Communion & The Kingdom Of God (part 3 of 3)

Let it be said that it is precisely at the communion table (as a microcosm of the messianic banquet, an announcement of the advent of the kingdom of heaven, and a reminder of Jesus’ ministry as it is so well summed up by His own meal practice) that the past, the present, and the future become a single reality that is full of mystery and wonder. 

Not leaving behind the Abrahamic covenant component of the communion, and its promise, reflecting the Creator God’s intentions for the redemption of His creation and of His image-bearers that would manifest itself in an acknowledging worship of Him, that all nations would be blessed by Abraham and his progeny, one sees that all of God’s past promises (with their present kingdom and future kingdom implications) are being fulfilled whenever and wherever peoples of all sorts come together to celebrate the table of the Lord. 

It is at that very moment, in which all stand before the covenant God, to lift the elements in recognition of the universal Lordship of Christ, and to do so in a full equality that is devoid of divisions and barriers to participation, that it is possible to catch a glimpse of the glorious future that the Creator intends to bring to pass for His world that He so loves, and for the creatures to whom He lent His image.  More than that, as one looks to the example that has been provided by Jesus, at the meals at which He participated, the ceremony (sacrament if you like) that He instituted, and the understanding of both that were held by the early church, remembering that for both Jesus and the church that He left in His wake, their vision of the kingdom was informed by Isaiah’s beautiful vision of the messianic banquet. 

With that in mind, one is also able to rightly perceive that the all-inclusive table of Jesus---the table that announces the kingdom of heaven while also confirming a desire to participate in the outworking of that kingdom, while undoubtedly possessing a Gospel communicating power that is able to move those who participate at the table without having made a confession of Jesus as Lord, to come under the conviction of such a confession (thereby informing all that the communion table should be an open one)---becomes among other things, a unifying force that breaks the back of racism, class division, and any and all types of social ostracism, marginalization, or oppression.  It does these things, at least partially, through a reminder that goes out to all, be it individuals, groups, or governments, that Jesus is king. 

Knowing this, is it not a shame that the breaking of the strength of that which often unnecessarily divides does not occur each and every time believers  gather together, as a signpost to the world that, in the kingdom of God as represented by the church, the principalities and the powers that hold an undue and illegitimate sway in the world have been stripped of their authority at the cross and are now under a demand to submit to the Lordship of the crucified One? 

If one knows this, and is cognizant of the charge that Jesus, with the messianic banquet in mind, while preaching and embodying the power and presence of the kingdom of heaven, was frequently charged with dining with all of the wrong people (tax collectors and sinners), then how could the church ever allow divisions at the table that was gifted to His disciples within what was obviously the same mindset?  On what basis can anyone close a table and exclude anyone from participation?  Do believers dare limit participation at the table of the Lord (which is not an individual body’s table but the table of the Lord) to a certain group of people that have met a certain set of subjective requirements that have been established in what might very well be an air of unearned superiority and unheeding forgetfulness of the example of the Lord of that table? 

Communion & The Kingdom Of God (part 2)

In this way, just as was the case in the days of the Caesars, the community will be suitably prepared to receive their ruler when the time for an appearance has been determined.  Yes, the communion, like so many other things associated with the message of Jesus, is subversive of the present order, and among other things, is designed to inform the world that it has a true ruler, whose name is Jesus. 

In these miniature kingdom banquets in which Jesus either participated or presided, or of which He spoke in His parables, it can be observed that those who had been ostracized from society and marginalized in some way are sought out and compelled to attend.  It is clear that the keepers of the covenant boundaries in His day (Pharisees, scribes, etc…) were aware that the inclusiveness that was put on display by Jesus was a critique that was directed towards them, as the long and contentious history of Israel’s dealings with the nations of the world had left them weary and wary of open relationships with Gentiles that might jeopardize either individual or corporate standing within the covenant.  The attitude of “better safe than sorry,” when it came to what it meant to be a light to the nations, which, according to what is on display with Jesus and can be extrapolated from His words and deeds, was not altogether pleasing to the Creator God. 

So when one considers Jesus’ table fellowship in connection with the church’s modern communion tables, one sees that all are invited to attend, with this invitation including the marginalized alongside those who might be marginalizing them; but Jesus’ repeated emphasis on the first being last and the last being first, draws attention to the fact that there is not going to be (or at least there should not be) any discernible hierarchies or societal constructs on display at the meal that is designed to tell and to educate the world about the kingdom of heaven. 

It is, most definitely, not going to be a time or a place for reprisals or counter-oppression, nor a celebration of exclusivity.  The communion, like the feasts of Israel, is a celebration of the Creator God’s rule, this God’s deliverance, and the human responsibility to rightly bear the divine image so as to be a light that draws praise and worship to the Creator. 

It is very important to grasp that the table fellowship that Jesus put on display was not assembled without due consideration of the plan that His God intended for His creation.  Quite apart from being thrown together on a whim, the tables at which Jesus participated, at which He endured criticism because of their openness, and which are summed up in the table of communion that He left with His disciples, were duly informed by Scripture.  At practical levels, Jesus worked out that which was portended by Scripture. 

It is possible to go even further.  Though Jesus, through His life and ministry and in and around His meal practice was certainly making the implication that in one sense the Kingdom had arrived, from the outset there was the sense that there was to be a final fulfillment of what was being put on display in those meals and at the communion, and that one’s present response to the banquet (meals and communions) invitations at hand was going to have a role in determining, in advance, if one was going to have a place at the final banquet looked forward to by the prophets, by Jesus, and by His disciples.  

Communion & The Kingdom Of God (part 1)

The communion table can be and has been looked upon in a variety of ways, many of which have value, and are practical and helpful as those who participate at the table seek to live out their faith.  The communion should not be primarily looked upon as a personal experience with the Creator God or as a place where individual needs are met, but rather, as a proclamation of His kingdom, recognizing its inauguration through Jesus.  This can be achieved by keeping it within the context of the practice of Jesus, the messianic feast, and the Passover, along with what is signaled by said practice, the messianic feast and the Passover---upon which the communion as given to believers by Jesus has been founded. 

The communion table that Jesus instituted looked back to the grand vision of Isaiah’s all inclusive end-time feast.  This looking back also involved a looking forward, but the fact that it looked back, and the fact that it had a context within Israel’s history and its feasts, means that any and all interpretations of the communion that do not involve historical and eschatological considerations in relation to conceptions regarding the kingdom of Israel’s God and the expectations of that God’s people (past, present, and future) are going to be dangerously flawed.  Thoughts concerning the communion must take into consideration the fact that the God of Israel had made a promise to Abraham, and the final fulfillment of that promise was intended to be celebrated by all nations within this God’s new world. 

The new world is that which was brought into existence at the Resurrection of Jesus---the world in which Jesus is king.  At the same time, that new world is something for which believers still wait and for which the whole of the creation groans.  Jesus was and is the primary agent of that kingdom.  Jesus inaugurated and is inaugurating Isaiah’s vision in the past and in the present through miniature kingdom banquets.  This is what can be seen at His meals and in His parables, this is what can be seen taking place at the “last supper,” and this is what is taking place whenever those that claim Him as Lord take up the elements of bread and wine. 

The tables observed in the life of Jesus are enactments of the kingdom of heaven, in which all are invited to participate, and so too is the communion.  In addition, those who participate in the communion are promising to embody the kingdom principles as demonstrated by Jesus and as seen at His meals, while acknowledging that there is to be a future, earthly consummation of the kingdom of heaven to be expected. 

The communion table is an ambassadorial function, designed to prepare the world for the arrival of the King.  Just as the Caesar would place statues and busts of himself while also encouraging honorific ceremonies within far-flung communities that were under his dominion, as a reminder of his lordship, so too has Jesus.  By the power of the Resurrection and through the mysterious operation of the Spirit, He has placed new creations within this old creation, along with ceremonies such as communion and baptism, to serve as vessels for the remembrance of His Lordship. 

Woe (part 2 of 2)

It is with such thoughts reverberating one’s mind that now allows an observer to go on to hear Jesus saying, “For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that this generation may be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary.  Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation” (Luke 11:49-51). 

This is not to be taken lightly.  Without delving into the “wisdom” traditions of Israel, not only should this be seen as a stinging rebuke, but one must imagine the shock that would be felt as Jesus uttered these words.  Whereas the experts in religious law and Temple leaders believed that they were doing what was necessary to cause their God to embody the messiah and resoundingly act within history to defeat their enemies, rescue them from foreign subjugation, and install blessed Israel as the exalted nation of the world, Jesus informs them of His opinion that their isolating and excluding actions are productive of a mindset (revolution and rebellion?) that is going to bring yet another reckoning of judgment upon the nation. 

He concludes by saying “Woe to you experts in religious law!  You have taken away the key to knowledge!  You did not go in yourselves, and you hindered those who were going in” (11:52).  Talk of “going in” would have to be related to the coming kingdom of heaven that was going to be manifest on earth through their God acting through His messiah.  So with all of this, Jesus has effectively challenged the basis of their power structure amongst the people, which was the idea that they held the keys for the manifestation of the kingdom of heaven. 

If the masses were to continue listening to Jesus, and if they were to take up His way of neighborly and selfless acts done to and for all without limitation as the means of representing, ushering in, and making manifest the kingdom of God, then it would seem to be impossible to foster any type of movement to drive out the Romans so as to reclaim the covenantal land and enjoy the related promises.  So one do not wonder at the fact that “When He went out from there, the experts in the law and the Pharisees began to oppose Him bitterly, and to ask Him hostile questions about many things, plotting against Him, to catch Him in something He might say” (11:53-54).  Their desire to discredit Jesus would have been palpable and understandable.  

Woe (part 1)

Woe to you Pharisees!  You love the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces!  Woe to you!  You are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without realizing it! - Luke 11:43-44  (NET)

Though one of the “experts in religious law” (11:45a) spoke up to let Jesus know that He was being remarkably offensive with His words, Jesus continued on in a way that let these men know, in no uncertain terms, that He found their kingdom-and-light-withholding ways offensive.  He goes on to say, “Woe to you experts in religious law as well!  You load people down with burdens difficult to bear, yet you yourselves refuse to touch the burdens with even one of your fingers!  Woe to you!   You build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors killed.  So you testify that you approve of the deeds of your ancestors, because they killed the prophets and you build their tombs!” (Luke 11:46-48) 

As these words are read, one must resist the temptation to fall back into the long-placed trap of imagining that Jesus is railing against their “works-based” religion, while He was heroically attempting to bring forth a faith based upon a recognition of grace.  This is not, nor was it ever the issue at hand.  By mentioning the prophets, Jesus calls their attention to the underlying message of the prophets, primarily directed at the leaders of the people, which called attention to the failure to properly bear the covenant with which they had been charged, usually by entering into idolatry, and thereby failing to serve as a light to the nations that would draw people to the recognition and worship of Israel’s God---the Creator God. 

An inescapable and prominent component of this charge against His people was the neglect of orphans and widows, and it would not be a stretch to say that the elevation of idols went hand in hand with such neglect, as one almost necessarily and axiomatically included the other.  Now that idolatry in the traditional sense had been effectively put away and was no longer a problem within Israel, intensification of the demands of the law so as to bring about the establishment of the kingdom of heaven was a new form of idolatry that served to create more and more barriers to a widespread awareness of Israel’s covenant God, leading to the same type of neglect. 

The issue was not one of works of the law versus grace and faith, but rather exclusivism and isolation in an attempt to keep the Creator God’s covenantal promises for themselves versus truly functioning as lights for the world and extenders of the Abrahamic covenant.  Truly, if one is so caught up in and astonished by a lack of ceremonial hand-washing and conformity to certain irrelevant sectarian prescriptions, how concerned is one going to be to share the grand blessings of the Abrahamic covenant with a Gentile “sinner”?  

Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 5 of 5)

Understood in this way, this story of a woman anointing Jesus’ feet with costly perfumed oil lines up quite well with the other record of the same (in Matthew and Mark), in that both women, as far as Jesus is concerned, are performing sacrificial acts towards the true and lasting Temple.  With all of this, Jesus provides further demonstration of His Messianic self-understanding; and it does not escape notice that this straightforward and dramatic presentation of Himself as Messiah has yet again taken place at a meal.       

It is not until the eleventh chapter of Luke, in passing over the feeding of the five thousand, that Jesus can once again be seen at a meal.  In the thirty-seventh verse Luke writes “As He spoke, a Pharisee invited Jesus to have a meal with him” (Luke 11:37a).  As Jesus is rarely in the habit of turning down these meal invitations, regardless of who is making the request, “He went in and took His place at the table” (11:37b).  One is left only to wonder which position at the table has been taken by Jesus.  Does He take the position of most honored guest, sitting immediately to the right or left of His host, who would be seated in the protoklisian (chief seat), or would Jesus position Himself at the lowest place, that being the seat known as the “eschaton”?  It is not important to settle this question here, as the fourteenth chapter of Luke will give provide a greater insight into a potential answer. 

As is common, Jesus is immediately questioned.  It is not presented as an outright question, though one can imagine something being said by the Pharisee that would engender the response that is forthcoming from Jesus.  Luke reports that “The Pharisee was astonished when he saw that Jesus did not first wash His hands before the meal” (11:38).  This is akin to the hushed murmuring that so often accompanied Jesus, which was “He eats with tax collectors and sinners.”  This act of “negligence” on Jesus’ part becomes yet another charge against the possibility of Jesus being the messiah---an ever growing litany of factors, in the minds of some, weighing against this possibility.  In response, Jesus is somewhat less cordial than He has been in the past. 

When He was subtly accused of impropriety when it came to the woman that washed His feet with her tears and hair, Jesus offered up a question of His own to His concerned host.  However, Jesus does not here propose a question, nor does He offer up a parable.  Rather, He lets loose upon this Pharisee, and presumably upon other Pharisees in attendance at this meal, saying “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness” (11:39).  A stinging rebuke indeed! 

He does not let that stand on its own, adding “You fools!  Didn’t the one who made the outside make the inside as well?” (11:40)  With this, Jesus reminds them of their Creator---the God of Israel.  Jesus, operating inside Jewish custom, indicates that the purpose of the washing of hands was the remembrance of the Creator God and His covenant, but this washing had been reduced to a mere formality and custom.  One can imagine that it was used as yet one more barrier, separating the chosen ones of the covenant God from the “tax collectors and sinners” that stood outside of the covenant. 

How can this be imagined?  Well, it is not difficult to surmise that Jesus, Who is routinely concerned with the kingdom of heaven and its practical outworking, has that inclusive kingdom in mind when He says, “Woe to you Pharisees!  You give a tenth of your mint, rue, and every herb, yet you neglect justice and love for God!  But you should have done these things without neglecting the others” (11:42).  This follows His insistence to “give from your heart to those in need, and then everything will be clean for you” (11:41). 

Beyond that, one must not fail to assess the placement of the record of this meal within the overall narrative structure of Luke.  In this telling of the life of Jesus that could very well be designed to be read or recited as a performance piece in a single sitting, one is not far removed from the parable of the “Good Samaritan.”  That parable is prefaced by an expert in religious law standing to test Jesus, just as He is being tested at this meal with this Pharisee, and saying “Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” (10:25b)  Jesus asks for this expert’s opinion, which comes back as “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself” (10:27).  Jesus acknowledges His answer by saying “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live” (10:28). 

When pressed by the expert as to who would be his neighbor, Jesus responds with the familiar parable of the good Samaritan.  The parable closes with Jesus asking the expert to identify the neighbor in the parable.  “The expert in the religious law said, ‘The one who showed mercy on him” (10:37a), that “him” being the wounded man.  To this, Jesus replied “Go and do the same” (10:37b).  With this parable, Jesus presented His expectations concerning the kingdom of His God and its requirements for costly acts of sacrificial love that show little concern for self, as demonstrated by the Samaritan. 

One does not travel very far from that telling within Luke’s Gospel before again hearing Jesus speak of love and a need for just actions, as in His first pronouncing of “woe” to the Pharisees that are present.  Indeed, there is a nearly direct parallel with the parable.  In addition, it should be noted that the Samaritan gives, and Jesus, unsurprisingly, speaks of a need to give from the heart to those in need.  This is unlikely to happen as long as His followers are overly concerned with the desire for conformity to communal norms that have little or nothing to do with the manifestation and advance of the kingdom.   

Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 4)

Jesus says: “Do you see this woman?  I entered your house.  You gave me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.  You gave Me no kiss of greeting, but from the time I entered she has not stopped kissing My feet.  You did not anoint My head with oil, but she has anointed My feet with perfumed oil” (Luke 7:44-46). With this, Jesus makes it clear that this man had acted improperly towards Him, and that the woman was making up for the slighting. 

In a sense, it can be said that by shaming herself at Jesus’ expense, she was attempting to enter into the indignities to which Jesus was being subjected.  As this is considered, it is almost impossible to not think of the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Colossian church, in which he writes, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my physical body---for the sake of His body, the church---what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ” (Colossians 1:24). 

Jesus then provides proof that He knew precisely what type of woman this was that was touching Him, by going on to say “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which were many, are forgiven, thus she loved much” (7:47a).  This did not call for supernatural insight.  Her expression of love was all He needed to see to confirm the forgiveness which she felt.  Much is spoken in these words.  One must notice that Jesus provides a sense of time and distance with His words. 

Even though Luke immediately goes on to write “Then Jesus said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven’” (7:48), His words concerning her response indicate that this was a reiteration of something that she had already experienced.  In regards to what she had done at the feet of Jesus, He said that “she loved much,” indicating that the acts of love (as one must not forget the suffering and shame associated with those acts) were in response to the fact that she had already had a sense of forgiveness, and had already passed into the kingdom of Israel’s God.  Jesus did not need to inform her that her sins were forgiven, as she already knew. 

Clearly then, the words were spoken for the benefit of those in attendance at the meal and who were surrounding Him at the table.  The reader can apprehend this when we moving along to find “But those who were at the table with Him began to say among themselves, ‘Who is this, who even forgives sins?’” (7:49)  Why would this be said?  It would be said because forgiveness of sins was provided at the Temple and was the domain of the Temple.  One could certainly be absolved of sin (failing to rightly bear the divine image, failing to live up to the obligations of the covenant), but only by presenting a sacrifice at and for the Temple.  With these simple words, Jesus demonstrates that He believes Himself to be Messiah---the embodiment of Israel’s God, and therefore the true Temple. 

By extension then, this woman’s costly act of sacrifice was, in fact, performed at and for the Temple.  This allows an observer to understand the full import and impact of His words when He says to the woman that “Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (7:50).  Were not these words the words that would be spoken to those who had brought their sacrifices to the Temple, so as to receive confirmation of their forgiveness and right-standing before the Creator God there? 

Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 3)

Having dealt with that transition, it’s now possible to move on to an examination of Jesus at a meal at the house of a Pharisee.  At this particular meal, Luke reports that “a woman of that town, who was a sinner, learned that Jesus was dining at the Pharisee’s house,” and that “she brought an alabaster jar of perfumed oil” (Luke 7:37) to this house.  Jesus, of course, was in the customary reclined position on the dining couch, with His feet away from the table, and this woman “As she stood behind Him at His feet, weeping… began to wet His feet with her tears.  She wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the perfumed oil” (7:38).  

At first glance, this may seem to be a repetitive presentation, as this study has already encountered a similar story of perfumed anointing in an examination of the meals of Matthew and Mark.  However, this is clearly a different function and a different woman, with this event taking place well ahead of the anointing story chronicled in Mark and Matthew.  As a matter of fact, Luke omits the particular anointing story found in Matthew and Mark, providing this one instead.    

There are a lot of very interesting things that could be said concerning what this woman is reported to have done.  She wet Jesus’ feet with her tears, and wipes His feet with her hair (7:38).  Jesus calls attention to this when He speaks to the Pharisee, pointing out the fact that she is now doing that which the Pharisee had failed to do when Jesus entered his house, which was wash Jesus’ feet (7:45).  One need not dwell too long on this one point, but for a woman to take her hair down and to use it in this way would bring much reproach. 

Clearly, this woman is unconcerned with the reproach and shame that she is bringing on herself, and is only concerned with honoring Jesus and making up for the dishonor that was extended to Him when He did not receive the customary foot-washing.  She is more than willing to take shame upon herself so that the one that she obviously looks to as Lord might be honored, which is a cruciform expression of love. 

In addition, she was said to have kissed Jesus’ feet and anointed them with oil (7:38), whereas Jesus did not receive this courtesy from His host (7:46).  Though Jesus saw these acts as expressions of love, the Pharisee looked upon them quite differently, saying to himself, “If this man were a prophet, He would know who and what kind of woman this is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner” (7:39).  As Jesus was quite familiar with the responses that He received in association with His dining with “tax collectors and sinners,” one can imagine that He was sensitive to the demeanor of His host. 

Being obviously aware of what was being thought of Him, Jesus proffers a short parable to the Pharisee, posing a question concerning the forgiveness of debts, to which the Pharisee is said to have responded correctly.  It is upon receiving an appropriate response that Jesus turns the tables on the one that had been subjecting Him to such critical thoughts.  When He calls attention to her acts, not only does Jesus honor this woman, but in the process, He shames the negligent Pharisee.  The Pharisee had sought to shame Jesus and the woman, but Jesus reverses the situation. 

Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 2)

One may wonder why this is so.  However, any wondering is blunted when one considers the joint-authorship of both Luke and Acts, with Acts forming the second half of what is effectively a single discourse.  As Acts is a record of the earliest activities of the apostles of Jesus, and because table fellowship was an important and unfortunately contentious issue in some of the earliest church communities (witness the confrontation between Peter and Paul in Antioch over the subject of table fellowship, as recorded in Paul’s letter to the Galatian church), it is understandable to find Luke more inclined to share more table stories, and to create a narratival construct that will make the record of meals and Jesus’ participation and teaching at these meals, a more prominent feature of his biographical and theological presentation of Jesus.  

If taken within the context of meals---a context which has been arranged by Jesus’ reference to the eating and drinking in which both He and John are said to engage, then one can hear Jesus speaking of Himself within the long-standing wisdom tradition within Israel that is associated with the Messiah.  Though it is the Gospel of John that makes a more prevalent use of the highly-developed wisdom tradition, there is no reason to preclude Luke from making use of it as well, as he makes his report on Jesus’ words and deeds.  If the messiah-associated wisdom tradition is in play here, then it is conceivable that there are messianic banquet considerations to be taken from the words of Jesus. 

Is this a bit of a stretch to hear Jesus making messiah and messianic banquet references in this short little statement?  Probably not, especially in light of His making mention of eating and drinking, and then Luke’s transition to Jesus’ presence at the dinner at the house of a Pharisee.  The use of “wisdom” as a clearly self-referential statement at this point in the narrative, when both Jesus’ hearers and Luke’s readers have been thrust into a meal-related mindset, clearly ushers us into a messianic context.  With thoughts of both messiah and meal at play, along with talk of vindication (an incredibly important concept for Israel especially in relation to messiah), it would not be difficult to find Jesus’ hearers associating words such as “all her children,” when used in this context, entertaining thoughts of the great messianic banquet. 

What is provided here is a glimpse into Jesus’ mindset as it relates to this banquet in Matthew, when He is heard to say “I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Luke 8:11-12).  Clearly, if one ever finds himself thinking that any of the Gospel authors are offering up anything less than complex theological constructs in narrative and biographical form based upon the fact of a resurrected Christ that demanded their full allegiance, then a tremendous disservice has been done to them.  

Luke & Jesus' Kingdom Banquets (part 1)

The Gospel of Luke, while it does many things in relation to Jesus ministry, provides believers with a firmly rooted understanding of the significance of meals, not only within the communities, but also within Jesus’ ministry.  Because of what they demonstrate, and because of what they allow to be demonstrated, Jesus consistently seizes upon these occasions to teach and to make points about the nature of the kingdom of heaven.  These meals also become the source of ongoing controversies concerning Jesus. 

Engaging with Luke, one finds a perfect example of that in the seventh chapter, as Jesus is following up on inquiries made of Him by disciples of John the Baptist, and speaking about him to the assembled crowds, doing so in the context of the kingdom of His God (Luke 7:28).  At the close of this dissertation about John, Jesus references the controversial nature of His meal practice (and even that of John in a roundabout way), by saying “For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’  The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at Him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (7:33-34)  One cannot take lightly the importance that Jesus and the Gospel authors attribute to meals.  A hermeneutic must be allowed to be fundamentally influenced by this meal dynamic.

Both Luke and Matthew have Jesus closing out His discourse on John the Baptist by adding, “But wisdom is vindicated by all her children” (7:35).  Though there is an implied break in the narrative following these words from Jesus, with the words of the thirty-sixth verse of Luke seeming to present a new situation, it is noteworthy that Luke immediately moves to inform the reader that “one of the Pharisees asked Jesus to have dinner with him” (7:36a).  With this, the author appears to be communicating the importance of meals, as even though there is a break in the action, so to speak, the theological narrative continues, with Jesus being moved directly from His statement about wisdom and her children (which follows a statement about eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners), to the acceptance of an invitation to dine at the house of a Pharisee. 

If an observer maintains a mental framework that does not have Jesus or Luke diverging from speaking from a context of meals and their importance, then it is quite possible to hear Jesus speaking in that context when He says that “wisdom is vindicated by her children.”  This, then, is not a disconnected aphorism recorded by Luke and randomly placed within the text, but rather, a transition that maintains the meal-related motif.  Of course, this cannot be asserted without addressing the fact that Matthew places Jesus’ speech about John within a different sequence of events, and does not move from the wisdom and children statement to Jesus’ meal in the house of the Pharisee. 

Without attempting to rectify or harmonize the chronological conflicts, the difference can be explained by noting Luke’s greater emphasis on Jesus’ meals.  Though Matthew certainly holds Jesus’ participation at various meals in high regard, rightly signifying their importance for understanding Jesus and their significance for the communication of His mission, it is Luke that has Jesus spending more time at meals, while also sharing some of His most impactful parables (the parable of the prodigal chief among these as one of Jesus’ most important, elaborate, and impactful parables) while at a banqueting table. 

Love & The Public Good (part 3 of 3)

Because this is a mixed congregation of both Jews and Gentiles, one can surmise that Paul’s use of “the law” would be well understood to be those basic provisions of the law (circumcision, Sabbath keeping, food regulations, refraining from worship of idols) that served as identity markers for Jews, and were constant points of contention and division in the early church.  Knowing this allows one to see how the unity and actions of love that are outlined and encouraged in chapter twelve of Romans come into play.  In addition to that, when considering that this is a letter that will be read to a gathered church at a single sitting, it is worth remembering a very early statement in the letter, wherein Paul uses the phrase “from faith to faith” (Romans 1:17). 

This simple statement sees Paul borrowing from the imperial propaganda of the day, which presents Caesar as the supreme benefactor.  The statement implies that Caesar is faithful to his subjects, providing them with peace and security, and therefore his subjects are faithful and loyal to him and to Rome.  One must hear the words of the thirteenth chapter with such words and thoughts in mind, in the knowledge that Paul is presenting Jesus as the actual supreme benefactor, of which the Caesar is merely a parody.  All civic interactions proceed within this framework, and the self-sacrificial love modeled by Jesus which saw Him go to the cross (unconcerned with the shame because of the honor He trusted would come), becomes the model upon which the life of the Christian community is based (unconcerned with shame because of the honor that comes with what counts as the fulfillment of the law, thereby marking one out as a member of the people of the Creator God and a participant in His kingdom). 

From here, Paul advances towards the meal table, which it is clear that he has in mind as he goes on to write “Let us live decently as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in discord and jealousy” (13:13).  Though it is not meant to serve as an accusation, this is language of the portion of the Hellenistic meal referred to as the “symposium” (period of revelry---singing of songs, debates, speeches, etc…---following a meal), and as it is possible that this church is hearing this letter while gathered for fellowship that will include a meal, the language would not be lost on them either.  It is to this then that Paul adds “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to arouse its desires” (13:14). 

A great disservice is done to the apostle if one simply substitutes personal and subjective notions of “the flesh” here, rather than considering “the flesh” within the context of the potential for disunity, division, stratification, and unwarranted authoritarianism within the church, as well as its connotations of the old age prior to the Resurrection, the inauguration of the new creation, and of the kingdom of the covenant God, in which preferring others above oneself is to be the norm. 

One must also take this statement into consideration in the context of the dissertation regarding the Christian’s responsibilities towards governing authorities.  Because one considers himself or herself to be part of the kingdom of God, a desire of the flesh might be to cast off all restraint and disregard governing authorities.  This was obviously a real possibility, which would account for Paul’s insistence that such authorities are “God’s servant for your good” (13:4a), and that it is “necessary to be in subjection” (13:5a)  (Note: Though democracies did exist, Paul does not have knowledge of a government that is constituted by “We the people,” such as to be found with the United States of America; so it is incumbent upon all generations of Christians, the world over, to understand Paul’s words in context and then to work out the implications of those words within their own time and place, guided by the dictates of the existing kingdom of heaven.) 

Rather than thinking about putting on the Lord Jesus Christ in the context of the cultivation of private spirituality, the understanding of putting on the Lord Jesus Christ should be shaped, and processed horizontally and outwardly, by embodying the transformational, kingdom-of-God-contexted love that was put on display by Jesus throughout the entirety of His mission, culminating in the cross.  This would certainly serve to quell any fleshly desires that might be manifested (separations based on honor and shame) or discussed (open rebellion against Rome that could result in the taking up of arms and the discrediting of the Jesus movement) at the meal table, thus resulting in a life of true holiness (a life laid on the altar of sacrifice in service to Israel’s God). 

Love & The Public Good (part 2)

When reading about “respect” and “honor,” one must remember the culture of honor and shame, and understand this part of what Paul is saying accordingly.  Naturally, if the Christian has complied with his duty to be a voice to the rulers, doing good so as to receive their commendation (Romans 13:3b), with this doing of good the language of public benefaction; and if the church has been complicit in its responsibilities to care for orphans, widows, lepers (sick), and the poor, then the governing authorities will be able to restrict the scope of its activities to being “God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer” (13:4b), rather than engaging in all manners of activities with which the Christian will find disagreeable.  This then allows the Christian to pay taxes with a clear conscience, properly acknowledging their God’s provision of those charged with government functions. 

Of course, this also bears on the responsibility of the church to communicate the words of one who preached the kingdom of the Creator God, as the Gospel of Luke records of John the Baptist that “Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, ‘Teacher, what should we do?’  He told them, ‘Collect no more than you are required to.’” (Luke 3:12-13).  The idea that tax collectors would collect only that which they were required to collect would have been quite the radical notion in that day, as it was well understood that tax collectors, quite simply, collected more than what was required, lining their pockets and enriching themselves with the excess.  Yes, this issue of government and taxes, as presented by Paul, must be understood within the context of the church’s responsibility to embody the love of its God by effectively preaching the Gospel of the kingdom and living out in their own community the principles of that kingdom. 

If a government, on this side of the cross, has become oppressive, with oppression generally linked to high levels of taxation (while understanding that the average person under the Roman empire paid well over half of their income---in the course of a subsistence lifestyle---in taxes, with this often leading to debt and ultimately slavery, which brings in the issue of “owe no one anything”), then the church of the Christ need only look at itself and its failure to remain true to Jesus’ message of the advent of the kingdom of the covenant God, and of that God’s desire to bring the rule of heaven to earth, as it has most likely retreated into an escapist fixation that limits the acceptance of Jesus’ challenging and world-altering message to going to heaven when one dies. 

It is worthwhile to re-read this section as a whole so that one can frame it within a statement made very early in this letter to the Romans.  Paul writes “Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  For the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,’ (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does no wrong to a neighbor.  Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (13:7-10). 

Love & The Public Good (part 1)

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. – Romans 13:8  (NET)

In the thirteenth chapter of Romans, Paul extends his discourse from chapter twelve, which delineated the love that will be exercised within the Christian community, writing “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (13:8).  This statement takes into consideration the pervasive structure of the debtor society of the Greco-Roman world, while it also seems to address the attendant and entrenched system of patronage and benefaction. 

Those that are instructed to “Owe no one anything” are encouraged to take the necessary steps to free themselves from the encumbrances of debt, and therefore free themselves from having to acquire a benefactor, as slipping into or maintaining such cultural norms will diminish the impact of the Christian community as a force for societal transformation, while it also, possibly, has a deleterious effect on the Christian meal table. 

The Christian, Paul would surely insist, is to be the patron of only one benefactor, that being Jesus, thus allowing the Christian to take the position of being a loving and altruistic benefactor to his community, his country, and to the world, as an enthusiastic representative of the kingdom of the Creator God.  When one considers the context in which Paul delivers the statement of verse eight, it should be noticed that he begins with “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God” (13:1).  This is the paradoxical situation of the Christian. 

Yes, the confessed member of the body of Christ owes his allegiance to the kingdom of the covenant God, and yes, the Christian message is quite subversive in that it recognizes Jesus as the King of kings.  However, the Christian lives with a tension, recognizing “God’s appointment” of authorities.  That paradoxical tension of respectful subversiveness is well explicated by the second Psalm, which provides an example to be followed by the people of the Creator God and the nature of their interaction with governing authorities. 

There the Creator God’s people, via the Psalmist, are heard saying “So now, you kings, do what is wise; you rulers of the earth, submit to correction!  Serve the Lord in fear!  Repent in terror.  Give sincere homage!  Otherwise He will be angry, and you will die because of your behavior, when His anger quickly ignites” (2:10-12a).  While this can also be taken as words of warning to those that this God intends to be His kings and rulers in this world---His divine image bearers, it is well-understood to be directed to human authority figures.

Undoubtedly, this is directed firstly to the kings of Israel, and then by extension, to the kings of the earth as the Creator’s people take up their role to be a shining light to the nations that do indeed exemplify divine blessing, with a desire to be continuous extensions of the positive end of the Abrahamic covenant (a blessing to all peoples).  Such is neatly summed up by the last part of verse twelve of the second Psalm, in which insists “How blessed are all who take shelter in him!” 

It is in this light, the light of love and the opportunity to be a legitimate and well-received voice to those rulers that are in need of submission to the imperial claims of Jesus, that Paul writes “For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing.  Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due” (13:6-7). 

Laodicea's Wealth (part 6 of 6)

When Jesus says, “Because you say, ‘I am rich and have acquired great wealth, and need nothing’” (Revelation 3:17a), He lets the church at Laodicea know that the grand claim and accompanying attitude of the city of Laodicea following the earthquake that leveled their city, that they needed no help or funds from Rome to rebuild, had infiltrated their church.  This is what reveals that there were very likely some wealthy individuals to be found in the church (and perhaps they were preaching a very early version of the “prosperity gospel”?).  Again, this is not a problem unless the presence of the wealth leads to ungainly results, in which the wealthy are simply treated better within the church and afforded greater honor (in the honor and shame culture) simply because of the fact of their wealth. 

Lest they become too puffed up with their wealth, which would have been gained through their business of money exchange for the region (3:18a), their sale of high-end clothing made from the black wool for which Laodicea was famous (3:18b), or the sale of their eye salve (3:18c), Jesus lets them know that they are actually “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked” (3:17b), and encourages them to “take My advice and buy gold from Me refined by fire so you can become rich!  Buy from Me white clothing so you can be clothes and your shameful nakedness will not be exposed, and buy eye salve to put on your eyes so you can see!” (3:18)  One must notice the use of “shameful.”  Such language, given the cultural context, is quite specific and should not escape attention. 

This is a bit of a double entendre, as it serves as both a rebuke against unwarranted puffery as it relates to what is of true value in the kingdom of the Creator God and amongst the people that represent that kingdom, while also reminding them that this is the attitude that those that have acquired wealth (regardless of the means by which it was acquired, whether that be skill, diligence, luck, inheritance, oppression, or fraud) should take when it comes to their position inside the church.  The wealthy, who are seated at the places of honor at the world’s banqueting tables, should be even more fervent in their efforts to take the lowest place when it comes to the gathering together of the church.  Yes, even making a strenuous and concerted effort to do so, while not trumpeting the fact that it is occurring. 

Ultimately, the practice of serving in the church will spill over into their participation in the wider community (as should be the case for all, whether rich or poor), thus the gathering together as a church and exemplifying the power of the Gospel to turn the world upside down (the accusation leveled against the church community in Acts 17), allows the people of the kingdom of the covenant God to learn the way that their God expects them to serve and prefer one another so that they may effectively represent His kingdom to a watching and waiting world, in an ongoing development of the virtue of serving and preferring, so that such things become a matter of habit. 

Laodicea's Wealth (part 5)

It does indeed seem to be the case that it is the possession of wealth that is causing the problem that is being worked out in their practice as a church.  In introducing these three things, Jesus, through John, has called attention to Laodicea’s rejection of imperial assistance for rebuilding efforts following an earthquake.  They were rich, had acquired great wealth, and were in need of nothing.  This was true of Laodicea as a city, and apparently, had also become true of this church as well.  The celebration of wealth had infected the church in such a way that they were denying the kingdom of their God by their practice (much like Laodicea denied Rome’s assistance, which also denies the extension of Roman power), causing Jesus to see them as being wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked. 

Having made His point concerning what the wealth had accomplished, always with an eye towards correcting the practice of the church, Jesus takes up a discourse that utilizes the three main wealth generators (financial/gold transactions, textiles, eye salve), relating them to Himself and what is available through Him, so as to make it clear that the blessings that are available to His people as part of His kingdom are far superior to anything that could bring them wealth in the world’s present form, especially if it brought about a denial of Him and His kingdom principles and practices.  This denial of kingdom has placed Jesus, as far as He is concerned, outside the church, where He stands at the door and knocks, speaking to them (as He is doing in this letter), and desiring to re-join them.  Before expressing what it is that He desires to do, Jesus says, “All those I love, I rebuke and discipline.  So be earnest and repent!” (Revelation 3:19) 

With this mention of rebuke, discipline, and repentance, Jesus offers them a path back to where they belong.  As shall be seen, Jesus’ words are quite specific and quite telling.  Jesus is being very explicit, and this church will have no problem in identifying what they are getting wrong, and setting it right.  Clearly, the church community at Laodicea believes themselves to be quite special.  It would appear that, in this case, there are some wealthy individuals in the church, which is not problematic in and of itself.  However, allowing cherished non-church-community ideals to infect the church and its fellowship is highly problematic. 

The church, of course, while taking the full measure of its cultural context, attempts to shift their community’s culture in the direction of the cross, recognizing above all the sovereign claim of the covenant God’s kingdom and its consequent demand on those that confess allegiance to its King.  The church, which is identified within its community by its fellowship, is not to be overrun by a dominating social ethos in such a way that it begins to reflect society back on itself.  If the church is reflecting the values and ethics of the community in which it is to be found, then unless that community is one that is predominantly shaped by an abiding concern for the kingdom of the Creator, then that church is going to be quite handicapped (wretched, poor, pitiful, blind, naked) in its ability to reflect the glory of its God into the world.       

The world, of course, is the new world that began taking shape at the Resurrection.  Just as a people of Israel’s God was sent into a promised land to live in a certain way that their God desired and to redeem that land as the firstfruits of a redeemed humanity and creation, so too are the people of this same God following the Resurrection, and in the transformative power of the Spirit and the Gospel confession, delivered into their promised land (now the entire creation), to live as their God desires, as the firstfruits of a redeemed humanity and a redeemed cosmos.  

Laodicea's Wealth (part 4)

With His words of white clothing, Jesus produces a sharp contrast between His white clothing that is on offer, and the clothing made from black wool that was productive of wealth in this city.  That wealth is creating an insidious problem in the church, and that problem need not exist.  Again, the crux of the issue is not the wealth but rather the response to the wealth by those that are calling Jesus Lord, yet denying Him by their actions.     

Having made reference to Laodicea’s place in the world of finance (buying gold), as well as their position in the fashion world (white clothing in contrast to the black wool), mention is then made of one more source of wealth that has a hand in contributing to that which is happening within this church in Laodicea, and is displeasing to Jesus.  John reports Jesus saying, “buy eye salve to put on your eyes so you can see!” (Revelation 3:18c) 

While this could be thought of as an allusion to Jesus’ healing of the blind, and specifically to the instance of record in which Jesus spits on the eyes of the man whose sight is restored (Mark 8:23), or to the time when Jesus spit on the ground to make some mud and smeared the mud into the eyes of a man that had been born blind (John 9:6)---both of which were interesting types of eye salve to be sure, it is far more likely that the reference hits much closer to home for those that made up this particular congregation. 

This reference to eye salve, or to some type of eye medication, is more than likely yet another reflection of the historical situation in Laodicea.  So once again, these words have an important contextual setting that, when recognized, will keep an observer from running off the tracks into strictly spiritual (and possibly incorrect) interpretations.  At the risk of being overly repetitive (though this is not truly a risk), spiritual applications (for lack of a better term) can best be accomplished and are most effective when steps are taken to hear the words as they would have been heard by the original hearers, to be understood and applied in that context so as to grasp the underlying truths that are being communicated, and then translated through time for personal application. 

That said, the historical situation in regards to the eye salve has to do with the fact that the region in which Laodicea is located is Phrygia.  There is some debate as to whether or not this is actually the case, as Laodicea is sometimes said to have been a part of other regions, such as Caria.  Contributing to the inability to pin down exact locations is the fact that territorial limitations were often very poorly defined and always changing.  The region of Phrygia was famous in the ancient world because of the “Phrygian powder” produced there.  This powder was an ingredient in various eye medications. 

To go along with the fact of the Phrygian powder, an ancient historian by the name of Strabo reports that there was a medical school in Laodicea, and that this was the location of the practice of a renowned eye doctor.  When coupling the statement about eye salve in the letter to Laodicea with the fact of the Phrygian powder, it becomes reasonable to presume that Laodicea was located within this territory, at the very least at the time of the penning of Revelation.  Putting that aside, this is a clear indication that the Laodicean church had become blind to something in particular, that it must be corrected, and that the issue that must be corrected must be identifiable for the church. 

Laodicea's Wealth (part 3)

As a result, Jesus implores this church---the very church upon whose door He stands and knocks so that He might come in and share a meal---to “take My advice and buy gold from me refined by fire so you can become rich!” (Revelation 3:18a).  This is another reference based on historical context.  Laodicea is a place in which large financial transactions take place, with this making a major contribution to the wealth of the city in general, and more than likely, to some of the individuals within the church.  Understandably, precious metals such as gold would have been standard fare in the financial world of the day, which makes sense of Jesus’ reference to the need to buy gold from Him. 

There is no need here to go to any discourses about the impossibility of buying the things of God, or to ponder what it is that Jesus insists needs to be obtained.  Such would be inappropriate, and need only be ventured if one fails to consider the context of Laodicea’s position, its trade, and its source of wealth.  An abundance of gold will generally cause those that possess such abundance to consider themselves rich.  However, Jesus has already informed this church that their practice, quite to the contrary, has made them truly poor.  If they will but discard the practice and enter into what it is that He desires, as demonstrated by His life and practice, then they will truly be rich. 

If the Biblical narrative pattern is followed, these riches (blessings?) that are indissolubly linked to practice will probably have some connection to the Abrahamic covenant.  The true gold that will be purchased from Jesus will be inextricably connected to the kingdom principles that He demonstrated throughout His ministry, and according to the Hebrew prophets, there can be no greater riches than those which are connected to the established kingdom of the Creator God.

According to John, Jesus continues on to say, “Buy from me white clothing so you can be clothed and your shameful nakedness will not be exposed” (3:18b).  Here is yet another contrast.  The issue of putting on clothing appears to be a regular theme in the earliest church.  In his second letter to the Corinthian church, Paul writes: “For in this earthly house we grown, because we desire to put on our heavenly dwelling, in indeed, after we have put on our heavenly house we will not be found naked.  For we groan while we are in this tent, since we are weighed down, because we do not want to be unclothed, but clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (5:2-4).  Though Paul makes reference to houses, dwellings, tents, and clothes, the subject at hand is the glorified, resurrection body that the believer will have when the kingdom of the Creator comes in its fullness. 

In the letter to Laodicea, the shameful nakedness would seem to have the same point of reference, as there will be no glorified body available, and no place in the kingdom of the covenant God made possible for those that operate contrary to the principles of that kingdom in the course of their natural term.  The purchasing of “white clothing” is yet another reference to that which has garnered wealth for Laodicea, which was the textile industry.  Laodicea was a center for the manufacture of clothing, and the sheep that grazed around Laodicea were quite famous for the soft, black wool that they produced, which in turn created a high demand for clothes made from this black wool. 

Laodicea's Wealth (part 2)

However, contrary to what might be expected, not only did Laodicea not request assistance from Rome or from the emperor, they actually declined the assistance that was offered, choosing instead to rebuild and restore the city from their own means.  This, of course, would grant Laodicea some measure of independence from Rome; but only a measure, as they still relied on the existence of the empire and the relative security and stability it afforded.  In fact, Laodicea received from Rome the title of “free city,” and was the “conventus” of its territory, meaning that it functioned as the capital city of a division of the Roman province in which it was located.  This meant that it would be the seat of a district court, as well as the headquarters for other governmental functions for the region. 

Taken together, the facts of the great wealth of the city, that the wealth enabled them to decline assistance from Rome after a catastrophe, and that it was a seat of provincial government (though not relying on the largesse or beneficence of Rome or of the emperor, in contrast to so many other cities of the region), Jesus’ chiding of His church for its insistence that they were rich, that they have acquired great wealth, and that they were in need of nothing becomes quite understandable. 

Now, this is not meant to be a condemnation of wealth.  Taking a negative view of wealth, whether civic or individual, based on these words, would be unwarranted and out of context.  What one must keep in mind as progress is made in pulling back the layers of nearly two thousand years of cultural changes that have served to obfuscate from view what would have been easily seen and understood by the Laodiceans in their day (they would have known about declining imperial assistance in rebuilding, they would have known why, and as citizens of Laodicea they would have been quite proud of that fact), is that their wealth is what is causing them to engage in practices that have Jesus wanting to vomit them out of His mouth. Therefore, these practices are not in line with what can be observed in His mission, nor are they in accordance with the message of the Gospel. 

The practice or practices (as the case may be) of this “lukewarm” city (Laodicea) stands in contrast to what takes place in the “hot” and “cold” cities (the well-known epithets assigned to Hierapolis and Colossae).  The church in Laodicea, correspondingly, is being asked to observe the difference in practice between itself and the churches in those other cities and to mimic the practice, thereby becoming either hot or cold, either of which was perfectly acceptable to Jesus.

After commenting on their wealth and need of nothing, Jesus makes an interjection that serves to negate any vaunted ideas of self as citizens of Laodicea that might have arisen from such thoughts, saying that this church did not realize that they were actually “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked” (3:17b).  Not only is this a challenge to their honor, metaphorical and analogical application seems to be unavoidable, as Jesus wants them to understand that though they may be wealthy, their nauseating practice that partially stemmed from the fact of their wealth actually showed them to be something far different.

Laodicea's Wealth (part 1)

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot.  I wish you were either cold or hot!  So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth!  Because you say, “I am rich and have acquired great wealth, and need nothing,” but  do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked, take my advice… Revelation 3:15-18a  (NET)

After making mention that their practice had Him displeased to the point of using the imagery of vomiting, Jesus is reported to have gone on to say, “Because you say, ‘I am rich and have acquired great wealth, and need nothing’” (Revelation 3:17a).  Since hot, cold, and lukewarm are being employed for purposes of tangible and easily understandable geographical reference, so too should this statement be comprehended in the same manner.  Accordingly, whatever it is in which the church is engaged is somehow tied to wealth. 

The usual interpretation has the Laodiceans over-confident in regard to spiritual wealth, and unable to recognize their spiritual bankruptcy.  Of course, that usual interpretation follows hard on the treatment of hot, cold, and lukewarm as spiritual epithets rather than the geographical indicators leading to an understanding centered on the practice of the church community that would have been readily grasped by those who would be receiving the letter.  There is no initial need to spiritualize here, and one should resist the ingrained desire to do so.  Spiritual analysis and application can and should come later, once Jesus’ words are understood in context. 

With just a little bit of digging, one finds that this is not a subtle reference to a supposed self-righteousness or smug satisfaction with a wealth of spiritual gifts.  Again, the readers of the letter would have to be able to understand what John is writing (and Jesus is saying) within their context in order for it to make sense to them, for it to have meaning, and for it to be productive of Jesus’ desired ends.  If a hermeneutic (method of interpretation) has been carefully established, in a way that keeps in mind that there are real church communities with real people receiving these very real and obviously important communications, it is possible to engage and understand these words from Jesus, as well as the words that lead up to Jesus speaking of standing and knocking (though not in this study), quite easily and altogether profitably. 

Though Laodicea was located on a major road, Laodicea was a place of little importance in its early history.  This changed under the first few Roman emperors.  During this time, Laodicea began to benefit from its location on a major road, and thus a major trade route, in time becoming one of the most important and flourishing cities of Asia Minor.  Among other things, a specialization in large financial transactions sprung up in Laodicea, and it would also become important in the textile industry. 

The area in which it was located also suffered from earthquakes.  One especially strong earthquake occurred in 60AD, destroying the city completely.  In that time, earthquakes were just as common as they are today, but of course, buildings were not constructed to be earthquake proof, so the general result of significantly powerful earthquakes would be the complete destruction of the cities in the effected regions.  During the time of Roman domination, most cities destroyed by earthquake would quickly appeal to Rome to provide funds and resources to assist in rebuilding as quickly as possible.  This would be especially true for cities on major trade routes, and likely even more true of Laodicea, considering the city’s role in the financial arena. 

Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 5 of 5)

Beyond the fact that the meal is taking place at the house of a leper (though one may be tempted to imagine that the meal is taking place at Lazarus’ house because it is said “they prepared a dinner for Jesus there” (Mark 12:2), the “there” must be a reference to Bethany), when folding in the details from the Gospel of John, one is now urged to look a second time at the fact that Martha was serving.  Martha is not only serving, but she, a wealthy woman like her sister (who can afford to “waste” a valuable amount of perfume), is serving in the house of a leper.  This is unthinkable in that day. 

Clearly, Simon is somebody that is further down the social scale from Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, so the fact that a more noble member of society is serving in the house of somebody that is “beneath them,” is a radical shake-up in the normal social order, though such things seem to be quite commonplace with Jesus.  It is the presence of Jesus, and that alone, that is bringing this unthinkable occurrence to pass.    

The social mobility of modern times (for a large part of the world), along with the casual mixing of classes that makes it impossible to positively and concretely identify one’s socioeconomic status was unknown in the ancient world.  Various aspects of the culture, especially the setting of meals and banquets, revealed social status in no uncertain terms.  The fact that this is so foreign to most people causes results in missing these aspects that would have stood out in the early years of the church.  One tends to read past these things, whereas a time and a culture that is thoroughly accustomed to these things and ordered around meals, would have had very strong reactions and opinions associated with what was being seen in Jesus’ actions and what was being communicated by the church about Jesus’ actions. 

A prominent feature of this story is that Mark makes it a point to mention that Jesus is dining at the house of a leper named Simon.  For some reason, Lazarus is absent from Matthew and Mark’s story, and of course, is absent from any Gospel save that of John.  Though Lazarus’ lack of any presence at all in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is bizarre (to say the least), it is Simon who is conspicuous by his absence from the telling in John. 

Though Simon is not present in John, Lazarus, though he is famous and people are coming to see Jesus on account of him, is not presented as the honored guest.  He does not take the place of Simon, but is presented merely as “among those present at the table with Him” (John 12:2b).  Lazarus is just another guest, Martha is serving, and Mary is (according to John’s record, wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair---which brings its own provocative considerations that are beyond the pale of this study).  There is a dynamic at work here with this particular meal that should serve to provide structure for any thoughts and considerations of Jesus’ kingdom message.