More on this book
Kindle Notes & Highlights
Read between
March 19 - March 22, 2022
Charis and pistis frequently occur in Paul’s writings, where they are translated “grace” (charis) and “faith” (pistis). Paul commandeers the everyday terms Mediterranean people used to talk about patronage to help explain the new relationship believers have with God, through Jesus Christ. To explain the mysterious salvation of God, Paul portrays it as a relationship they understood. When Paul wants to describe the way God showed kindness and faithfulness to us by giving us his Son, he used charis, the way a patron generously chose to have favor on clients and bestow gifts on them. For example,
...more
Are we saved by assenting to ideas about Jesus or by loyalty to Jesus? The answer is yes. A client believed certain things about the patron.
Trusting in this leads us to allegiance to God. Now our lives revolve around our new lord, king, shepherd, and benefactor. We stop searching for others, because we have trusted in what Christ has done for us. Like Belen, we don’t bake bread for any other god. Like Belen, every morning we should line up at our patron’s door to receive his benefaction and to ask what he might require of us this day. We do not do this to try to earn favor. We do this because we trust we have already been given favor in Christ. We are part of his household. Pistis, our trust in what God has done, naturally means
...more
Paul says we are to respond with pistis, which we translate “faith.” These are great translations, but to understand better what Paul meant, we need to remember the context: patronage. When put together (grace + faith),
God provides us the gift of salvation, and we respond by trusting in it: “For it is by grace [charis] you have been saved, through faith [pistis],” Paul writes, “and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8-9). The New Testament took everyday ideas that everyone understood to explain the spiritual truths of God. Even though we didn’t deserve it (Rom 5:8), God is the most generous of all patrons and lavished undeserved gifts on us (Eph 1:7-8). If we choose to accept his benefaction by joining his household (Eph 2:19), showing it by trust and loyalty, then we can face every
...more
Understandings of patronage in Paul’s world are slowly catching on in the West (this book is one example). Yet, while we need to be aware of the context in which Paul wrote, we still need to be careful to read what Paul himself said, in that context.
First, that Paul drew on the context of patronage as one metaphor to explain the gospel. Second, Paul had something very different to say about the way God acted as a patron.
The better we understand first-century patronage, the better we can see where what Paul says about God also breaks with the patronage mold around him in his world. First, Paul says we have all already fallen short of being deserving clients.
The key to understanding Paul is not to focus on the characteristics of the clients but the patron. As clients we are no better (and sometimes worse) than a typical client. God, however, is not like the typical patron.
“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom 5:8).
God initiated the relationship. We simply choose whether we want to accept his gift and join his household.
whoever accepts the charis—enter into a relationship with him. Grace and faith are the language of relationship. This is not a case of one day trusting in a patron and then spending the rest of our lives absent of the relationship and the patron’s presence in our lives.
The gift had strings attached, to tie us together.
Paul envisions—and established—communities of people who trust in God’s ongoing patronage to them.
It creates kinship bonds.
Finally, pistis is slowly being understood as not meaning “believing in a list of doctrines” but “loyalty to God as our patron and Jesus as King.”
I don’t invite Jesus into my heart. I join his flock. I become part of his we.
Understanding patronage tones down a common evangelical emphasis on needing to underscore our unworthiness.
For Paul, conversion didn’t require an existential crisis. It is as this-worldly as it is otherworldly.
The shepherd took the responsibility to restore his flock. He calls out to them. The cross calls out to us of God’s action to restore us.
We see it, and we choose whether we want to put our trust in this patron and join his flock. If we don’t trust in him, we aren’t his. If we do, we are. We can make this decision based on the character of God we see revealed to us through his actions toward us in sending his son.
When Job has a complaint against God, he has a problem. He and God are not equals (obviously). Job needed a mediator because of the massive power gap between himself and God. This problem doesn’t just apply to someone complaining against God. It was the common plight of the ancient world. One side usually had the power advantage. Unfortunately for Job, the usual solution, a mediator, wasn’t available to sort out his problem. He laments: How can mere mortals prove their innocence before God? Though they wished to dispute with him, . . . If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone
...more
In scholarly discussions, this person is often termed a broker. We will use both terms, mediator and broker, interchangeably to describe this role.
We see the mediator at work in stories such as the book of Esther, even though the writer never explains explicitly that Esther is a broker between the king and Mordecai. The author didn’t feel the need to point it out. It is obvious.
brokers were the bridge between the two parties.
Mediation or brokerage in collectivist cultures is used in just about every sphere of life. When I as an individualist want to purchase something, I go directly to the seller and negotiate myself. It is an impersonal transaction: “It’s just business.” In fact, I like to keep business separate from friends. I don’t want a personal relationship with the cashier at the department store.
But my Eastern friends say it with pride: “We look out for our own, as we should.”
We feel accomplished when we can cut out the middleman. That’s the last thing most Mediterranean or Asian folks (or biblical characters) would want to do (1 Tim 2:6). In fact, the work of brokers plays a primary role in many biblical stories.
Abraham himself also serves as a mediator on occasion.
Abraham goes to Lot. They work out a solution. We might be tempted to read this story as if Abraham and Lot hung out together; after all, they are relatives. We should not imagine that Abraham overheard Lot’s herders arguing with his and brought the matter up over dinner.
It’s likely the Bible tells us about this particular one only in order to explain how and why Lot ended up in Sodom, a long way from Abraham, and why Abraham later felt obligated to rescue him.
As Luke’s readers, though, we know Jesus will not consider himself a client indebted to the centurion. Thus, as readers, we should not expect Jesus to go. After all, who is this man to summon Jesus? Nor should Jesus care that this Gentile paid for a synagogue. Moreover, Jesus will not feel obligated
to obey some local elders. Luke sets us up to expect Jesus to refuse. Luke’s story continues to unfold in unexpected ways. First, Jesus goes with the elders after all. Second, the centurion, unlike the elders, does not treat Jesus as his client. He addresses Jesus as kyrie (lord, sir), a term that is never used to address inferior parties such as clients.
In the midst of the elders’ misunderstandings, which we are expected to notice, Luke makes his point about the centurion’s exceptional faith (Lk 7:9-10). He accepts Jesus’ gift (charis) and, as a good client, shows pistis (trust) in Jesus.
Mary acts as a broker and comes to Jesus to ask him to help.
The phrase is literally “What to me and to you?” It
It may be linked back to another time God
miraculously provided drink (2 Kings 3), where the same phrase is used by the prophet Elisha.
Brokerage was so fundamental to New Testament society that it didn’t have to be talked about; it went without being said. Remembering this helps us avoid misreading, such as seeing apparent contradictions between different accounts of the same story.
The authors likely included or excluded these details to support the themes they were trying to communicate.
Paul is able to work as a tentmaker only where he is able to get access to the local guild, mediating a connection. Luke implies such mediation by explicitly mentioning Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2-3).
Good patrons (then and now) assist their clients in navigating the inequities of life, providing access, removing barriers, and mediating challenges. Brokers went back and forth negotiating.
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you’” (Jn 14:28), and “I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father” (Jn 16:28). There is incarnational theology here. Clearly, John is signaling Jesus’ divine origin.
In John 16:28, Jesus notes that it was the Father who initiated the mediation, not us.
John writes, “My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 Jn 2:1-2). We don’t want to sin, but when we do, we can rest assured that we have a perfect broker, Jesus, who continues to maintain our relationship. We can trust our broker, Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and people.
Abraham and his three visitors (Gen 18:1-16). Abraham has run from his tent to greet them. He impresses on them to eat and then offers help. It is a matter of honor for Abraham, even though the word honor is not mentioned in the Genesis story. It went without being said.
Values have to be constantly enforced and reinforced in a culture or they will eventually be lost. In America there is a lot of moaning by older Americans that the younger generation has lost this or that traditional American value.
honor, shame, and boundaries.
Just as key cultural values go without being said, so too the means for teaching, enforcing, and reinforcing those values also function below the surface. Because these means of enforcing a value are always connected to the value they are enforcing, the means are sometimes misidentified as values. For example, honor and shame are commonly discussed as values in collectivist cultures. In actuality, honor is not a value but a means of enforcing and reinforcing a value.
