All The Saints (part 8)

The use of “strangers” and “enemies” seems to be directed towards Gentiles, as they were looked upon as being strangers to the covenant.  “Strangers” could easily be heard as “foreigners” or “aliens.”  Here it is quite useful to call upon the letter to the Ephesians, as it can provide a helpful expansion (not a proof-texting), verbalizing what may have been already (likely) understood by the Jesus-as-God-and-Lord-worshiping Colossian congregation that was probably composed of Jews, Judaizing Gentiles, and Gentiles. 

In the second chapter of Ephesians, following a few verses that could easily fit alongside and even substitute for the creedal expression of verses fifteen through twenty of Colossians one, Paul writes “Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh---who are called ‘uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘circumcision’ that is performed on the body by human hands---that you were at that time without the Messiah, alienated from the citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Colossians 2:11-12).  One would be hard-pressed to hear talk of “strangers and enemies” in Colossians in a way any different from the more explicit presentation here in the Ephesian letter.  The situation of Gentiles and their inclusion is very much at hand. 

Continuing in Ephesians then, which provides a more well-rounded understanding of the movement in Colossians (and if one considers the extreme likelihood that Ephesians was originally a circular letter, designed to be heard by a number of churches, possibly even those of Colossae, then understanding is even more greatly enhanced), Paul writes “But now in Christ Jesus you who used to be far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ” (2:13).  It is possible to transport the “far away” and “brought near” into a Colossian context, with knowledge of the Gentile association of those words, so as to increase sensitivity to the subject matter at issue. 

Employing the same type of inclusive language in Ephesians, Paul continues, writing “For He is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, when He nullified in His flesh the law of commandments in decrees.  He did this to create in Himself one new man out of two, thus making peace, and to reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, by which the hostility has been killed” (2:14-16).  Paul insists that there is no longer any division between Jew and Gentile.  They are not to be held apart.  There is to be nothing that divides them. 

More than anything, this allows for glimpsing the mindset of Paul, even if such things that are explicitly mentioned in Ephesians go unsaid to the church at Colossae.  It should be impossible to separate this type of thinking from an assessment of Colossians, as the Jew/Gentile, appropriate covenant marker conflict (the law of commandments in decrees), colors in the landscape in which the church of Christ in Colossae and the letter directed to them is set. 

Visiting again the “strangers and enemies” reference in Colossians, and understanding that it is said in Ephesians in the context of bridging the divide between Jews and Gentiles, one could easily find Paul employing words such as “And He came and preached peace to you who were far off,” Gentiles, “and peace to those who were near,” Jews, “so that through Him we both,” that being Jews and Gentiles equally, “have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Ephesians 2:17-18). 

Rounding out his words to those that were considered to be strangers and enemies in need of reconciliation and redemptive inclusion into the assembly of God’s covenant people that sprang into existence with Abraham, Paul writes “So then you are no longer foreigners and noncitizens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, because you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.  In Him the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you are also being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (2:19-22).  This fits quite nicely with the Temple language that is subtly employed in verse twenty-two of Colossians one.  

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 11)

Not only would the Roman governors look upon Christians with suspicious eyes, it would be difficult to doubt that Christians would happily return the favor.  While there is certainly an element of Christianity that rightly and responsibly challenges the power of governments, calls the world’s rulers to account, challenges arrogant actions and arrogations of power, and regularly holds up restraining hands that tell governments that “you go here and no further,” there is, of course, a legitimate role for governments.  For balance and a response, those same hands that are held up in attempts to restrain governments, insisting that they not go beyond their rightful place as the church says “we’ll take it from here,” are then to be turned outwards, with arms extended wide to embrace and deal with the issues to which the church of Christ must address itself.   

Naturally, Paul recognizes the potential for unhelpful and unhealthy conflict between the members of the church and temporal powers.  Concordantly, he urges that ‘requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all people, even for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a peaceful and quite life in all godliness and dignity.  Such prayer for all is good and welcomed before God our Savior, since He wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:1a-4).  Though at one level this may appear to be an acquiescence, is it not an effective counter-cultural witness?  Christians, of course, are to be the greatest of earthly citizens because they are also citizens of the kingdom of heaven that looks to the renewal of the whole of creation (not an escape to heaven). 

Now, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the Christians, who, owing to their “atheism” (because they did not worship the Roman gods or Caesar), their “cannibalism” (for the words that accompanied their communal meals), and their lack of participation at the temples (which were also the markets and the center of public activity) that was taken to portend a destruction of social cohesiveness, experienced persecution at the hands of governing authorities, would look upon those persecutors as their enemies.  Therefore, this prayer for all people, including kings and governing authorities, was a strict following of the teachings of Jesus, who demanded His disciples to “love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:44-45a – realizing that Matthew was probably not in circulation and may not yet have taken the shape in which it is now to be found at the time of the composition of the letter, and therefore, the passing along of the words of Jesus would have been based upon Paul’s knowledge of the Jesus tradition). 

These words reach a second level in the face of the Jew and Gentile divisions in Ephesus (and other cities whose churches may have been recipients of the letter now called Ephesians), with these divisions addressed in the second chapter of Ephesians.  The insistence that the Creator God “wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” speaks to the lingering hesitation on the part of ethnic Israel to grant Gentiles status as full and legitimate members of the covenant people of the Creator God. 

So while praying for those that may potentially be perceived or actually be enemies is counter-cultural, so too is Paul’s insistence that Israel’s God wants all people groups to be saved (come under the provisions of His covenant), with this running counter to the Jewish culture that wanted to continue to reserve their God’s blessings to Israel alone, and who attempted to enforce this restriction by insisting that Gentiles needed to adopt the covenant markers of Judaism (primarily circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath-keeping) to indicate their participation under their God’s covenant. 

Experts In The Law (part 10)

For good measure, before reaching a seminal usage of the phrase, Luke once again makes a point to call attention to what he insists is the nefarious desire of the experts in the law, as in the nineteenth verse of chapter twenty, after Jesus has delivered yet another parable that is deemed to be yet another scathing rebuke of these antagonistic characters, Luke reports: “Then the experts in the law and the chief priests wanted to arrest Him that very hour, because they realized He had told this parable against them” (20:19a).  After this, Luke presents the story of Jesus being questioned about paying taxes to Caesar (20:20-26).  This is followed by a strange bit of questioning from the Sadducees in regards to marriage and the resurrection (20:27-40). 

It can be here noted, with great interest, that the Sadducees now make their lone appearance in Luke’s Gospel.  This occurs after the Pharisees have dropped out of view.  Looking to Acts, where Luke reports that some members of the Pharisees have joined with the Christian community, there one finds conflict between the Pharisees and the Sadducees in the twenty-third chapter (in relation to Paul’s trial), in which the Pharisees (believers in the resurrection of the dead) are pitted against the Sadducees (“who contend that there is no resurrection” (20:27) – repeated in Acts 23:8).  In addition to the fact that Luke, in the second portion of his narrative, cannot simply have the Sadducees appearing out of nowhere but needs to have them in conflict with Jesus, the previous excursus and possible conclusion in regards to the situation with the Pharisees and their disappearance from Luke’s narrative may also serve to explain Luke’s cursory mention of the Sadducees.

Moving along then, Jesus then goes into a dissertation, with this followed by a question, about the Messiah being both King David’s son and Lord (20:41-44).  This is followed by Jesus’ warning to “Beware of the experts in the law” (20:46a).  This comes on the heels of what looked like it could have been a paradigm shift in Luke’s presentation of the experts in the law.  After Jesus had answered the questioning of the Sadducees, flatly rebuking their resurrection-denying position in the process, Luke reports that “some of the experts in the law answered, ‘Teacher, you have spoken well!’” (20:39).  Luke also reports that “they did not dare any longer to ask Him anything” (20:40), though this could easily apply equally to both the Sadducees and the experts in the law. 

Those who comprise the initial and ongoing audience of this story, who are presumably at least somewhat familiar with the Jesus traditions, already know what is soon to happen.  Indeed, those that may be unfamiliar with Jesus, who are hearing or reading this presentation for the first time, owing to the heightening sense of conflict that is sparked by Jesus’ actions in the Temple (the tremendous importance of which would be readily recognized by any denizen of the first century---or any century in almost any place for that matter), will more than realize that this story is building to a grand finale. 

Throughout the story, lines of demarcation are being drawn.  By this point, it is quite clear as to who it is that is going to ultimately be playing the role of villain in this story.  Any reasonable person knows that the experts in the law have been positioned as the chief villains, and it merely remains to be seen how Luke’s telling of the Jesus story will play out.  The potential paradigm shift comes with this report about the words of the experts in the law.  It provides something of a ray of hope for them.  This, along with the fact that the Pharisees are no longer the consistent companions of the experts in the law, with their role having been almost completely taken up by the chief priests, might cause one to think that the experts in the law are going to change their position concerning Jesus.  Accordingly, perhaps Jesus will change His position concerning them. 

Of course this is not to be.  After a glimmer of hope appears for them, that light is quickly extinguished as Jesus warns the people away from them.  This should not be unexpected.  Not only have they been well-positioned as the villains of Luke’s narrative, as one can easily imagine boos and hisses from the crowd whenever they make their appearance on the stage of the story, but after all of the potential villainy that has been seen and heard, Jesus adds that “They like walking around in long robes, and they love elaborate greetings in the marketplaces and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets” (20:46).  

Water Into Wine (part 6)

Rather than looking upon this sharing of the best wine at the latter end of the wedding feast as an act of considerable generosity and thoughtfulness on the behalf of this bridegroom, which some may be prone to do, this would be readily perceived as a slight to his honored guests.  Questions would arise.  Why was it that they not receive this wine?  Why was it that they were not thought to be good enough to receive these superior libations? 

It would be wondered why the bridegroom was mocking his guests in this way.  Rather than being enjoyed by the elites and those in the community that possessed the most honor according to the court of public opinion and reputation, the best wine is now going to be enjoyed by the servants and less honored guests, thus putting those that were less honorable on the same level as the honored guests.  Worse still, what this would have accomplished at the level of perception (which is what mattered), this elevated those that were possessive of less honor above the honored guests, which could be perceived as an insult to honor, thereby becoming a source of conflict for the bridegroom and his family (as well as the family of the bride).  

The head steward, as indicated by the presentation of the author of the text, comes to realize the dynamics that are now at play.  It is interesting that the author includes the information that the head steward of the feast did not know the source of the wine (John 2:9), and it is upon his tasting of the wine that he is spurred into action.  The actions that follow, which are often interpreted as his commendation of the bridegroom, can only be so interpreted outside the context of cultural meal practice and the social constructs that are on display in the meal. 

Rather than interpreting his actions in this way, what can also be realized is that the head steward, as he thinks about all of the problems that have now been presented to both him and the bridegroom due to the revelation of this new and better wine that is now being served at the end of the meal, must take quick action on his own behalf, so as to preserve his own place of honor and standing in the community (whatever that may have been).  If he does not take these actions, it is he that runs the risk of being shamed, and this is what can be understood to be playing out in the story. 

The head steward, of course, is the master of the feast.  Chief among his duties would be the duty to see to it that the most honored guests had received the best wine and the best food.  This is crucial.  Now, unbeknownst to him, and certainly without his approval, the best wine is going to go to the guests at the lower end of the honor spectrum.  Among other things, this would mean that the head steward had not done his job, thus he would be shamed (though this shaming would not stop with him). 

Thinking quickly then, the steward makes his way to the bridegroom and says “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the cheaper wine when the guests are drunk.  You have kept the good wine until now!” (2:10)  Again, one must resist the temptation to think of this as simply a matter of the head steward offering some type of praise to the bridegroom for his unexpected generosity.  This is much more likely to be the head steward’s attempt to shift the negative reactions that are sure to come, along with the associated dishonoring that is bound to take place, on to the bridegroom and away from himself.