The complaint about Jesus’ table companions is voiced on a
regular basis. It is an attempt to
discredit Him as He went about discrediting those connected to the Temple, and
it is a relatively prominent feature of the Gospel portraits of Jesus.
Considering the importance of the meal table in that day and time, this fact
should go a long, long way towards informing us about a major thrust of Jesus’
ministry, along with informing us as to a major focal point of the early church
and the oral traditions about Jesus, given their weight by His crucifixion and
Resurrection, that would eventually be codified as Gospels.
We can find some of this criticism taking place in the
seventh chapter of Luke. We read that “the Pharisees and the experts in
religious law rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (7:30a). Immediately
thereafter, Jesus launches into a monologue that will conclude with Jesus
reciting a regular accusation against Him (which also points out the
inseparable connection of His ministry and that of John the Baptist), saying
“For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine,” and thus
making no overt references, by his actions, to the messianic feast (which
should ideally accompany a pronouncement that the kingdom of God is at
hand), “and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man has come eating and
drinking,” messianic-ly proclaiming the kingdom along with engaging in regular
feasting, “and you say, ‘Look at Him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax
collectors and sinners!’” (7:33-34) We
hear this in the context of the perceived threat to power, prestige, and
position that came with the sense that Jesus was presenting Himself as an adequate
stand-in for the Temple.
Considering this and looking to the fifteenth chapter of
Luke, we consider the regular complaint against Jesus, bearing in mind that the
hearers of Luke’s compilation of the life of Jesus have now heard this
complaint on several occasions. As they would expect, Jesus once again
ignores the complaint, which is a veiled accusation that He cannot possibly be
the messiah, and launches into a series of parables (the parable of the lost
sheep, the parable of the lost coin, and the parable of the compassionate
father---sometimes referred to as the parable of the prodigal son, though this
gets the focus of the parable wrong). In doing this (ignoring the complaint
and the accusation), Jesus maintains and builds upon the now well-aserted role
of rabbinic superiority over His challengers, which has been demonstrated, by
Luke’s telling (reflecting the stories about Jesus that would have been
circulating in a self-correcting oral tradition), through their repeated
inability to respond to Him.
In this honor and shame culture, Jesus has been repeatedly
shaming His challengers, and this would have been well understood by one and
all. With this in mind, we, along with Luke’s hearers and readers
(primarily hearers in the first century), can fully understand the hostility
that is rising against Jesus. Not only is He de-valuing the institution
that they support and from which they receive their support, which was the
Temple, but He is also bringing them into disrepute, diminishing them in the
eyes of the populace and severing them from any semblance of power and
God-ordained authority (which stemmed from the Temple). As a brief aside,
it must be said that through shaming His opponents, Jesus has been gaining
honor for Himself, but He will ultimately divest Himself of all of that honor
by going to the most shameful place, which would be the cross. Thereby,
He lives out His insistence (heard in the fourteenth chapter) that one should
take the lowest place, so as to receive true exaltation.
Looking ahead to the nineteenth chapter, we find the
forty-seventh verse, in which Luke writes that “Jesus was teaching daily in the
Temple courts,” and that “The chief priests and the experts in the law and the
prominent leaders among the people were seeking to assassinate Him.” This
will be followed up at the beginning of the twentieth chapter with “as Jesus
was teaching the people in the Temple courts and proclaiming the Gospel, the
chief priests and the experts in the law with the elders came up and said to
Him, ‘Tell us, By what authority are you doing these things? Or who is it
who gave you this authority?’” (20:1-2) Thus, the Temple cannot be far
from our minds or those of Luke’s hearers, just as it would not have been far
from the mind of Jesus’ audience. Predictably,
maintaining the rabbinic challenge motif that Luke seeks to build through his
narrative, and yielding no ground in the perpetual contest of honor and shame,
Jesus answers the questions with a question of His own, related to John the
Baptist (obviously, Luke intends to demonstrate the explicit connection between
Jesus’ ministry and that of John), eventually eliciting an embarrassing “we
don’t know” from His interrogators.
No comments:
Post a Comment