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. 

Galatians & Giving (part 8 of 8)

So how does all of this knowledge about Paul’s purposes in relation to intra-church conflicts, cultural dynamics, and societal norms aid in better understanding “Now the one who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with the one who teaches it”? (Galatians 6:6).  Well, since it is possible and probable that slaves and masters were sitting side by side at the church’s meal table (and hopefully learning to love their neighbor as themselves by engaging in conversation in a mutually up-building way), and because it is also most likely the case that a slave would, oftentimes, be chosen to preside over the meal and the symposium, it would also make sense to believe that, on frequent occasions, it would be a slave that was offering up a word of prophecy or sharing some form of instruction (be it a tongue, an interpretation, a song, or what have you) for the building up of the church (the purpose of the use of all gifts). 

Yes, a slave or perhaps even a woman might very well be responsible for imparting instruction to the assembled body, as they participate equally in the symposium, teaching and expounding upon the word of Israel’s God for the purpose of advancing the kingdom, or of advancing the understanding of the way in which the church is to function in and for the kingdom of the Creator God.  Likewise, when viewed from the perspective of the Jew, it may be a Gentile from whom instruction is being received. 

Either way, in a world in which it was not uncommon to pay (and honor) a traveling teacher, there was to be no delineation and no discrimination when it came to the remuneration of those that were instructing and serving to build up and strengthen the body.  In every other meal association, not only would it be unheard of to allow those with no honor (honor being assigned and recognized by the community at large) to teach (as if somebody lacking any honor could impart useful information), but it would also be problematic.  For the church this would not be problematic, but it would be an opportunity to display the only proper delineation, which would be the delineation that demonstrates just how incredibly unique was the body that represented the world’s true King and His kingdom. 

Just as it would have been customary for an orator or one skilled in rhetoric, and therefore held in high esteem, to be compensated for the exercise of their particular gifting, with nobody thinking twice about the appropriateness of compensation, so too should there be no hesitation in providing compensation to anyone, be it a slave or woman, who performed such a role for the Jesus community.  This equal sharing owing to teaching, regardless of social status and standing outside the church gathering, along with the necessary disavowal of any pathetic divisions or classifications within the church body, would be evidence of the operation of the covenant God’s Spirit within the community. 

It is in accordance with this way of thinking that Paul can then be heard saying “Do not be deceived.  God will not be made a fool.  For a person will reap what he sows, because the person who sows to his own flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit” (6:7-8).  Though it remains a component, clearly, the instruction to “share all good things with the one who teaches it” goes well beyond its customary use to provide justification for giving to one’s church, and thereby showing respect for the teaching and the teacher.          

...Like A Gentile Or Tax Collector (part 1)

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.  If he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector. – Matthew 18:17  (NET)

Stern words from Jesus.  The context, of course, is relationships between covenant brethren.  Jesus has said “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone.  If he listens to you, you have regained your brother.  But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that at the testimony of two or three witnesses, every matter may be established” (Matthew 18:15-16).  The introductory verse to this study follows from this statement, presenting something resembling a system for dealing with intra-Jesus-community conflicts. 

So how are these words generally interpreted?  Upon first reading, is there a thought of something along the lines of “Yes.  That’s right.  If the necessary efforts have been made, and if the response is not correct (meaning, the response is not that which the community wishes to see), then that individual is to be marginalized and ostracized---treated as a Gentile (or a pagan) or a tax collector, for he is unrepentant and beyond reach”?  

One could venture to say that, instinctively, especially in light of an often all too parsed reading of Scripture, that such thoughts do indeed tend to present themselves.  In general there is a custom, especially within the church world, to the creation of an “us vs. them” mentality, with the “us” being those inside the church, and the “them” being the pagans, heathens, and veritable Gentiles and tax collectors that stand outside of and presumably opposed to the church and its claims on behalf of the Christ and His cosmic and unquestioned Lordship of all.  This treatment, though probably stemming from a customary reading of the text, would also and unfortunately be patently incorrect. 

Without going into too much detail, it is worth recounting that the Jews, in recognizing their role as the Creator God’s elect and chosen covenant people, and according to the prescriptions of the Mosaic law and the rather large assortment of traditions grafted on to that law, kept themselves separate from Gentiles.  Purity laws, and especially those encouraged by the strictest of the orthodox in the days of Jesus the Matthean community, demanded that there be no mixing with Gentiles.  For them, and painting with an extraordinarily broad brush, Gentiles were those people that stood against the claims of their Creator God, while also functioning in an ongoing role of oppressors (very much an us vs. them mentality). 

Tax collectors, of course, were the hated group (often of their fellow countrymen) that collaborated with their Roman oppressors to continue their ongoing exile from the place and situation that it was believed their God had promised to them.  This disdain went well beyond the general disgust that is almost universally felt towards those that collect taxes, as their presence and their role were constant reminders of Israel’s covenant failures, and their God’s ongoing punishment of them as His covenant people. 

If these basic facts are taken into consideration, then it would seem rather odd to say that an assessment of Jesus’ statement that affirms an isolation and ostracizing of unrepentant individuals through treating them as Gentiles or tax collectors is an incorrect statement.  Still, that statement stands, and this study resolutely denies that Jesus came anywhere near to implying that an unrepentant individual should be isolated, ostracized, or condemned.  At the same time, His statement is unquestionably affirmed, and said individual should absolutely be treated like a Gentile or a tax collector.