Seeing God (part 9 of 9)

Now why does this matter?  It matters because of what happens in conjunction with this particular report of the activity of the Son of Man.  Jesus goes on to say that “All the nations will be assembled before Him, and He will separate people from one another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  He will put the sheep on His right and the goats on His left.  Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for  you from the foundation of the world.’” (Matthew 25:32-34) 

Paying close attention now, it is possible to learn why they will inherit the kingdom (mind you, this is not about going to a place called heaven, but rather, living in and possessing and establishing the Creator God’s kingdom brought to earth), as Jesus (the Son of Man, the Son of God, the King) says “For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited Me in, I was naked and you gave Me clothing, I was sick and you took care of Me, I was in prison and you visited Me” (25:35-36).  This sounds an awful lot like the use of treasure.  Might it be the case that one is supposed to think, at this point, about the construct of purity in heart from earlier in Matthew? 

Matthew goes on to report the response from those to whom Jesus has spoken, as he records Jesus saying “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink?  When did we see You a stranger and invite You in, or naked and clothe You?  When did we see You sick or in prison and visit You?’” (25:37-39)  After Jesus has detailed, and after His hearers have repeated the use of treasure, illustrated by food, drink, hospitality and shelter, clothing, and the gift of self and time, which can now be understood as the demonstration of purity of heart (it is not difficult to see in these things the care that the Creator God demands be given to resident foreigners, orphans, widows, and the poor), the righteous respond most interestingly. 

Just in case it passed un-noticed, the response contains three uses of “see You.”  It is asked, “when did we see You.”  Here there is a demonstration of purity of heart directed towards the King (Jesus, God), followed by a seeing.  There it is!  This is the answer for which we this study been searching.  To seal the deal and close out this study, look at what comes next.  “And the King will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of Mine, you did it for Me” (25:40).  Those that give of themselves and their treasure in these ways: providing food, drink, clothing, shelter, and care to fellow travelers in this world that also, however broken and marred, bear the same divine image with which all have been endowed, reveal that they are pure in heart.  Yes, according to Jesus, in doing these things they have seen, and do indeed see God.          

Corinth's Communion (part 6)

One must not short the understanding of what is being said by thinking of the Lord’s Supper as simply the bread and the cup of the communion.  The Lord’s Supper must here be understood in the context of the well understood tradition of the entire meal of Jesus and His disciples (and Jesus’ repeated meal practice), of what that meal and the specific and identifiable tool for remembrance and identification of kingdom participants that Jesus provided to His disciples at that meal, and of the hopes of the messianic banquet.  Thinking must be adjusted so that when the Lord’s Supper is considered, that thinking goes beyond just the bread and the cup of communion and of those few minutes of church services that are taken up by the practice.  Participants must force themselves to think of the Lord’s Supper in its larger context and against the background of the common meal practice of the ancient world.  

Moving then to the twenty-first verse, where the facts of the matter seem to become more glaring, Paul writes: “For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper.  One is hungry and another becomes drunk” (1 Corinthians 11:21).  With this, when considered along with what is now known about the banqueting tables of the ancient world, in which the most honored get the best food and drink, whereas those possessive of less honor get lesser food and drink, whereas some in attendance may get nothing at all, with service taking place in order of most honorable to least honorable.  Thus it becomes quite evident that Paul is taking issue with the meal practice of the Corinthian church. 

Reiterating then because this is important, this serves as a reminder of the common and accepted situation of banquets, in that the honored guests would eat first, and that they would also eat the best food while receiving the best wine, while the guests towards the other end of the social spectrum would have to wait to be served, and perhaps may not be served at all.  In practice, some guests could be full and drunk before other guests receive a single morsel of food. 

Here then, it is appropriate to reflect on the story of Jesus turning the water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana, and in the context of what Paul writes to this church, consider that the best wine was then going to be reserved for those that would be receiving their food and drink at the very end of the meal.  This would have been contrary to all custom, and serves as a reminder that Jesus regularly flouts societal customs that He believes to be out of step with the ideals of the presence of the kingdom of heaven (heaven, the realm of the Creator God’s existence, coming to earth and appearing where Jesus is and where those that believe in Him act according to what they believe to be His ideals).

Returning to consideration of Paul’s statement about one being hungry while another is drunk, it is important to remember that in some cases when it came to the meals of that time, invited guests would receive nothing at all.  In that time, such a situation would not necessarily have been thought to be a problem, especially if the honored guests (those possessive of more honor in the court of public opinion) had received their food and drink. 

It would appear that this altogether unfortunate situation was occurring within this church at their common meals.  Rather than demonstrating that they truly believed that all were one because of their belief in Jesus as the Christ, and that there was neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, and neither Jew nor Greek, there were divisions being put on display at the very meal that was supposed to be demonstrative of the messianic banquet, and to which they were apparently making reference as being the “Lord’s Supper.”  

Table Of The Justified (part 4 of 6)

Continuing to verse sixteen, we hear “Therefore do not let what you consider good be spoken of as evil” (14:16).  As Paul has said, “I know and am convinced that there is nothing unclean in itself” (14:14a).  Paul informs his hearers, whose unity of table fellowship as befits the kingdom of God is of utmost concern to him, “If it is good for you, then it is good for you.  Don’t let the opinion of another overshadow the application of conscience, especially if that opinion erects walls between believers.”  Why?  “For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink” (14:17a). 

By now, this should be more than obvious.  Those that participate in the kingdom of God, justified, in right covenant standing with the Creator God of the universe (the one that elected Abraham, Israel, and now, through Jesus, a people composed of all nations), should not allow differences in dietary practices, and especially those differences that are connected to the identification of the people of God before the coming of the Christ and the Christ-event (crucifixion and Resurrection), to persist or to play a determinative role in the way that the kingdom of God is primarily represented to the world, which was partially accomplished through the revolutionizing of the Hellenistic meal-table. 

The meal table, which was so very crucial, in that time, in terms of delineating social position and standing, was transformed by the church as they sought to emulate the meal tables of their Lord Jesus.  Whereas the Hellenistic meal table of the Greco-Roman world offered well-defined stratifications such that the meal table reflected the social status of all of its participants, the Christian meal table eschewed these stratifications, and when properly executed in accordance with the example of Jesus, presented to a watching world something that would have been conceived of as a jumbled and disjointed mess.  Ideally, it would have been impossible for an observer, or a participant for that matter, to determine the social standing of the individual members of the assembly by means of an analysis of the meal table, for all mixed freely, sharing the same food and drink, participating in the activities of the table equally, and functioning as an egalitarian society in which the first were last and the last were first.  All of this was done (or to be done) in a spirit of love and community, in such a way that no one, even in a situation in which social roles were reversed, lorded their newfound status over another.  Failure to live up to this meal-table ideal was part of Paul’s major critique of the Corinthian church, and was a significant contributor to the rest of the problems in that church with which he found himself dealing.    

However, if Jews and Gentiles managed to position themselves at separate tables, or to sequester themselves at different locations at the table in such a way that it became relatively simple to identify those that were Jews and those that were Gentiles, simply on the basis of their food, then what was being communicated that the kingdom of God did, in fact, consist of food and drink, rather than “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (14:17b).  Those who eschewed food-based divisions, neither foisting their predilections on others, nor condemning those that did not share their own sensibilities, but rather focused on the fact that all participated equally in God’s covenant based on belief in Jesus, that food had no intrinsic qualities of uncleanness, and that all that confessed Jesus as Lord did so because of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Jew and Gentile alike (according to the earliest traditions of the church), could have it said of them that “the one who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by people” (14:18). 

With all that said, what’s the conclusion of this portion of Paul’s dissertation?  Paul writes “So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for building up one another.  Do not destroy the work of God,” that being His temple (both individually and corporately) and the sign of His faithfulness to His covenant promises, “for the sake of food.  For although all things are clean, it is wrong to cause anyone to stumble by what you eat” (14:20).  Naturally, this could go both ways.  Jewish believers could consider themselves to be unclean by food, and Gentile believers could be made to believe that they are somehow less than full participants in the covenant and its promises if they do not abide by the Jewish dietary practices that fell into the category of old covenant markers.  Thusly, “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine,” items often used or dedicated or blessed in the temples of different gods (and therefore most definitely polluted by idolatry, possibly by sexual immorality, and certainly not slaughtered properly), “or to do anything that causes your brother to stumble” (14:21).  The ambiguity here does not allow for dogmatism.  Rather, it interjects an operative principle, which is love. 

Consequently, and reaching again to the long-running narrative of God’s covenant faithfulness that begins with Abraham and culminates in Jesus, Paul says “The faith that you have, keep to yourself before God.  Blessed is the one who does not judge himself by what he approves.  But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin” (14:22-23).  What is crucial is bearing the divine image and reflecting the glory of God into the world.  Faith is that which operates to cause belief in the Gospel’s proclamation, inculcates love, and marks one as a member of God’s covenant people.  This is that of which we cannot lose sight in our dealings inside the assembly of the people of God.  Acting in ways that are contrary to the Gospel and kingdom message, as demonstrated by the life of Jesus (and His meal tables), is what runs contrary to the faith that is claimed and what leads to a failure of both the individual and the community to rightly bear the image of God (sin).