creating a blank slate before God. Aside from serious questions Pauline scholars have with this interpretation of Paul,[6] nowhere does Paul argue that the actual charge Jesus died from was one of these elements. Rather, Paul, more than any other author, argues that Christ is universal: “As in Adam all die, so in Christ may all become alive.” The author of this video presented this possibly to try and amalgamate the two things into one moment of Jesus’ death on the cross – creating an odd and unsettling message.   

II.             Emotional appeal

The exegetical problems in this text bother the historical critic of the New Testament, but the presentation and its dependence on aggressive emotional appeal bother even the audience to whom this might be addressed.

The drama surrounding Barabbas depends upon a few key issues. First, it depends upon the idea that Barabbas is set free the moment he thinks he is going to die. The video presents Barabbas’s stomach turning when he hears the keys hit his jail cell. Aside from the poetic license that is taken with the text, the text seems to portray the idea that Jesus saves individuals the exact moment they are going to die. This concept of the “rock bottom” premise before conversion shows naïveté with the majority of followers of Christianity. It expects that people only join religious movements when they are in places of absolute despair – something that would be challenged by many sociologists of religion and the anecdotal experience of many Christians.

In conjunction with this idea that redemption occurs only with the most desperate of people comes the argument that everyone is full of this same guilty conscience. Once the video finishes discussing Barabbas, it moves to the individual and infers that we are in the same place as Barabbas. The text from the video reads:

The Gospel is a message about you – what will you do? Will you examine your wicked heart, persist in blissful ignorance, will you open your mind to the grace of God or disregard your guilty conscience? Surrender life, plans, future, hopes, actions, thoughts to the lordship of Christ or will you continue to deny the total call to your life? Trust Jesus or persist in vain self righteousness, be set free or live in bondage of evil, receive grace or face justice – what will you do, what will you do, what will you do?

The text clearly suggests that each individual has a terribly guilty conscience and is struggling to find the freedom from that overbearing guilt. The language of bondage and punishment are used frequently – clearly meant to suggest that each individual is in the same situation as Barabbas – all are apparently murders, wicked men, sentenced to be crucified. The parallel continues by suggesting that at the moment when we are expecting to die, we will be set free just like Barabbas.

The argument for this “rock bottom” necessity before any true religiosity can occur is naïve at best, offensive at worst. The concept is often coupled with the idea that one can’t intellectually believe something due to the nature of belief. It is an emotional element often described as a “heart thing.” While this might be somewhat accurate, this video (and indeed much of modern protestant worship) seems to suggest that the intellect is not involved at all. If it were truly accurate that the only time people will be satisfied with Christianity is when they have no alternative and feel there is no point to existence, serious question would need to be asked if the religion was of much value or not.

III.           Presentation

As  much as the previous elements of this video were troubling to me, the presentation of the ideas were more troubling than any (mostly because they get used in more mild forms in many different forms of “contemporary worship”). The strange artistic elements attempting to make this work avant-garde and thereby “relevant” to a demographic that is seeking “authentic Christianity” would be distracted and turned off to the concept.

The flashing screen and echoing presence throughout the video are distracting. The zooming in on particular words while speaking (and then echoing them) clearly are meant to drive home the emotional content of the message. However, if this is necessary, it shows that the message itself is not emotional. The evocations of a sound and light show distract rather than attract readers to the message. More importantly, it is not at all clear that the said show even is successful.

The argument that a presentation like this is more “relevant” to a group in a “post modern” context is simply not true. While I would challenge what the term “post modern” means in this context, the idea of the emerging church movement revolves around existential concepts of authenticity. The general argument is that the church of the 21^st century will be one that can be in many shapes – so long as it is authentic. Many members of this emerging church movement have found themselves rather comfortable in traditional worship settings. The litmus test for the relevance of a presentation is not how it would fare at Sundance, rather it is whether it is authentic. Presentations like this one seem contrived. Is this video a person’s convictions? If so, why is it not in a testimony about the person themselves rather than the  completely created narrative about a figure who holds 9 total verses in the New Testament (for a corresponding story, consider the view of the Prayer of Jabez in the mind of the emerging church).

The reason this comes off as so contrived – and indeed much of contemporary music – is due to it not having a place in Christian worship. 16^th century German hymns that are translated and in many hymn books had a specific use – they were interactive teaching methods. Some might find them dry, but they proclaimed the content of faith that people would then participate in proclaiming and thereby learn something. Much of the liturgy has the same function, but in addition, much of it is direct prayers to God. This type of video is in an awkward in between state. It is clearly not a prayer – it is not seemingly directed to God, but then again, it is not quite directed to the congregation. It is not something that proclaims the gospel (it proclaims often what it sees as not the gospel – the old way of life and the emphasis on turning from that – but it does not present what a Christian life actually is). It is more akin to modern Christian apologetics than anything else – it presents an argument for why one should become a Christian. Just as apologetics are not presented in churches – neither should this be.

Therefore, this video encapsulates much of the critique that I have with modern worship. I do not think it is particularly worse than any other, but it provided me a platform for me to present my views. I mean no special disrespect to the makers of this particular video – I merely saw this as an exaggerated example of much of the concern I have of milder forms of the same done in many protestant churches.

---

[1] Mk. 15:7

[2] Mt. 27:15-16 (Some manuscripts lack the name Jesus, however the argument for its inclusion is generally strong based on the principle of difficulty. See Horace Abram Rigg, “Barabbas” JBL 64, 4 (Dec. 1945), 417-56.)

[3] Lk. 23:18-19.

[4] Jn. 18:40.

[5] Rather interesting questions can be presented as to the nature of the release of prisoners during the festival. Many scholars question this as a practice and challenge the historicity of the narrative. Rigg even goes so far as to suggest that Barabbas was not a separate character, but since his name was Jesus who was called Barabbas, it is actually Jesus himself. To oppose this view, Robert L. Merritt argues that there was a practice, in the ancient world generally, to release prisoners on certain festivals. The evidence for this is based as much on Greek practice as Roman, but it shows that such could have been possible. For the full discussion see Robert L. Merritt, “Jesus Barabbas and the Paschal Pardon” JBL 104, 1 (1985), 57-68. 

[6] See the variety of views within the past thirty years in what is called the “New Perspective on Paul.” The view has been challenged by scholars noting that Paul does not have a radical breakthrough (as did Martin Luther) that he felt he could not be absolved of his errors from following the Law (something the video assumes is the experience of Barabbas – and indeed of every human). Paul, however, states the opposite position – that in regard to observation of the Law he was blameless (Phil. 3:6). In Judaism, there were good systems of dealing with personal errors that brought guilt upon the individual. Paul’s main concern is not with these errors people have made, but the cosmic force of the power of Sin in the world (Romans 5-6) that is bigger than any single human and cannot so easily be solved by a simple focus. The video, as with much of Protestantism, focuses on the “judicial model” – what many would call “forensic justification” because it seems easier to them than working with the far more elusive cosmic force of Sin.

The Odd View of Wealth in I Timothy 6

First Timothy (and indeed all of the Pastorals) presents an awkward discussion about wealth in the early Jesus movement. In an argument against false teachers, the author rails against them for accepting payment and valuing money:

Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in according to godliness…imagining that godlessness (eusebeia) is a means of gain (porismos).[1]

This text does not surprise us, nor does the contrast of this false spirituality with the argument for proper spirituality:

Yet, godliness (eusebeia) is a great gain when combined with self sufficiency (autarkeia); for we brought nothing into this world because we are able to take nothing out of it; but when we have food and clothing, we will be sufficient (arkeo) with these things. But the ones wishing to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains. But you, O man of God, flee these things; pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance, and gentleness.[2]

These positions seem rather like unto the view of wealth in works such as the book of James:

Let the believer who is lowly boast in being raised up, and the rich in being brought low, because the rich will disappear like a flower in the field. For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the field; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. It is the same way with the rich; in the midst of a busy life, they will wither away.[3]

This type of antagonism toward wealth also comes up in Luke-Acts with its consistent interest in the poor and opposition to the rich. For example, the parable of the “rich fool” in Luke 12:16-21 shows that the rich man is poorly regarded – not for some particular error, but rather because he is rich.

The concept of riches and wealth being used polemically to argue against the fundamental position of a group of missionaries (“false teachers”) similarly is not new. Paul, in II Cor. argues against the Superapostles in that they accepted payment whereas he took on a job as a tradesman: “Did I commit a sin by humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I proclaimed God’s good news to you free of charge?”[4] The implication is that the superapostles not only accepted payment, but they argued that Paul’s message was less valuable because he did not charge money (perhaps making the distinction between an amateur and a professional). Paul argues against these figures and suggests they are taking advantage of them: “For you put up with it when someone makes slaves of you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or gives you a slap in the face.”[5]

At first glance, it appears that the author of I Timothy is in league with Paul, the Gospel of Luke/Acts and James. However, a more careful study shows that wealth is not necessarily opposed in the same manner as it is in these texts. Wealth turns out not only to be allowed, but can be helpful. The author states such :

As for those in the present age are rich, command them not to be haughty, or to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but rather on God who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, thus storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life.[6]

Surely there are requirements for what a wealthy individual is to do with his money, but it does not suggest that it is as a flower in a field that will wither. Instead, something more nuanced is going on in the text.  The distinction between the false teachers and the authentic Christians still does revolve around wealth, but wealth is only secondary to a proper attitude discovered in the concept of autarkeia (self sufficiency).

To understand what autarkeia means, it is first necessary to analyze carefully the concept of eusebeia (piety) in order to show what autarkeia achieves, as eusebeia is precisely what both the false and authentic teachers seek. The false teachers “imagining that godlessness (asebeia) is a means of gain (porismos)” rather than the positive statement, “Yet, godliness (eusebeia) is a great gain (porismos) when combined with self sufficiency (autarkeia).” One will note that the term porismos is in both contexts and the fundamental difference lies in eusebeia.

The Pastoral Epistles use philosophical concepts of eusebeia to commnicate their view about piety (as will be shown below when describing autarkeia that the Pastorals are dependent upon and are happy utilizing philosophical technical terms and tradition).[7] To understand the concepts the word has, it is helpful to consider Epictetus’s use of it in order to gain full understanding:

Be assured that the essential property of piety towards the gods is to form right opinions concerning them, as existing "I and as governing the universe with goodness and justice. And fix yourself in this resolution, to obey them, and yield to them, and willingly follow them in all events, as produced by the most perfect understanding. For thus you will never find fault with the gods, nor accuse them as neglecting you. And it is not possible for this to be effected any other way than by withdrawing yourself from things not in our own control, and placing good or evil in those only which are. For if you suppose any of the things not in our own control to be either good or evil, when you are disappointed of what you wish, or incur what you would avoid, you must necessarily find fault with and blame the authors. For every animal is naturally formed to fly and abhor things that appear hurtful, and the causes of them; and to pursue and admire those which appear beneficial, and the causes of them. It is impractical, then, that one who supposes himself to be hurt should be happy about the person who, he thinks, hurts him, just as it is impossible to be happy about the hurt itself. Hence, also, a father is reviled by a son, when he does not impart to him the things which he takes to be good; and the supposing empire to be a good made Polynices and Eteocles mutually enemies. On this account the husbandman, the sailor, the merchant, on this account those who lose wives and children, revile the gods. For where interest is, there too is piety placed. So that, whoever is careful to regulate his desires and aversions as he ought, is, by the very same means, careful of piety likewise. But it is also incumbent on everyone to offer libations and sacrifices and first fruits, conformably to the customs of his country, with purity, and not in a slovenly manner, nor negligently, nor sparingly, nor beyond his ability.[8]

The stoic philosopher describes eusebeia (piety) toward the gods which includes not only participating in cultus, but also an inward reverence. This kind of emphasis on the inward value works well with the attitudinal argument of eusebeia in 1 Timothy. The two groups might be doing the same cultic acts, but the author argues one has the proper attitudinal view while the other does not.[9] Note that eusebeia further is considered something that is not temporal – it shall last beyond this simple life: “For while physical training is of some value, eusebeia is valuable in every way, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.”[10] This has led many, including Towner to suggest that this is not some simple virtue and cannot be translated simply as “faith” – as faith is by definition limited to this life rather than the one to come.

With the understanding that eusebeia is an attitudinal rather than external action based on stoic philosophy, it makes sense that the key difference – autarkeia (self sufficiency) – should also be understood in light of stoic theory. Stoic philosophy does in fact include autarkeia and it is necessary for the stoic concept of freedom to be developed – which would then lead toward understanding of wealth in I Timothy.[11]

Freedom is the goal in stoic thought. Freedom is seen as the ability to follow one’s internal drive – the logos that is within a person that leads him to his predetermined fate. The ancient example is of a cart on the top of a hill with a dog tied to the cart. When the cart begins to roll down the hill, the dog must run alongside it or risk being dragged by it. Freedom is the ability to run alongside the cart.[12]   

In order to gain freedom, one must not be weighed down by the mundane and temporary and must instead be sufficient with what one has. Epictetus, discussing the nature of humans presents the following:

But what says Zeus? "Epictetus, if it were possible, I would have made both your little body and your little property free and not exposed to hindrance. But now be not ignorant of this: this body is not yours, but it is clay finely tempered. And since I was not able to do for you what I have mentioned, I have given you a small portion of us, this faculty of pursuing an object and avoiding it, and the faculty of desire and aversion, and, in a word, the faculty of using the appearances of things; and if you will take care of this faculty and consider it your only possession, you will never be hindered, never meet with impediments; you will not lament, you will not blame, you will not flatter any person.[13]

Epictetus here shows that the divine is within the individual in order that they might have enough freedom to avoid from being hindered. The faculty is given to humans so that it functions within human limitations. However, the point is that humans are given enough freedom in order that they might reach their goal – for stoics, this is freedom.

The term self-sufficiency, autarkeia, is defined early on as lacking no thing (in this sense, being free). Aristotle defines the term in this way :

Very much the same holds good about its territory. As to the question what particular kind of land it ought to have, it is clear that everybody would command that which is most self sufficing (and such is necessarily that which bears every sort of produce, for self-sufficiency means having a supply of everything and lacking nothing).[14]

The concept that autarkeia has the meaning of lacking nothing leads to the stoic concept of freedom – there is no hindrance that could keep one from following their own determined outcome.

Marcus Aurelius preserves many of the earlier stoic teachings that would have been lost to us, and describes autarkeia as an ideal that allows for proper contemplation and a necessity for an examined life.

For nothing is so conducive to greatness of mind as the ability to examine systematically and honestly everything that meets us in life, and to regard these things always in such a way as to form a conception of the kind of Universe they belong to, and of the sue which the thing in questions subserves in it; what value it has for the whole Universe and what for man, citizen as his of the highest state, of which all other states are but as households; what it actually is, and compounded of what elements, and likely to last how long – namely this that now gives me the impression in question; and what virtue it calls for from me, such as gentleness, manly courage, truth, fidelity, guilelessness, independence, and the rest. In each case therefore must thou say: This has come from God; and this is due to the conjunction of fate and contexture of the world’s web and some such coincidence and chance; while that comes form a clansman and a kinsman and a neighbor, albeit one who is ignorant of what is really in accordance with his nature.[15]

What is left to be prized? This methinks: to limit our action or inaction to the needs of our own constitution, an end that all occupations and arts set before themselves. For the aim of every art is that the thing constituted should be adapted to the work for which it has been constituted. It is so with the vine-dresser who looks after the vines, the colt-trainer, and the keeper of the kennel. And this is the end which the care of children and the methods of teaching have in view. There then is the thing to be prized! This once fairly made thine own, thou will seek to gain for thyself any of the other things as well. Wilt thou not cease prizing many other things also? Then thou wilt neither be free nor sufficient unto thyself nor unmoved by passion. For thou must needs be full of envy and jealousy, be suspicious of those that can rob thee of such things, and scheme against those who possess what thou prizest. In fine, a man who needs any of these things cannot but be in complete turmoil, and in many cases find fault even with the Gods. But by reverencing and prizing thine own mind, though shalt make thyself pleasing in thine own sight, in accord with mankind, and in harmony with the gods, that is, grateful to them for all that they dispense and have ordained.[16]

Marcus Aurelius connects the inner contemplation of the stoic ideal as being necessary with the concept of self sufficiency. If one is in great need of all other things, they will then not be free and unable to be in proper relation with themselves. The most important note about this concept of self sufficiency is that it is an internal state – it is not dependent upon goods or lack of goods – it is the moving target of that which is necessary for a person to be free.

The stoic concept of freedom and self sufficiency is precisely the meaning understood in I Timothy 6. I Timothy is not concerned with wealth per se. I Timothy has a problem with wealth and the desire for wealth and gain:

But the ones wishing to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.

Wealth, when it is wished is a problem. Desire is seen as the opposing force to freedom in the stoic system, here it comes up as “wishing” (boulomai) but has the same sense – it is those who are not being self sufficient, they are the ones asking for more than what is internally presented to them.

The concept that wealth per se is not the problem comes through in the injunction to the wealthy:

As for those in the present age are rich, command them not to be haughty, or to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but rather on God who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, thus storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life.

Riches are fine so long as they do not present the opposite problem of keeping the individual from the freedom to be in proper relation to God (eusebeia).

Riches, therefore, for the author of the Epistle of I Timothy are not a particular problem due to the stoic concept of freedom and self sufficiency. The misunderstanding in the text arises when students attempt to read this text in league with 2 Corinthians (often because some feel they have the same author). If one attempts to find this precise concept in Paul, it is challenging.[17] It is more important to understand the context of I Timothy in itself in order to gain a more clear understanding.

---

[1] I Tim. 6:3-5 (NRSV)

[2] I Tim. 6:6-11 (NRSV used as base, translation adapted by me)

[3] Jam. 1:9-11.

[4] 2 Cor. 11:7

[5] 2 Cor. 11:20

[6] I Tim. 6:17-19

[7] As argued by Philip Towner in his learned, but rather conservative commentary, argues that it is not necessary to think that the author borrowed completely foreign concepts and applied them to the Jesus movement, but rightly points out that this was found among second temple Judaism and would have been relatively standard: Philip Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 171-4.

[8] Epict. Enchiridon, 31, LCL. This reference comes from Foerster, “sebomai” in TDNT, v. 7.

[9] Eusebeia in Greek Literature usually refers merely to proper cultic acts as “religion” in the Greco-Roman world was not based on ethical principles, but rather on proper worship (usually sacrifices and offerings).

[10] 1 Tim. 4:8

[11] A.J. Malherbe in his two part article on I Timothy 6 argues that it is not necessary to consider this as solely stoic – showing that Epicureans and Cynics also used similar language. While Malherbe is correct in this reading, this paper will focus on the stoic aspects of what the Pastoral epistles are presenting. For the articles see A.J. Malherbe, “Godliness, Self-Sufficiency, Greed, and the Enjoyment of Wealth: 1 Timothy 6:3-19 Part I” Novum Testamentum 52 (2010), 376-405 and Part II, Novum Testamentum 53 (2011) 73-96.

[12] For a well done collection on Stoic thought and determinism, see Brand Inwood (ed.), Cambridge Companion to the Stoics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

[13] Epict. Diss. 1.1.12f

[14] Aristotle Politica, VII, 5 p. 1326b, trans. H. Rackham, LCL, 1932.

[15] Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, III, 11,3, trans. C.R. Haines, 1916 (LCL).

[16] Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, VI, 16

[17] While in Phil. 4:11-13, Paul can call himself autarkes, A.J. Malherbe has made the argument that it is better to consider this passage based more upon the concept of ancient friendship and sharing rather than stoic concepts of freedom – see A.J. Malherbe, “Paul’s Self-Sufficiency (Philippians 4:11)” in John T. Fitzgerald (ed.) Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World (Leiden, New York : Brill, 1996).