With the issue of good deeds sending us again to the meal table, we now pause (with a humble acknowledgment of a considerable amount of pauses and redirection in the course of this study), having returned to the Hebrew Scriptures (specifically Leviticus) to gain some perspective on what appearances may have been taken on by social benefaction, and embark upon another return that will allow us to situate the importance of the meal table squarely within Jewish culture, heritage, and historical memory, all of which would have played a role in the way that the earliest Christians, having their understanding informed by Jewish history and messianic understandings, would have interpreted the words and actions of Jesus that were centered upon meal culture. Lest it be thought that we are only considering the predominating Greco-Roman sensibilities when examining social customs in connection with the meal table, we will look at two interesting examples from the history of Israel, both of which are derived from the books of the Kings.
In the twenty-first chapter of the first book of the Kings, we encounter the story of Ahab and Naboth. A quick summary of the story has Ahab, the king of Israel, desirous of obtaining a vineyard that belongs to a man by the name of Naboth. Ahab offers to purchase the vineyard or to trade a more valuable piece of land to Naboth in exchange for his vineyard that was said to adjoin the palace grounds. Naboth politely declines the offer, saying “The Lord forbid that I should sell you my ancestral inheritance” (1 Kings 21:3b). As Ahab had his heart set on acquiring the vineyard, this rejection made him both “bitter and angry” (21:4). His wife, Jezebel, noticed her husband’s demeanor, and inquired as to its source. Ahab informed Jezebel about the situation, spurring Jezebel to take matters into her own hands. This is where the intrigue for us begins, as we will be able to see why this particular story is included in this ongoing attempt to discern the nature of Jesus’ communication to the church at Laodicea.
Jezebel “wrote out orders, signed Ahab’s name to them, and sealed them with his seal. She then sent the orders to the leaders and to the nobles who lived in Naboth’s city. This is what she wrote: ‘Observe a time of fasting and seat Naboth in front of the people. Also seat two villains opposite him and have them testify, “You cursed God and the king.” Then take him out and stone him to death.’” (21:8-10) It should not be difficult to see what is at work here, what is left out, and what is implied. This is a shrewd plan, and it is rooted in a knowledge of public sensibilities that are heavily dependent on meal customs.
A time of fasting is declared. Naturally, a time of fasting would be concluded by a time of feasting. Now, it is necessary to parse some of what we know or have seen to this point. Jezebel has given an order related to Naboth’s city. Though Naboth owns a vineyard adjacent to the king’s abode, this does not mean that he lived on this piece of land, but that he either worked the land himself or hired laborers to work it for him. Owing to this, we can presume that Naboth is probably a relatively wealthy individual, possessive of some measure of honor within the community, so it does not come as a surprise, considering the location of his vineyard, that he is being chosen out for a special honor by the king, to host a community feast and therefore occupy what we know as the protoklisian at the feast that followed the fast. There is also this mention of seating two “villains” opposite Naboth at this feast. Naturally, these men will not be known to the community as villains, but rather, since this story is a decided polemic against Jezebel that seeks to at least partially exculpate Ahab from blame in this manner, the men are going to play the villain in the story, right along with Jezebel.
So what happens? As directed, “The men of the city, the leaders and the nobles who lived there, followed the written orders Jezebel had sent them” (21:11), believing that they had come from the king. With this belief in our minds as we read the story, we can surmise that it is doubtful that the original communication that was presumed to have come from Ahab used the term “villains” (at least, not in the way that we tend to think of villains). Along with that, the men who carried out these orders were simply acting in accordance with the demands of justice. As far as they knew, Naboth had actually done that of which he was accused, and accordingly, was deserving of the judgment that they knew would take place. Jezebel took advantage of this. So “They observed a time of fasting and put Naboth in front of the people. The two villains arrived and sat opposite him. Then the villains testified against Naboth right before the people” (21:12-13a), as this would have been a gathering of the entire community, “saying ‘Naboth cursed God and the king.’” (21:13b)
Just as the leaders were not necessarily complicit in this act of injustice, neither were those who testified against Naboth. Again, as far as they knew, this information and directive came from the king. Predictably, “they dragged him outside the city and stoned him to death” (21:13c). This horrible achievement was predicated on honor and the meal table. The two “villains” that were set opposite Naboth would be seated to his right and left, the positions of greatest honor at a meal. The persons seated immediately to the right and to the left of the chief seat were presumed to be possessive of even greater honor that the one seated in the host position. Accordingly, when these two men, who were undoubtedly well-respected men of the community, and not simple villains whose words would carry no weight with the community, offered these words of testimony about Naboth, their testimony would have been presumed to be truthful and would have carried a tremendous amount of weight. Thus, the resulting fate of Naboth.
No comments:
Post a Comment