Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage, Honor, and Shame in the Biblical World

by E Randolph Richards

a gift or benefit,

there must be reciprocity for it to work. It is a circle, a relationship. We describe the way gifts worked here in a way that we individualists normally u...

Seneca writes to

potential patrons, “Help one person with money, another with credit, another with influence, another with advice, another with sound precepts”

While we may like to feel we are above connections and middlemen, resources and opportunities in our own culture sometimes depend on whom you know.18 So before we judge patrons, we might ask a different question. Why do these busy elite leaders take the time to do this at all? Why not simply get on with their lives and forget those around them? Because they are not individualists.

Being a gracious and generous patron is a sign of dignity and respect. Seneca encourages fellow elite patrons to “give for the sake of giving”

Society thought that a “good person” (agathos) was the kind of person who used their wealth and skills to give to those who depended on them for success and protection.

Today, Middle Eastern society expects wealthy people to use their wealth to benefit others in society and praises them for it. Many elite leaders in the Middle East recognize this expectation. Some regularly hold something called a diwan, usually held in a big reception room. Let’s say you are a baker today in Damascus. Your shop didn’t have a fire, but you need medical care for an accident that happened at work, and you can’t afford

While this may all sound very altruistic, we should recognize the power dynamic in patron-client relationships. While either a patron or a client can initiate the relationship, it remains lopsided (asymmetrical). Clients are dependent on a patron’s good will. Sometimes patrons help; other times they do not. In today’s fallen world, I have

heard stories where clients had to jump through a number of hoops before

they win the favor of a poten...

Seneca says, “Give for the sake of giving.” That he wrote it suggests that some patrons did not.

By gratitude, ancients didn’t just mean a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. They meant expressions of gratitude, things such as honoring the patron, obeying them, and giving them loyalty.

6.609). In a letter from the Christian period, a patron complains to his clients that they are being ungrateful: “You have received many favors . . . from us, and I am exceedingly amazed that you remember none of them but speak badly of us. That is characteristic of a person with an ungrateful disposition. . . . For the ungrateful . . . forget noble men . . . and in addition ill-treat their [patrons] . . . as though they were enemies.”21 There is evidence that some patrons threatened to withdraw their patronage if they considered their clients to be ungrateful.

Often what Westerners want to avoid in gift giving is a sense of obligation, which usually has a negative sense. We hate feeling obligated to do something. Arabs speak about the sense of obligation and gratitude that someone feels after they receive a gift or service from someone very differently. They call it “acknowledging the beauty.” Seneca likewise argues gifts are to be transparent so that all can admire the beauty.

Jesus is radically redefining things here, as he often does, but we should note two things. First, reciprocity is assumed and permeates the passage. Second, Jesus is redefining reciprocity but not eliminating it. Those who are harmed feel they should reciprocate harm. Part of reciprocity was that you reciprocated with love to your friend and harm to your enemy.

Jesus portrays God as a tremendously generous patron.

In the reciprocal world of antiquity, many patrons would look for clients who would reciprocate their benefits. Jesus points out that God benefits us with rain. But God does not send

rain only on those who are good. He sends rain on the righteous (which could be expected) and the unright...

Perhaps we Western Christians need to worry a bit less about creating one-sided dependency and more on creating friendships that hold hands (have strings attached). This of course, mean both parties relying on the other.

It cuts against some of my deeply held individualist values. “Everyone is supposed to be treated the same,” I insist. In fact, we are confident our preference that everyone be treated the same is in the Bible somewhere. We are confident James was prohibiting favoritism and not just favoritism for evil purposes (Jas 2:1-9). Actually, we find all kinds of examples in the Bible of God treating someone as special because of connections. Rahab is spared the fate of everyone else in Jericho because a spy calls up Joshua on the phone (so to speak).

need to be careful not to import my individualist dislike of patronage into the biblical world. Patronage runs so much against the values of

individualist culture that it might surprise us how important patron-client relationships are in Scripture.

When the Gibeonites rush to make a treaty with Joshua because they recognize he is a stronger party, they pretend to be peoples from a distant kingdom (Josh 9:3-14). They speak of themselves as his “servants” (Josh 9:8). By entering into the treaty, Joshua will be obligated to protect them. Their deception works. Joshua does not attack them, because “the leaders of the assembly had sworn an oath to them by the LORD, the God of Israel” (Josh 9:18).

When we read about treaties, we should ask about the power dynamic in the relationship. Which is the stronger party? Why is a treaty necessary? Often protection can be offered with a veiled threat; the protector is actually the

aggressor. Assyria had an aggressive policy, binding weaker kingdoms to themselve...

God objects because Hoshea is seeking protection from Assyria rather than from him (2 Kings 17:3-4). More significantly, the treaty means being bound to Assyria, rather than to Yahweh (God).3 Israel has found a new patron.

Scholars call these special suzerain-vassal relationships “covenant relationships.” Are they patron-client relationships? Perhaps, yes, but such treaties are a very specific subset of a much larger concept. When we are talking about patronage in general, we are not referring to these asymmetrical relationships based in treaties. Patronage relationships were generally unwritten.

The way both sides of an asymmetrical relationship were loyal to each other is beautifully illustrated in the story of Elisha and the wealthy Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:8-36; 8:1-6).6 There are no kinship ties here. She is a Shunammite, that is, not an Israelite.

The woman is acting as a patroness to Elisha. She seems to be motivated to care for Elisha because she deems him a worthy client. She tells her husband, “I know that this man who often comes our way is a holy man of God” (2 Kings 4:9). From then on, whenever Elisha passes through town, he stops at their home to eat. She even suggests that they build a room for Elisha to stay in when he visits.

Elisha wants to reciprocate these gifts and services. This impulse reinforced to the early biblical audience that Elisha is an honorable man: he knows how to reciprocate. Gratitude was the original reciprocation. She then reciprocated with the

guest room. Now Elisha needs to reciprocate. (Remember the three dancing graces, who keep passing gifts among themselves.) Elisha tells his servant Gehazi to tell the Shunammite woman, “You have gone to...

Presumably the Shunammite woman initially interpreted this prophecy as a well wish. When she has a child, it transforms the relationship. To that point, she had assumed that in their unequal relationship she was the patron. Suddenly, she realizes Elisha is the empowered one. She is the client!

Elisha and this woman have a bond—the strings-attached kind of bond that we in the West sometimes avoid. This bond ties them together so that years later, Elisha protects her again. First, Elisha tells her to leave the land for seven years because a famine is coming. Second, in her absence, others seize her house and lands. When she returns to the land, she appeals to the king (2 Kings 8:3). Elisha steps in to intercede on behalf of his client; he provides a service as her patron.10 His servant Gehazi tells the king that she is the woman for whom Elisha worked miracles. The king sees she is Elisha’s client and tells his officials to return everything that belonged to her.

The biblical message from the Shunammite woman is that God will protect. In this case, he uses the societal system of patronage.

An inscription in Corinth from about the time Paul was in the city praises a patroness called Junia Theadora who migrated to Corinth. She was a newcomer, originally from Lycia (modern Turkey). The inscription calls her a benefactress and praises her for the way she gave patronage (prostasian) to Lycian travelers.11 Part of the inscription reads:

Felix does not act in the interests of Paul. Neither, though, does he act in the genuine interests of the Jews. Ultimately, Felix acts solely in his own interests—the worst behavior of a patron. He does not use his imbalanced power to serve the communities who were dependent on him, neither Paul nor the Jewish delegation.

We want to be grateful, and we know that if we accept her paying for our wedding, we won’t be able to go against her wishes in the future. That would show her ingratitude.” They politely turned the gift down. Arabs call this “loading someone down with beauty.” The gift is beautiful, and the giver looks like a generous benefactor. But it is given to control others by placing them into the debt of the giver. The beautiful gift or service is not given to bless but to obligate.

The reason Paul refused to accept their financial support is that gifts have strings attached. We have argued the positive aspect of strings. Gifts bind the parties together. We have also seen the negative aspect of strings: the bond can be exploited.

The plural you is particularly significant and probably means all the factions. So is it hypocrisy for Paul to accept the patronage of Lydia in Philippi and of other churches and not of someone in Corinth? No. Paul understood that the value of a gift depended on the motives of the patron. All gifts have strings attached, so it was crucial that he discern what kind of strings were attached.

Paul’s universal missionary strategy was to make sure that nothing interfered with following Jesus. When a patron’s support enabled him to do that, he accepted the gifts with thanksgiving—as God’s provision.

Eventually, I began to realize that Arabs just don’t really use a single term to describe patronage.

It is so vast, so much a part of Arab culture, that they had never needed to describe it from the outside. Everyone knows what goes without being said. Everyone got the metaphors.

Language and culture are usually two sides of the same coin. It is very important to learn the ways insiders in a culture speak about their culture. While it can be confusing—because they assume you know what is going without being said—it is usually the best way to understand how culture really works. So, how does the Bible talk about patronage?

what may have gone without being said is that shepherding was actually a very common metaphor that ancients used to speak about patronage.

The patron is the shepherd. He or she uses their power to lead and care for their flock. The flock are the clients. Shepherds protect the flock from harm. They provide the flock with food and ensure their material needs are guaranteed. A flock knows who their shepherd (their patron) is. They are expected to listen to their patron’s voice. They are to loyally follow him. A flock with a good shepherd is a well-fed, well-protected, and well-led group of people. Ensuring this is the shepherd’s job.

Through his prophet Ezekiel, God rebukes the leaders of Israel. He calls them bad shepherds: “The word of the LORD came to me: ‘Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock?”’” (Ezek 34:1-2

As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them” (Ezek 34:11-12). Jesus is referring to Ezekiel when he tells the Jewish leaders of his day, “I am the good shepherd” (Jn 10:11-17). Jesus is condemning the leaders as bad shepherds.

King Abdullah II of Jordan writes, “On the night before [my father’s] funeral I went to bed with a family of four, and I woke up the next morning with a family of five million.”5 King Abdullah II describes his role as being like a father to his people. This isn’t just flowery language. He understands the relationship to include dynamics of responsibility, dependency, protection, and care.

David says, “Come, my children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD” (Ps 34:11). He is not addressing his physical children but all his hearers. He wishes to guide and counsel them. He has a heart toward them like a father has to his children.