Letter To Laodicea (part 27)

Keeping in mind the mention of the meal in the letter to Laodicea, and Jesus’ offer to share a meal with that church, we move along to the next meal in Mark, which is that of the Lord’s supper.  Mark’s presentation, because it serves as the basis for Matthew’s record of this gathering, differs little in detail from that which we have already covered, so we take the time to mention the altogether important reference that Jesus makes to the kingdom of God (14:25).  So many times, we have been presented with a reminder of that kingdom in association with Jesus’ meals, so the fact of the presence of the thought should never pass without the notice that it demands.  This should also continue to clue us into the fact that the inclusion of a meal reference in the letter to the Laodicean church in Revelation is going to have bearing on the interpretation of that letter, especially as it relates to Jesus’ view, informed by Hebrew prophets, of an important aspect of the kingdom of God.

Exhausting the meals of the Gospel of Mark (though only in number, not in depth of meaning), we now pass on to Luke’s Gospel.  In Luke’s fifth chapter, for the first time in this Gospel, we find Jesus sitting down to a meal.  Luke informs his readers that this banquet is at the house of Levi (5:29), and we know that this is another name for Matthew.  This then, is a separate presentation of a meal that we have already seen and explored in Matthew’s Gospel.  Having said that, we note with interest that Mark, though functioning as a foundational source for these other two records, does not include this particular story.  The reasons for the omission could be quite numerous, but it is likely that Matthew and Luke had shared access to material or informants that were unavailable to Mark. 

Here we find the familiar charge that Jesus was dining with all the wrong people, because “there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others sitting at the table with them” (5:29b).  As we make an additional reflection on this, it is worth contemplating that these facts are never hidden.  Though some would have considered these dalliances with the despised to be a source of shame, Jesus never makes an attempt to justify His practice or to excuse it on a technicality.  It is also the case that the Gospel writers and the early church did not seek to marginalize these stories, though they could easily be a source of embarrassment for a Jewish Messiah.  On the contrary, the authors put these facts and these stories front and center, apparently sharing with Jesus in an understanding of their importance in what it is that they are attempting to convey about the kingdom of God.  Obviously, there is much to be gleaned from these meals.  

Apart from the difference in name, the beginning of Luke’s report about this meal shares a great deal of similarities with Matthew’s report.  There is a banquet, it is at the house of one that had been called by Jesus, there were guests that some considered less than welcome, there was surprise at Jesus’ comfortable mingling with those that were thought to be outside of the carefully delineated bounds that marked off the covenant people of the kingdom of God, the registration of a complaint in this regard, and a response by Jesus that demonstrates His thoughts concerning the inclusive nature and addition of “questionable” peoples as partakers of God’s kingdom.  Following that, there is a divergence in detail from what we find in Matthew.  This divergence aids in the painting of a more robust portrait of the setting in which Jesus finds Himself. 

So moving forward a bit we read that “they said to Him, ‘John’s disciples frequently fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours continue to eat and drink.’” (5:33)  Matthew, on the other hand, reported that “John’s disciples came to Jesus and asked, ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples don’t fast?’” (9:14)  So in one report, there is an inquiry that makes reference to John’s disciples, and in the other it is John’s disciples that make the inquiry.  As was said, this divergence in detail gives us a more complete sense of the scene.  Though it has already been made clear, in our analysis of this scene in Matthew, that this inquiry by John’s disciples was made while Jesus was at the meal, it is possible to find ourselves reading through Matthew’s narrative, to come upon “Then John’s disciples came to Jesus,” and to walk away with the idea that the setting has changed.  Luke helps us to understand that there are some disciples of John the Baptist present at this meal, thus giving rise to the question.