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. 

Acts, Jealousy & Honor (part 5 of 5)

Peter has no qualms about making reference to the presumed shameful cursing undergone by Jesus because of the honor that came to be bestowed upon Him, which is indicated by what comes next, which is that “God exalted Him to His right hand as Leader and Savior” (Acts 5:31a).  These terms, “Leader” and “Savior,” were terms applied to Caesar, with this serving as yet another reminder that these leaders of the people that were currently addressing the disciples of the Christ had colluded with the Roman authorities, even going so far as (at least according to portions of the Jesus tradition) to have claimed that to not execute Jesus as a traitor was itself an act of treason against Caesar, while simultaneously stirring up the crowds to claim that they had no king but Caesar.  Cunningly and boldly, Peter co-opts these titles and applies them to Jesus.

Having been reminded of their guilt, “they became furious and wanted to execute them” (5:33b), but a man named Gamaliel interjected, reminding the council of previous instances of revolutionary activities (which serves as a reminder that the Jesus movement was more than just a religious movement, and that it encompassed all of life---social, political, economic, etc…) that had sparked, flamed, and burnt out in time.  With a wider scope of vision suggested, Gamaliel insists that “in this case… stay away from these men and leave them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking originates with people, it will come to nothing, but if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them, or you may even be found fighting against God” (5:38-39a).  It is said that by these words, “He convinced them” (5:39b). 

The disciples, having been temporarily removed from the presence of the council during the course of deliberations, were then re-summoned.  Though the members of the council been convinced to not fight against the disciples, they were still concerned about their public honor and its associated power.  Always mindful of that, and seeking to rob the disciples of any honor that may have accrued to them, while simultaneously attempting to shame them further, they “had them beaten” (5:40b). 

Beyond that, and desirous of protecting their own public reputations, “they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and released them” (5:40c).  The disciples, who were no longer concerned with their own honor or shame, being concerned only with increasing the public honor of Jesus through embracing what was supposed to have been the source of greatest shame---His crucifixion (especially at the expense of those who had attempted to shame Him and who were still attempting to shame Him), “left the council rejoicing because,” like Jesus and His cross, “they had been considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name” (5:41). 

In complete disregard of the council, attending only to gaining Jesus the honor that was due to him, and completely unconcerned with the jealousy of those that sought to preserve their own honor and power, “every day both in the Temple courts,” which had been the place of their arrest and of Jesus’ most significant public activity, “and from house to house, they did not stop teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus was the Christ” (5:42).    

Compassionate Brother (part 16)

With the gifts of a substantial number of animals, the words of the messengers, the bowing before Esau, and the repeated use of “servant” and “lord,” that plan could be seen unfolding.  However, it was also seen that Esau felt these things to have been completely unnecessary, as he runs to his brother, welcoming him with open arms and demonstrating compassion in his words and actions.  Basically, though Esau will begrudgingly accept the gifts that are on offer from his brother, Jacob’s well-rehearsed plan is dismissed out of hand, as Esau counters Jacob’s attempt to attract shame to himself in order to elevate his aggrieved brother. 

In stark contrast and as something of a reversal, Esau’s own actions bring shame upon himself, as he runs to his brother and refrains from taking action to avenge the dishonor done to him many years prior.  Whereas Jacob expected conflict, Esau appeared to be in favor of celebration.  Though Jacob had been dead to him, and though part of the plot was the thought that Esau had wanted him dead, it was now as if Jacob had returned to life.      

Though it has taken some work to get to this point, this story of the compassionate brother sounds remarkably similar to a story that would eventually be offered up by Jesus.  Though Esau generally gets a bad rap, and though there is precious little positive talk of Esau in Scriptures, perhaps the man who regularly dined with tax collectors and sinners, who offered up stories commending “unjust” stewards and good Samaritans, and generally opened up the kingdom of God to what were considered to be all the wrong people, had the story of Esau as the compassionate brother in mind when He offered up the parable of the compassionate father (often incorrectly labeled as the parable of the prodigal son). 

In that story, Jesus tells about a man with two sons.  The younger of the two demanded that his father give him the assets that would eventually come to him upon his father’s death.  This is the equivalent of wishing his father dead, which would have been well understood by those that would hear this tale from the lips of Jesus.  The father, who would be immensely dishonored by this action (the family would also suffer dishonor in the community), accedes to his son’s wishes. 

Though this is not precisely what happened with Isaac and his two sons, Isaac insisted on blessing Esau (the older son), indicating that he wanted to do so before he died.  However, rather than Esau receiving the blessing as the firstborn, the blessing fell to Jacob.  In the parable, as it is presented by Jesus, the son dishonored his father by his request, just as Jacob dishonored his father.  In both cases, the father has every right to take vengeance on his son, but he restrains himself.  There is compassion in evidence. 

In the parable, reports of the actions of the son would have quickly spread through the community, creating a growing hostility towards this presumptuous and shameful son.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that his life would have possibly been in jeopardy (as was Jacob’s), so it is quite likely that he quickly sells the assets in order to gain liquidity and leaves.  As did Jacob, with possible death looming, the son leaves on a journey to a distant country.  Jesus informs His hearers that the son “squandered his wealth with a wild lifestyle” (Luke 15:13b).  

Compassionate Brother (part 14)

As an aside, a similar story of give and take and relent can be found in connection with Abraham, which serves as a reminder that there is a cultural component at play in this reunion exchange between Jacob and Esau, and that it is informed by the constant struggle for honor in almost every transaction.  The twenty-third chapter of Genesis opens with the report of the death of Abraham’s wife (Jacob’s grandmother) Sarah has died.  Abraham desired to obtain a burial site for Sarah, and speaks to a group of men, saying “I am a temporary settler among you.  Grant me ownership of a burial site among you so that I may bury my dead” (23:4). 

Not wanting to lose sight of Esau’s compassion, of his willingness to shame himself, and the fact that great honor accrues to him because of his extension of compassion, the encounter between Jacob and Esau is kept in mind, along with the culture of honor that even extends to routine transactions, as the exchange between Abraham and these men is observed.  Abraham receives a favorable answer as he hears: “Listen, sir, you are a mighty prince among us!  You may bury your dead in the choicest of our tombs.  None of us will refuse you his tomb to prevent you from burying your dead” (23:6).  Though this seems like the offer of a gift, in reality, with these words the negotiations have begun.  Abraham understands this.   

Abraham “got up and bowed down to the local people,” saying “If you agree that I may bury my dead, then hear me out.  As Ephron the son of Zohar if he will sell me the cave of Machpelah that belongs to him… Let him sell it to me publicly for the full price, so that I may own it as a burial site” (23:8-9).  Though this will certainly be a great honor for Ephron, the immediate acceptance of payment from Abraham would be a source of dishonor for Ephron.  Also, as every such transaction is an opportunity to elevate oneself in ongoing competition to accrue honor and eschew shame, getting Abraham to purchase more than that for which he has expressed interest will gain him some honor, as it demonstrates the shrewdness and business savvy of the seller.  Of course, this will not be unexpected by Abraham.  He’s willing to play the game, and has undoubtedly played the game throughout his life as well.  

The negotiation continues, as Ephron, couching the offer as a demonstration of magnanimity while also extending the range of purchase (a rather regular feature in transactions in the culture) says, “No, my lord!  Hear me out.  I sell you both the field and the cave that is in it.  In the presence of my people I sell it to you.  Bury your dead” (23:11).  Ephron has called attention to the fact that there are many witnesses to this negotiation, which is a tacit reminder of the honor game that is being played.  Hearing this, Abraham bows again and says “Hear me, if you will.  I pay to you the price of the field.  Take it from me so that I may bury my dead there” (23:13b). 

It should be noticed that Abraham does not yet name a price, leaving this to Ephron to propose---another feature of the game of honor.  Abraham receives the response of “Hear me, my lord.  The land is worth four hundred pieces of silver, but what is that between me and you?  So bury your dead” (23:15).  Though Ephron has been forced to name the price (and thus loses that end of the game), by his words he attempts to position the price as so low that it is practically a gift to Abraham.  Thus the game continues.  Those that have spent any amount of time in the east, whether living there or simply visiting, will be familiar with this type of exchange.           

Water Into Wine (part 8 of 8)

To assist in further explaining the head steward’s words and actions towards the bridegroom, one must bear in mind that as far as he is concerned, it is in fact the bridegroom that has provided this new wine.  This is truly the only reasonable assessment at hand.  If this is so, then for some reason the bridegroom has gone behind the back of the head steward and colluded against him in this area, in what could be easily understood to be an attempt to make him look bad before the community. 

Also, the head steward would be completely justified in thinking that, for some reason, the bridegroom was making an overt attempt to dishonor his honored guests by purposely not providing them with the best wine.  The head steward, apparently, is not only not willing to let this blame be put on him, thereby letting the scheming bridegroom off the hook, he is also not willing to go along with the dishonoring that he sees taking place. 

Finally, and though things should probably not be pushed too far in this area, it should be noted that the wine was produced in the “six stone water jars… for Jewish ceremonial washing” (John 2:6b).  For reasons of purity, ceremonial washing was of crucial importance.  These ceremonial washings may have been limited to the hands, but one can also bear in mind the incident recorded in the seventh chapter of Luke, in which Jesus, while a woman is washing His feet with her hair, mentions to Simon that He had not had his feet washed when He entered Simon’s house. 

So it is within the realm of possibility that these jars had been the jars employed in the washing of the guests hands and feet as they arrived for the wedding feast.  If this is so, then the servants of the house would have been employed in this process, as they assisted the attendees in the process of washing, and perhaps were even completely responsible for doing the washing of the feet themselves.  It is these servants then, who are part of the group of people will be drinking the best wine, which now flows from out of their jars of service. 

With this, those at the party and those learning about the party afterwards through either the social network or via the text, are able to witness the first becoming last (ironically because they refuse to drink the better wine being served at the end of the meal), while the last become first (as those who had been relegated, due to the prevailing social structure, to the end of the meal now drink the finest wine).  As this thought is entertained, it is quite useful to hear the author say “Jesus did this as the first of His miraculous signs” (2:11a), with the first becoming last and the last becoming first.  “In this way He revealed His glory” (2:11b) and the advent of the kingdom of the Creator God.

Suppression Of Truth (part 6 of 6)

Here again, one simply finds passion misdirected to that which dishonors, springing from self-idolatry, rather than to that which acknowledges and honors the Creator God.  In a sharp and revealing contrast to the shame that was said to have been experienced by Adam and Eve when their eyes were opened and they realized what they had done and that they were naked, Paul insists that mankind’s course of dishonor and idolatry would quickly reach the point at which “Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error” (Romans 1:27b). 

Indeed, it would appear to be the general argument of Scripture that, because of the corruption that occurred at what is recognized as the fall of man, which is pointed to as the time at which the truth of the covenant God and of man’s purpose in this world to honor the Creator rather than self began to be suppressed, that death began its long reign.  Borrowing the language of the Apostle, this was a due penalty indeed.  With this in mind, Paul goes on to describe the lot of all of humanity, writing “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done” (1:28). 

Thusly, from time immemorial mankind has been “filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice… rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility” (1:28a).  It goes beyond that, as Paul goes on to write, “They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless” (1:29-31).  This would certainly seem to run amiss of that which the Creator intended for His specially created image-bearers.  Paul continues, writing that even though all this be the case “they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them” (1:32).  

So yes, because man had been imprinted with/as the divine image, he retains, even in the midst of his self-worship and petulant refusal to acknowledge a god beyond himself.  Here Paul implies that there is still a basic, residual knowledge and understanding of the Creator God’s decree of death for violation of His covenant, though the fallen image-bearers impotently rage against and attempt to deny that decree, along with the just Creator that stands behind it.  In spite of this damning indictment, the reader of the letter to the Romans eventually come to find that, because of the love of God, the Christ died (5:8) for that same humanity just described, which is most definitely a truth that should not, cannot, and will not be suppressed.   

Suppression Of Truth (part 4)

What is the end of this becoming foolish and its expression of foolish statements?  Paul writes that the ones who did not glorify the Creator God, nor give Him thanks, but became futile in their thoughts with darkened hearts, who claimed to be wise but instead became fools, “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles” (Romans 1:23). 

What Adam and Eve accomplished was indeed the beginning of idolatry, and it began with self-worship, along with a complete disregard of their God and a forgetfulness of the Creator.  A forgotten Creator, together with self-worship, can be seen when Eve gives birth to a son and declares herself to have been able to create a man.  With that, man, rather than continuing to comprehend himself as the steward of life, now looked at himself as being able to bring forth life---as god-like. 

There is an implication that once the Creator God is shoved to the side and replaced by another creator, then the fact that there was an act of creation (along with an associated gifting of responsibilities) by that Creator falls quickly from the mind.  Having forgotten their Creator, and no longer bearing in mind that they were part of a good created order, Adam and Eve (and those to whom they gave birth) could look around them, observing the entire order of nature, and surmise that the animals that they saw had brought themselves into existence, that they could also pro-create and generate life, and that they were therefore worthy of worship as well.  So began the interminable fall into the practice of idolatry that has gripped mankind from the very beginning.  The Scriptures seem to insist that it is only the grace of the covenant God of Israel that enables one to break free from the ingrained tendency to idolatry, so as to be able to see the Creator in His glory, and in doing so, seek to honor and give worship to Him.      

   

With mankind having made its nearly irrevocable fall into idolatry, worshiping that which is not the Creator God, and thereby deciding for themselves that there is no god beyond himself and that to which he ascribes divinity, Paul continues his potential reflection on the creation story and insists that “God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves” (Romans 1:24). 

The Creator God was to be honored by mankind’s stewardship of His good creation, but man, as can be observed from the fall and all that followed, had and has an altogether different plan.  It becomes patently clear from Genesis that the serpent merely simply seized upon the desire of the human heart to honor only self, and Paul, because of his constant assertion that the God of Israel is ultimately in control of all things, describes this as the Creator God giving humanity over to the desires of the heart. 

With this self-honor, in truth, the opposite transpired.  With this self-honor, impurity imposed itself into the world.  With this self-honor came dishonor.  That dishonor, resulting from the rejection of their God’s plan for them, manifested itself in death.  The blame for this does not lie with the serpent, but with mankind alone, who alone was created as the divine image for the cosmos.  This dishonor came at their own hands, as humanity is said to have engaged in the process of dishonoring their bodies through their own decisions and actions---doing so among themselves.  What had been made in perfection and for life was now subject to the dishonor of death, far removed from the God-glorifying honor of the Creator, which is the purpose for which they had been created.