When we consider the fourth chapter of the first letter of
Peter, we should do so from a position at the table of fellowship, hearing
these words along with their original hearers from within the context provided
by the meal culture of the ancient world and the meal culture of the church. Thusly, we interpret their meaning
accordingly, and are therefore are able to make the intended application when
we hear “For the time that has passed was sufficient for you to do what the
non-Christians desire” (4:3a). What are those things? In relation
to the practices and customs of the banqueting tables of the ancient world and
to what we have learned about them, Peter adds, “You lived then in debauchery,
evil desires, drunkenness, carousing, drinking bouts, and wanton idolatries”
(4:3b), all of which would feature prominently in feasts and celebrations, as
honor and exploitation of position was a primary pursuit.
Christians, as we would expect, were to be different.
Their table was to represent far more. It represented their Lord and God
and His rule, so it must be different and look different, and it will command
the attention of the watching world. Peter writes “So they are astonished
when you do not rush with them into the same flood of wickedness, and they
vilify you” (4:4). As has been noted, Christians (noting that this letter
is the only New Testament letter to employ the term) were accused of heinous
activity in association with their meals (e.g. cannibalism), charged with
atheism and with having a destructive effect on the social cohesion of their
communities and of the empire itself. Indeed, vilification took place,
and it did so in conjunction with the derisive name of “Christian” (kristianos
as opposed to kaisarianos), so it is quite interesting that Peter takes up its
usage in the sixteenth verse of this chapter, mentioning suffering “as a
Christian,” as well as in the third verse, using it negatively with the term
“non-Christians.”
Based on what comes in between the use of non-Christian and
Christian, it becomes strikingly clear that Christians were to be primarily
identified by their meal practice, from which would stream their good works for
the benefit of their communities and ultimately the world. This would, of
course, be in keeping with the fact that those with whom God has entered into
covenant, have largely been identified by meal practice of some form.
This is patently obvious when it comes to the Jews, as the major provisions of
God’s covenant involved keeping His Sabbaths, which were the feasts ordained in
the Mosaic law. This also included dietary laws that would come to be
used as a means to readily identify an individual as being in good covenant
standing and able to participate in the rule of God. This notion,
however, stretches back to the very first covenant of Scripture.
In Genesis, we read that “The Lord God took the man and
placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. Then
the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat fruit from every tree of
the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.’” (2:15-17) There,
the bearer of the divine covenant, who was charged to represent God in and for
the whole of the creation, has his covenant marked out by what we could term as
meal practice. Keeping ourselves in Genesis, the next covenant, which God
made with Noah when He “blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, ‘Be
fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’” (9:1), was codified with “You may
eat any moving thing that lives. As I gave you the green plants, I now
give you everything. But you must not eat meat with its life (that is,
its blood) in it” (9:3-4).
From there we move to Abraham, and though we do not see any
type of meal associated with the initial report of God’s covenant with him that
occurs in chapter twelve of Genesis, we do find such things just two chapters
later. After Abraham defeats the kings that had captured his nephew, we
see that “Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine” (14:18a),
learning that “he was the priest of the Most High God” (14:18b). Though
it may be somewhat disconnected, and though it may be a tenuous stretch, as we
reach the eighteenth chapter, we should note with interest that Abraham, the
one that was blessed of God so as to exemplify divine blessing, “looked up and
saw three men standing across from him. When he saw them he ran from the
entrance of the tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said,
‘My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by and leave your
servant. Let a little water be brought so that you may all wash your feet
and rest under the tree. And let me get a bit of food so that you may
refresh yourselves since you have passed by your servant’s home. After
that you may be on your way.’” (18:2-5). It is further reported that
“They ate while he was standing near them under a tree” (18:8b).
Though we do not presume that Abraham washed the feet of his
visitors, as this was most likely performed by a servant, we should be unable
to pass by such words without a contemplation of the washing of the disciples’
feet that Jesus undertook before returning to the table where He would speak of
“the one who eats My bread” (John 13:18) before passing a piece of bread to
Judas. While we naturally associate this action with Judas’ betrayal, the
record of the Gospel of John only makes this clear in retrospect. When
Jesus gave Judas the bread and accompanying instruction, “none of those present
at the table understood why Jesus said this to Judas. Some thought that,
because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him to buy whatever they
needed for the feast, or to give something to the poor” (13:28-29).
No comments:
Post a Comment