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).
No comments:
Post a Comment