08 September 2023
On the one hand, we have a serious problem with people assuming that the Lord's reputation stands on something it does not. How often have we seen movies that seek to establish, or alternatively, to question whether His reputation bears any resemblance to cultural middle-class values? By now, you should know better. Our God is not materialistic with a fragile ego.
I'm going to quote from the NASB because I believe the NET Bible gets it wrong on this verse: "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme..." (2 Samuel 12:14). This comes from the passage where Nathan confronts David over Bathsheba. The prophet points out a major consequence of David's sin.
Who are these "enemies" that will blaspheme Jehovah? You know the answer: It's the opposition members of the council of elohim. If there's any setting in which God would actually approach embarrassment, it would be in His own divine council. These councilors will, of course, provoke their client nations to taunt the God of Israel, adding to His sorrow. However, the big issue here is the political striving within the divine council.
After all God had done for David, this is the thanks He gets.
One of my readers reminded me of something I had not mentioned on this blog in the past. Do you understand that the feudalism in the Bible is quite different from the feudalism of our western heritage in the Middle Ages? Western feudal power was vested in the land, but eastern feudal power is in people. And yet, some features of feudalism are inherent in the term itself. One thing both western and eastern feudalism had in common was the patron-client relationship, though it took different forms and terminology.
In feudal societies, the vast majority of property is controlled by just a few hands. In that sense, we would call it an oligarchy. It's flavored different between east and west, but the fundamental fact of who decides how wealth is used is the same. From the western brand of feudalism, we absorbed a French term into the English language: noblesse oblige. It refers to the firm sense of duty that nobles had regarding those they ruled. In order to remain in a noble position, there were certain social expectations they must fulfill, certain moral obligations. Otherwise, they would lose the support of those they ruled.
This was actually stronger in the east. Unlike the west, where strangers ruled the population, most Ancient Near Eastern societies were ruled by family. Even if the whole nation had been conquered, the overlords never deigned to interfere in the daily life of the peasants. The conquered lords simply became accountable to the new overlords for how their own family folks obeyed and produced what was demanded. This is precisely what we see in Egypt when Moses arose: Israel was a client nation with a quota of bricks to make, regardless of all the other daily necessities of life. The Egyptians didn't feed or manage Israel; Israel went about their lives as before, just with less free time. The Egyptians didn't care how it got done.
This is most pertinent in our understanding of God as our primary ruler. Instead of conquering us, He rescued us from someone else's conquest. At the foot of Mount Sinai, what He offered was not unique in human history. It was a sovereign-vassal treaty. As a divine Shiekh, He was offering to make these rescued wretches His own family, His adopted household. This comes with a wealth of detail that you can truly understand only if you dig into the history of Ancient Near Eastern civilizations.
What would you say to introduce the concept to someone who has no Ancient Near Eastern background? Paul, addressing a largely Gentile population scattered among the churches he planted across Asia Minor and southern Europe, used a different metaphor more familiar to his audience. He used the patron-client relationship quite common under the Roman Empire, having existed in the Greek Empire, as well.
Lacking the eastern familial relationships, an oligarch in the mixed Greco-Roman society still subscribed to a form of noblesse oblige. Holding virtually all the money in any given community, the oligarchs knew that their wealth depended on the common welfare, and vice versa. It wasn't bureaucratic; it was more personal in nature. If an oligarch became aware of some need that would affect the community, that only he could afford to fund, he would sponsor whoever was responsible for fixing this thing.
In the process, this beneficiary of largess now becomes a client of the wealthy patron. He must stand ready to assist the oligarch in any personal need other than money, since everyone knew he could not simply pay back the money. It's more honorable than slavery, but everyone knew you were the patron's client, because it was your duty to boost the patron's reputation.
It's a feudal relationship; the patron is your "lord" and you are his "vassal". This is a critical element in how the western feudalism of the Middle Ages came into existence. And this is what Paul refers to in Colossians 1, starting in verse 19. Read it with the patron-client relationship in mind. In this case, the oligarch -- Jesus Christ -- paid off a catastrophic debt that we all owed. He became our Patron. Now we are His clients.
Paul's audience from mostly pagan backgrounds would have understood this. At some point he would have taught them more from the Hebrew heritage, but this was a good start. We bear a duty, an obligation to serve this wealthy patron who covered our debt. At a bare minimum, we must be sure to boost His reputation in our community. That means we ensure that we learn how to do things the way He wants them done.
Whom did your wealthy patron want to impress? More than anyone else, it would have been the other wealthy oligarchs. There was a measure of competition between them. Who had the most patrons? Who had the best patrons? The esteem of his own kind mattered far more than general public reputation.
Paul mentions this image to the Colossian church, having already mentioned in previous verses the concept of the divine council of elohim. We are obliged to boost the reputation of Jesus among the divine council, which in turn boosts the reputation of His Father, who created that council. We are the proof-of-concept that silences God's opposition.
How good of a job are we doing?
Comments
Fun and Prophet
Out of the park! "Proof-of-concept" is a perspective ("for His Name's sake") that isolates the essentials, erases each self-exemption, cuts off every path of evasion.
~~~~~
ALL AND EVERY
Without a gap, and no excuse
or exclusion to reduce
Perfection,
into which we're called,
His correction
mends our fall.
(derived from Colossians 1:28 NIV)
jk
I'd like to know more about historical ANE feudalism. Can you suggest any decent books on the subject.
Catacomb Resident
I wish there were some decent books; I know of none. Most of what I know has been built up over decades, little bits here and there. I suppose it's because no one thinks of it as a subject on its own.
This document is public domain; spread the message.