First Century Culture - Part 3

First Century Culture (Part 3)  - Societas

Could one word describe Paul - teacher? Apostle? Missionary? Theologian? How about philanthropist? Well, the evidence is in his care for the poor. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 urge saints to donate; then Paul risks his life to present such charitable giving at Jerusalem (Acts 24:16-18). Where did that powerful motivation come from? Perhaps the answer involves a sanctified sense of the Roman law of ‘societas’, and ultimately leads us to review our own commitment levels in service.

The main features of ‘societas’ were:

- Reciprocal partnership freely entered into for a shared concern or particular goal (e.g. profit).

- Each had to contribute something and each shared equally in the outcome, regardless of contribution, wealth or social class (rare in the biased Roman courts).

- It continued until the goal was achieved and/or as long as the partners remained 'of the same mind'.

The ‘Societas’ of Acts 15

Paul travelled to Jerusalem, concerned that two gospels existed – a 'Jewish Jerusalem' one and 'Paul's Gentile' one – and thus his work might be hindered (Gal. 2:1-11). Paul and Barnabas met with Peter, James, John and others to discuss it.

A serious schism in the early church seems to have been avoided in a way that reflected the then current ‘societas’ custom. Both parties saw each other as equal fellow-workers in the same gospel, the preaching of which was their common goal. As was common then (the social stigma in breaking a contract offering sufficient 'security') the agreement was confirmed by giving and receiving the 'right hand of fellowship' (a handshake).

In addition to theological unity, practical unity was expressed, as shown in Paul and Barnabas agreeing to remember the poor. Acts reports Barnabas selling land to help the needy; although we know of no prior interest in Paul's case, he saw that the Gentiles had received great spiritual wealth from the Jews and it was only right that they should 'repay' by helping financially (Rom. 15:25-27).

Paul encountered reluctance and apathy to a collection for the poor, but he doggedly persisted. Why? Because he'd entered into a ‘societas’ which he took extremely seriously. This was no casual handshake – it was arguably the second most important event of his life.

‘Societas’ and reception into the local church

All the early Christians could in fact enter into a ‘societas’ with everyone else in the local church of God they were a part of; and further, with every person in the fellowship of Churches of God worldwide! When? When received into the Church of God! How? Presumably this was recognised by the offering and receiving of the right hand of fellowship, making adding 3,000 in one day at Pentecost quite feasible!

In any case, their association with their local assembly and the wider fellowship of Churches was anything but casual; not a temporary thing, nor aimless – there had to be a purpose and a goal in it for it to exist at all. Just occupying a seat each week wouldn't suffice; nor would restriction to local assembly matters. It was incumbent on them to participate in the wider Fellowship in whatever opportunity arose – financial giving, corresponding with people in other assemblies, supporting fellowship-wide initiatives, showing hospitality to visitors, praying for each other. (Remember - everyone has to bring something to the ‘societas’.)

Baptism is important but we risk under-playing the significance of the addition part of the seven steps of Acts 2 v 41-42. It should be far from a mere formality on the Sunday after the baptism. Addition is an extremely serious business before God (don't forget it's the Lord Himself who does the adding) and with each other. All of the benefits and obligations of collective service stem from it.

The under-playing of addition seems rife across Christendom. But a 'supermarket mentality' – that picks a church which suits until circumstances change or something more convenient or appealing comes along – has no basis in the Bible. A by-product can be that little, if any, distinction is made between those in the Church and those that aren't. Does it matter? Yes, for all must truly have joined a ‘societas’ for the long haul with the same mind and the same goals in mind! This begs two important questions: are you part of this ‘societas’ and what are you bringing to it?

Guarding the ‘Societas’

Another article would be needed to document the various goals of the 'Church ‘societas’', but we know that they won't all be completed until the Lord's return, and (a sobering thought) perhaps not even then. And so the ‘societas’ is still needed today, some 2,000 years after it first started.

But there are two main threats to its continued existence:

1) When someone voluntarily leaves, or, in discipline, has to be put away from, the church, they automatically exit the ‘societas’ – they are unable to work for the same goals with others in the church.

2) When those in the ‘societas’ no longer share a common purpose. Hence, in one epistle, Paul implored Euodia and Syntyche, ‘to be of the’ same ‘mind in the Lord’ (Phil. 4:10). Paul was concerned that, practically speaking, their ‘societas’ would end, even if on the surface it appeared to function.

The ‘societas’ is exceedingly precious, but fragile – it must be guarded. People sometimes renew their wedding vows – the Beckhams are a famous recent example – perhaps as they now see greater significance in them. Perhaps those added to the Church should 'renew' the ‘societas’ periodically in the heart, and ask: "What are the common goals I am in the ‘societas’ to achieve (locally and globally) and what headway is being made?" Are they well defined or is it a case of meandering along? How committed am I to its success?

‘Societas’ with Christ

Finally, in Philippians (2:1-5) we see another aspect; we are exhorted to have the same mind as Christ, the logical extension being that we will then effectively be in a ‘societas’ with Him. What an incredible prospect and privilege! He brings so much to the partnership – His power, His love, the Holy Spirit – yet He's not ashamed to call us His brethren, fellow workers for Him, and joint heirs with Him (1 Cor. 3:9; Rom. 8:17; Heb. 2:11)

What are we bringing in return?

First Century Culture - Part 1

Another series of articles that I wrote for NT magazine....

First Century Culture (Part 1) - Honour and Shame

21st century Western culture encourages each to shamelessly pursue their '15 minutes of fame'. 'Shame' and 'honour' were never far from the mind of the ancient Jew, Greek or Roman, nor far below the surface of our Bible – but in different senses.

An individual's shame reflected badly on the family and the whole community – so there could be violent repercussions, even as far as death. (We still see this in so-called 'honour killings' today in some societies). Because of the communal impact, anything done in secret was automatically assumed to involve wrong-doing. (This could explain Jesus' trial defence, in John 18:2, that he did nothing in secret).

God was the ultimate source of honour and it was thought to be available in limited quantities! Anyone who acquired honour therefore had to have taken it from someone else – compare John the Baptist's assertion that ‘"He (Jesus) must become greater; I must become less."’ (John 3:30).

Honour had to be ascribed by others; assuming it for oneself would usually be challenged publicly. (Could this explain why the Lord made few claims about his true status, but never refused others' genuine worship?)

Themes of honour and shame can be seen throughout Jesus' life. He completed numerous 'challenge/riposte' cycles with the Pharisees. The challenges were questions designed to trip Jesus up and cause him to lose face (e.g. ‘"What is the greatest commandment?"’). But Jesus' skilful answers meant that eventually ‘no-one dared to ask him any more questions’ (Luke 20:40) – clearly the risk to their honour was too great!

Jesus was prepared to sacrifice worldly honour when eating with tax collectors and sinners (Mat. 9:11), breaking the elders' traditions (Mat. 15:1-2), and associating with Samaritans (John 4). Even so, Jesus was accumulating so much honour that the leaders of the day out of envy handed Him over to Pilate to be killed (Mark 15:10).

Jesus' teaching often used shame/honour concepts to grab attention. The prodigal son had brought shame on his family by his actions, and the hearers would instinctively side with the 'other son' – yet Jesus revealed the father's shocking response to be right. Jesus' command to love our enemies, instead of regaining lost honour by taking an eye for an eye, was also a very radical message.

The New Testament writers seem agreed that the key sub-text of the cross was shame, not pain – unlike the provocative film 'The Passion of the Christ'. So the focus was on spitting at, and striking of, the head (usually most honoured body part), insults, and ridicule by giving him the 'trappings' of a king – and most of all, the shame of the apparent forsaking of the Son by the Father.

And yet, amazingly, the Lord ‘for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame’ (Heb. 12:2). Paradoxically shame has been turned to honour in God's plan. Jesus even chided the two on the Emmaus road, ‘"Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter His glory?"’ (Luke 24:26).

Believers today will likely lose this world's honour if they serve the Lord faithfully. Yet God has promised us something more valuable, saying, ‘"Those who honour me I will honour"’ (1 Sam. 2:30) and ‘anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame’ (Rom. 10:11).