STRANGERS AND ALIENS

The issue of immigration reform is a hot-button issue. Congressmen and other politicians all wax eloquent about the problem or problems: 12 million illegal aliens, “porous” borders, the necessity for cheap labor, assimilation, etc., etc. And of course, my e-mail friends have forwarded to me various opinions.

I don’t have a simple solution to the problems, but I feel that as a Christian I must first go to the Scriptures to find out what they have to say. And they say a lot!

The Hebrew Old Testament uses at least two words over 100 times, which are essentially synonymous, Ger (verb form Gur) and Zur, both usually translated “stranger,” sometimes “alien,” or “sojourner,” depending on the English version. The words are usually applied to people living in the land of Israel who were not of Israelite stock. Sometimes, of course, they were used of the Israelites themselves. The Israelites were to take special care of strangers or aliens because they themselves had been strangers in Egypt. “You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 22:21). Strangers were included along with the poor, widows and orphans as objects of their and God’s care (Exodus 22:21-27; 23:9-12).

The original “Law of Love,” often quoted in the New Testament was first stated in Leviticus 19:18, “ ... you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD.” And it is clear that the word neighbor did not apply only to one’s fellow Israelite as verse 34 shows, “The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.” So when Jesus quoted the law of love, He would have understood it to include “the stranger,” as the story in Luke 10:25-37 shows. (Except in this story, it is the “stranger” who demonstrates love.)

When we come to the New Testament epistles we find that this teaching is expanded. “Hospitality” is a desired virtue. But this is not talking about coffee and cookies with our fellow church folks after the service. The Greek words usually translated hospitable and hospitality are philoxenos and philoxenia, literally "love of strangers" (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8; 1 Peter 4:9; Romans 12:13; Hebrews 13:2). The word xenodocheo ("entertain strangers," in the sense of having them in for a meal) is also used in 1 Timothy 5:10.

In the movie, “My Big Fat Greek Wedding,” the bride’s father referred to her husband-to-be as a "xenos." The word for stranger (xenos) is used with a broad range of meanings, but usually had the idea of someone or something foreign or unknown.

In 1 Peter 4:9, we are told to be philoxenos to one another, which would seem to imply a mutual hospitality among believers. However, in Romans 12:13, it is part of the list which includes "sharing the needs of the saints," so it must go beyond “the saints.” In Hebrews 13:2, it is in addition to brotherly love (philadelphia) in verse 1. Also this verse goes on to say that by practicing this "some have entertained (xenizo) angels without knowing it."

When we tie this to the New Testament teaching that WE (Christians) are "aliens and strangers" in this world, I think we can begin to see a biblical rationale for "hospitality."

Putting these all together, I'd say that biblical hospitality includes, but goes beyond mutual entertainment. It implies also a reaching out to those "outside," and possibly opening our homes to them.

When we look at Matthew 25:31-46, it gets pretty convicting. “I was a stranger and you invited Me in. ... when did we see You a stranger and invite You in? ... to the extent that you did it to the least of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.” The word "stranger" (xenos) is used four times and is classed with other groups of people in need. Also see Luke 14:12-14 (though the word "stranger" isn't used there).

So, when trying to come to a position regarding “aliens” (illegal or legal), we need to consider first, not the economic or political questions, though they may be important, but the biblical command to love; and the love which is commanded is not to be a love for self, or even “my country,” it is to be a love that desires to meet the need of those in need, especially the poor and the stranger.

“If Jesus should come and knock on your door,
For a place to lie down, bread from your floor.
Would you welcome Him in, or would you turn Him away?
Then God would reward you on that great judgment day.”
(“The Tramp on the Street,” traditional folk song)


Bill Ball
5/8/2006

THE WOMEN AT THE CROSS

The gospels are full of stories about Jesus’ 12 male disciples, but at the climactic moment when He was arrested in the garden, all fled (Matthew 26:56b; Mark 14:50) as Jesus had predicted (Matthew 26:31). Later, Peter followed at a distance and denied Christ, while John alone of the 12 stood at the cross (John 19:26). But there were other disciples there, the women. All four gospels mention them.

How many women were at the cross and what were their names?

Matthew 27:55 says, “Many women were there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, while ministering to Him.”

Verse 56, “Among them was Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”

Matthew clearly names only three women out of an indefinite number (“many”). It should be noted that the second Mary was not Jesus’ mother, but most likely the mother of James the son of Alphaeus, one of the 12 (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18).

Mark 15:40, 41 says, “There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome. When He was in Galilee, they used to follow Him and minister to Him; and there were many other women who came up with Him to Jerusalem”

Mark also names three women out of the “many”. The first two are the same as Matthew’s first two. If Salome is the same as “the mother of the sons of Zebedee,” we have the same three as mentioned by Matthew. If these two are different persons, we now have four women.

Luke 23:49, 55 simply speaks of “the women who accompanied Him from Galilee” without giving names or numbers. In 8:1-3 he names some women who earlier had accompanied Jesus. “Mary who was called Magdalene,.. Joanna, the wife of Chuza,.. Susanna, and many others.” In 24:10 he mentions, “Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James,” with “other women,” as witnesses of the resurrection.

Assuming the women at the tomb were also present at the cross, we now have at least four women or possibly six named.

John 19:25 says, “But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

John is the only evangelist who tells us that Jesus’ mother was there. He also mentions Mary Magdalene as do the other three evangelists.

The question here is whether “His mother’s sister” and “Mary the wife of Clopas” are the same or two different persons. Neither the English nor the Greek readings are unambiguous. On the side of their being two different persons is the fact that if they were the same person there would be sisters with the same name.

Some have attempted to identify the unnamed sister with “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” in Matthew, thus making the apostles James and John the first cousins of Jesus. Although this is possible, there is not to my knowledge the slightest hint of this elsewhere.

So who were the women at the cross?
The long list – eight named women, possibly nine:
1. Mary Magdalene (all four gospels)
2. Mary the mother of James the less and Joseph (or Joses) (Matthew and Mark)
3. The mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matthew)
4. Salome (Mark)
5. Joanna (Luke)
6. Mary, Jesus’ mother (John)
7. His mother’s sister (John)
8. Mary the wife of Clopas (John)
9. Also possibly Susanna (Luke 8:3)

If (4) Salome is (3) the mother of the sons of Zebedee and if (7) Jesus mother’s sister is also (8) the wife of Clopas, we have shortened our list to a minimum of six.

We should note again that of Jesus’ 12 original male disciples, all but one (John) had fled. The only other sympathetic men mentioned as being at the cross were Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, both “closet disciples” until this point (John 19:38, 39).

Bill Ball 7/2004

PIGEONHOLING

Pigeonhole (definition): “A neat category which usually fails to reflect actual complexities” (Webster’s 9th Collegiate Dictionary).

I was in a gathering once at which two young ladies were comparing their traumatic experiences. Both had been robbed or held up. I forget the circumstances, but I do remember something that struck me as strange in their descriptions. The first had been robbed, but the second had been robbed by a “black” man. Now I don’t mean to make light of their horrible experiences, but it struck me as strange that being robbed by a black man seemed to add to the trauma.

We “pigeonhole” people; it is comfortable. We can instantly draw certain conclusions about people we meet if we know what category or categories to place them in. It saves having to get to know them. We’ve all done it and we all do it. Sometimes it is helpful; often it is not.

And pigeonholing is not done solely according to race, although that is a favorite, probably because it is easy to spot a person’s skin color. We categorize people by their age, place of birth, height (Remember the song about “Short People”?), occupation, financial status, education, political party, religious affiliation, etc., etc. The list is endless.

I’ve been pigeonholed. “You think that way because you’re a Yankee” (I’ve lived in Texas 40 years). If I state my opinion on a particular political issue, I’m immediately told that I hold the opinion because I’m a Democrat or a “liberal” or, even occasionally, a Republican.

Once, when I was a pastor, the accusation was leveled against me: “You don’t preach the gospel!” The reason given was that I taught the doctrine of election, (I had preached on the 9th chapter of Romans) “and if you preach election, then you’re a Calvinist, and if you’re Calvinist then you can’t preach the gospel!” My pigeonholer had placed me in a category and then placed every one in that category in a tighter category. My protests (just because Calvin and I agree on some biblical issues doesn’t make me a Calvinist) were of no avail.

Another way of categorizing people is by personality or temperament categories. If a person has certain personality traits, he or she is a “phlegmatic,” or a “choleric” or some other. Then, because that person is now pigeonholed, we can expect certain behaviors from them.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t find Jesus thinking or acting like this. His circle of followers and friends was broad and included persons of various ethnic, political and religious backgrounds. He dealt with people as individuals, not as members of any particular group.

The only exception that I can find is the religious people – the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23:13-33). But even here it was their behavior, not their “denomination” that Jesus condemned. They held to a high religious code externally, and demanded strict adherence to the code from their followers, yet they themselves inwardly were disobedient to that code. They were hypocrites, though in this group Jesus did find some individuals to commend. He even told one scribe, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34) and had Pharisees as disciples (John 19:38, 39).

Jesus told us not to judge, or we will ourselves be judged by the same standard (Matthew 7:1-5). Though there’s much more to this passage, I believe that our pigeonholing of others is often nothing more than sinful judgment!

Perhaps one of the reasons we pigeonhole others is that we fit comfortably in our own pigeonholes. We can use them as excuses for not changing our behavior. I believe there is one category that we should seek to be placed in: the category of a disciple of Jesus Christ (John 13:35).

Bill Ball
5/6/2006

BOOKS

The other evening, a young lady, a visitor in our home, strolled into my study and was gazing at the books on my shelves. After looking them over for a while she asked me, “What book has had the greatest impact on your thinking?”

I sat down opposite this wall of books and looked them over. I know the location of nearly every book and the categories of books on every area of the wall. I stared at my books on theology, Bible commentaries, biographies, books of history, philosophy and ethics. I really couldn’t honestly answer her question.

I finally hesitatingly answered that, next to the Bible, probably the works of Francis Schaeffer have had the greatest influence, or maybe C. S. Lewis. After I thought a bit longer I told her that nearly every book I’ve read has had some impact on my thinking; that when I finally lay down a book, I am in some way changed.

I read a lot, over a broad range of topics. I believe that as a Christian, especially as an educator and a minister, I need to be informed. I do not feel that the Bible-believing Christian needs to fear the interchange of ideas. This has biblical precedent. Paul could quote the Greek poets and philosophers (Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12). Jesus may or may not have been familiar with the secular writers of His day, but He did seem to understand the subtleties of current religious thinking, and He kept up with the news (Luke 13:1-5).

The question that I’m usually asked by first-time visitors to my library is, “Have you read all of these books?”, to which I answer, “Not all, but most.” The next question is usually something like, “Do you agree with all of these books?”

Of course not. I don’t read only books that I agree with. That would be redundant. I don’t fear reading someone with whom I disagree. After all, they may be right and I may be wrong. And if they’re wrong, I’ll be better able to understand their arguments and strengthen my own convictions.

I read somewhere of a graffiti slogan sprayed on a wall. “Jesus is the answer!” Below it was sprayed in a different hand: “What was the question?” We who proclaim that Jesus is the answer need to know the questions others are asking so that we can demonstrate how He is the answer.

“There is only one Book I read to believe; all others I read only to consider.”
-- Norman Geisler

Bill Ball
5/5/2006