Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 30)

Paul’s conclusion in regards to contentment and that which is truly valuable is “But if we have food and shelter, we will be satisfied with that” (1 Timothy 6:8).  This is quite the contrast from the general attitude as reflected by the acquisitive human appetite.  It takes a genuine work of the Spirit of the Creator God to create such contentment.  This is true for all time, and stands in special and stringent opposition to Paul’s world, as it was largely defined by constructs of honor and shame. 

In the end, this contentment with food and shelter leads to the removal of oneself from the always ongoing competition to increase one’s public honor and avoid shame.  For the citizen of the kingdom of the Christ, it should be the case that a concern with that kingdom’s priorities, as an animation of the Spirit of the Creator God, would rush in to fill the void of this ardent opposition to the ways of the world.  This contentment, realized against the backdrop in which contentment is never an option, but may simply be viewed as an accommodation and acquiescence to a perpetual and unalterable position of shame in the eyes of the culture, operates in a stark contrast with the alternative. 

Along these lines, Paul writes “Those who long to be rich,” which can also be heard as those that pursue honor (and if they do, they do so according to the rules and regulations of the world’s patron, that being Caesar, thereby serving to ultimately enhance his public honor rather than that of the world’s true patron and Lord), “however, stumble into temptation and a trap and many senseless and harmful desires that plunge into ruin and destruction” (6:9). 

This is not a blanket condemnation of wealth, as wealthy can certainly be used rightly and to the ongoing extension of the kingdom of the covenant God as a manifestation of the mysterious work of His Spirit, but of misplaced desire, especially on the part of denizens of the kingdom of that God.  Understanding that, it is said that “the love of money is the root of all evils.  Some people in reaching for it have strayed from the faith and stabbed themselves with many pains” (6:10). 

The associated warning is “But you, as a person dedicated to God,” as a member of His kingdom community, with a higher and more honorable calling than can possibly be imagined (serving the poor, the blind, the lame, the maimed, orphans, widows, etc…), “keep away from all that.  Instead pursue righteousness, godliness, faithfulness, love, endurance, and gentleness” (6:11).  Righteousness is to be understood as a place among the Creator God’s covenant people.  Godliness can be heard as an imitation of the Christ, looking to His faithfulness in the midst of overwhelming shame.  Love, endurance, and gentleness were to be the hallmarks of the church.    

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 16)

So this study has gone to Acts six, talked about widows (clarifying some unhelpful mental misconceptions in the process), mentioned divisions, made its way to Galatians, back to Timothy, and then on to Corinthians, all related to the mention of “deacons.”  This process has been necessary, and it has all been connected to food, thus allowing an observer to firmly link talk of deacons in the letter to Timothy with the church’s meal table, which also allows for the placing of talk of “overseers” within a meal table context as well.  Frankly, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the meal for the church, as it is a vital component of the Jesus tradition, a defining aspect of culture, and combined with talk of food in the letters of the New Testament, a repetitive element in the conversation related to the life of the body of Christ.

Returning then to Acts, what is the response to the complaint about the way that food is being distributed at the church’s gathering?  “The twelve called the whole group of disciples together and said, ‘It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to wait on tables” (Acts 6:2).  Now this could be a point of contention.  With the centrality of the meal assembly for the church, and the value placed on service by Jesus Himself, can the disciples rightly insist that this is the case? 

Would it not be most appropriate, in following the example of their Lord, who came not to be served but to serve, for these disciples to do this very thing?  Could having a hand in the distribution of the food, which would mean their being the ones that served the food to the assembled church, possibly be conceived of as neglecting the word of the Creator God?  One might very well lament this response of the twelve, as its enshrinement in Scripture handily created what very well may have been a dichotomy between preaching and service that Jesus never intended, thus furthering the construction of hierarchies within the church. 

Luke opens his account in Acts by stating that “I wrote the former account,” referring to the Gospel of Luke, “Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).  Here, Jesus’ own disciples have opened up a disconnect between doing and teaching.  That divide becomes evident in what has become the standard, contemporary reading of the letter to Timothy.  It is not evident because overseers and deacons, and the qualifications for such are discussed.  Rather, it is evident because one reads “overseer” and think of an authority figure, doing the same with “deacon,” though obviously to a lesser extent.  Regardless, it is obvious that, owing to the proclamation and example of the disciples of Jesus, that the church quickly fell into these practical and hierarchical divisions, and these divisions immediately began to have honor assigned to them.  This is more than comprehensible, as humanity is certainly prone to such things.

Since, unfortunately, they were not going to be waiting on tables, as they would later make clear that their plan was to “devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word” (6:4), the disciples went on to say “But carefully select from among you, brothers, seven men who are well-attested, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this necessary task” (6:3).  One could say that here things went from bad to worse, as the disciples, prone to affectation by a culture that was almost completely dismissive of women (even though women had been charged with the initial proclamations concerning the Resurrection of Jesus), limited that which would become a hierarchical position in the church to men only. 

One could say that, or one could look at it another way, realizing that they were not intent upon creating a spiritual hierarchy, but that this was an unintended by-product brought about by a lack of faithfulness to the mission and vision of Jesus, and chose men specifically to serve at the church’s tables, giving them the responsibility of being sure that all shared equally in the food and drink on offer because this is a job that would normally have fallen to women and to slaves.  Perhaps this is the genius of the disciples, but with so many set at such a distance from the culture of the day, it is quite easy to miss what is going on here.

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 15)

Now, when one considers a daily distribution of food to widows, there is probably an idea of people going house to house, delivering meals to those that are shut-in and who are too old and frail to serve themselves.  Though this may have been part of what was occurring, it is best to keep oneself culturally and historically grounded, while also keeping the regular assembly around the meal table front and center. 

One must also bear in mind that, due to much shorter life expectancies, these widows could have been relatively young.  Though this study will later be dealing with this in greater detail, it is possible to get a glimpse of the treatment of widows in the letter to Timothy (thus causing the reference to widows in Acts to have an even greater bearing on a study of Timothy), when Timothy is instructed that “no widow is to be put on the list unless she is at least sixty years old” (1 Timothy 5:9a). 

As it relates to the physical capabilities of widows and to being sure that they are being viewed through an appropriate lens, Paul writes that there is a bit of a problem in widows “going around from house to house” (5:13a).  In response then, Paul’s directive is “I want younger women to marry, raise children, and manage a household, in order to give the adversary no opportunity to vilify us” (5:14).  More on this anon, but in that statement, widows are the “young women” and therefore the subject.  

So again, one must put the idea of the frail, sickly, shut-in widow, who can barely lift her head or feed herself (though there were certainly some of these attached to the church), out of mind and see these widows referenced here and in Acts as capable and perhaps vibrant members of the community, who are able to participate in the regular table gatherings of the church. 

That said, it is probable that it was at the coming together of the church around a common meal that these widows were being neglected in the distribution of food.  If so, this sounds terribly like the situation that Paul addresses in Corinth, where he writes “when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it…  Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper.  For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper.  One is hungry and another becomes drunk.  Do you not have houses so that you can eat and drink?  Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing?” (1 Corinthians 11:18,20-22a) 

It becomes clear that the honor-based arrangements around the meal tables to which Jesus was regularly invited, and which He regularly criticized, were alive and well and being used at the meal tables of the church in Jerusalem.  Widows, as would have been quite common owing to a lack of a living husband and therefore a lack of honor or even the ability to accrue honor (a wife’s honor was dependent on that of her husband), were being neglected---relegated to the positions in which they were served last.   

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 9)

At the same time, all of these considerations serve as a reminder of just how important a role food and considerations about food played in the ancient world (and in many parts of the world today), in which gaining one’s sustenance is actually the primary, daily concern.  When work is engaged upon primarily to obtain food for self and family, and secondarily to meet the remainder of life’s basic needs, it is not difficult to assert that a divergent set of priorities will be in effect. 

Little wonder then that the church’s meal table, open to all and for all to share equally, with the wealthier and more well-to-do providing for all while sharing equally with all with no expectation of receiving an increase in their honor standing in exchange for the provision (ideally), was a table that served to draw people in, while also being ripe for corruption and a new and more insidious form of oppression---whether wantonly or through neglect, by ingrained social forces and sensibilities.  Little wonder then, that the stories of Jesus’ miraculous feedings, with enough for all and to spare, with all sharing equally at the hand of the One that represents the church (and that the church represents) gained such prominence in the community that called Jesus Lord and for whom the meal table was a prominent feature. 

Continuing then with this Petrine analysis, maintaining an examination of the third chapter, and re-grasping the handle of mutual self-sacrificial love that undergirds the call for wives to be subject to their husbands, Peter can be heard moving to a directive to “Let your beauty not be external---the braiding of hair and wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes---but the inner person of the heart, the lasting beauty of a gentle and tranquil spirit, which is precious in God’s sight” (3:3-4).  These words are heard, of course, in the context of table fellowship.

Apart from the fact that the outward appearance can most certainly reflect the inward disposition, it is probably safe to say that Peter’s concern here is not with what appears on the surface.  What he is concerned about is the other-preferring love that is to be on display at the church’s meal table, which will then, because of the Gospel’s transformational power combined with the power and deterministic capacity of the meal table, be translated into other-preferring actions in and for the community (the world) in which the Christians find themselves. 

How can one make this conclusion? Here, Peter calls for the wealthier women in the church community---those that can avail themselves of the costly braiding of hair (in which jewels, precious metals, and other ornamentations would be woven into the hair), gold jewelry, and fine clothes---to consider those in their church community that are far less fortunate than they when it comes to such things. 

This is not a blanket directive, nor should it be considered a ban or a condemnation of these types of things.  Rather, it is an inducement from Peter to this church to act in love towards one another.  In this case, Peter is asking the wealthier women of the church---the women who would, though they had no real honor of their own, share in the honor of their husband, dressing and presenting themselves accordingly---to leave such things aside when they gather with their fellow believers and participate at meals together.  By removing the trappings of honor and dignity that garner the respect and admiration of the world, which can serve, albeit perhaps unintentionally, to keep true and undivided fellowship from taking place, the “inner person of the heart” comes to the fore, as love and respect for one’s fellow Christian is demonstrated. 

Invitations (part 1)

…The the master of the household was furious and said to his slave, “Go out quickly to the streets and alleys of the city, and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.”  Then the slave said, “Sir, what you instructed has been done, and there is still room.”  So the master said to his slave, “Go out to the highways and the country roads and urge people to come in, so that my house will be filled.” – Luke 14:21b-23  (NET)

In Luke fourteen, Jesus tells a parable of a great banquet.  A man had planned the event, invitations had been sent, requisite preparations had been carried out, and food and wine had been prepared in accordance with the number of people that had accepted the invitation.  Though it is not necessary to take up space setting up the context for this banquet, what can be seen, contextually, is that this parable of the great banquet is set within Jesus’ own attendance at a meal to which He had been invited.  Jesus’ presence at a meal closely follows His speaking about, in chapter thirteen, the great messianic banquet that will be hosted by Israel’s God. 

Luke, as an excellent story-teller within what is a culture that communicates its stories primarily in oral/aural fashion, builds on that which comes before, and never leaves Jesus’ words unexplained.  This, of course, is why one can never look at portions of the Gospel in isolation, and why, in order to have any authentic and plausible meaning, the stories in each of the Gospel narratives must be understood in relation to the multiple layers of narrative on offer as part of the whole.    

Rather than get into interpreting the details of the banquet or even explaining the nuances of the story, this study will attempt to place the banquet within Luke’s narrative of Jesus, which stretches past the Gospel that bears the same name, and on into the book of Acts.  When considering the nature of story and always realizing that details offered up early in a story will have bearing upon or come to fruition later on in the telling, one must be mindful that Luke sometimes brings resolution to a statement from Jesus within Acts, rather than neatly tying things off within the first half of his two-part series. 

As this is done, this study will also consider the mission of Jesus as presented by Luke, bearing in mind that the mission of Jesus is defined by the situation within the covenant God’s creation, and within the Creator God’s plan of redemption for His world as it is being enacted and carried forward by the people of His covenant.  To this end, as one hear the parable of the banquet, the hearer/reader  should be able to find points of contact with Luke’s ongoing presentation as well as the whole of the Biblical narrative, which of course gives shape to Jesus’ own mission.     

As Jesus opens the story, all indications are that the banquet is ready to commence.  However, something strange and quite unexpected happens.  Those who had been invited and who had accepted the invitation, fail to follow through on that acceptance.  Instead of coming when summoned, all begin offering up excuses as to why they cannot now attend.  One says “I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it” (14:18b).  A second says, “I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going out to examine them” (14:19a).  A third says, “I just got married, and I cannot come” (14:20). 

Now, without dwelling on the implausibility of the excuses (these excuses would have been laughable in the ears of Jesus’ audience), which is what enrages the spurned host, it is necessary to add that it seems as if the point being made is that all that were invited made excuses, and therefore were not going to be attending.  Rather than retaliate, as Jesus’ hearers would have expected the enraged host to do, especially in a culture defined by honor and shame, the insulted party-thrower re-directs his wrath and re-extends his invitations in another direction. 

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.          

Seeing God (part 7)

In the tenth chapter of Deuteronomy, Israel’s Creator God speaks to those that He intends to bear His image in the world, thereby communicating what is expected of them, saying “Now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you except to revere Him, to obey all His commandments, to love Him, to serve Him with all your mind and being” (10:12).  Having said this, He continues to describe Himself, while also informing those hearing these words how they are to perform in and for the world, saying that He “justly treats the orphan and the widow, and who loves resident foreigners, giving them food and clothing” (10:18). 

Of course, the theme of the need to care for the orphan and the widow, along with the resident foreigner and the poor, is a theme that is taken up on page after page of that through which the Creator God has revealed Himself.  Deuteronomy twenty-four is particularly focused in this area.  In the seventeenth verse the text reads “You must not pervert justice due to a resident foreigner or an orphan, or take a widow’s garment as security for a loan” (24:17).  Additionally, “Whenever you reap your harvest in your field and leave some unraked grain there, you must not return to get it; it should go to the resident foreigner, orphan, and widow so that the Lord your God may bless all the work you do” (24:19). 

Likewise, “When you beat your olive tree you must not repeat the procedure; the remaining olives,” treasure, if you will, “belong to the resident foreigner, orphan, and widow.  When you gather the grapes of your vineyard you must not do so a second time; they should go to the resident foreigner, orphan, and widow.  In the twenty-seventh chapter, just before God outlines His program of blessing or cursing, based upon His people’s handling of their covenant responsibilities (chapter twenty-eight), we find, along with a number of curses, “Cursed is the one who perverts justice for the resident foreigner, the orphan, and the widow” (27:19a). 

Turning to Exodus, there one finds “You must not afflict any widow or orphan.  If you afflict them in any way and they cry to me, I will surely hear their cry, and My anger will burn and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives will be widows and your children will be fatherless.  Most certainly, though it is far from purity of heart, those that do such things will see God, but clearly in a way which is less than desirable.  If we look to the prophets, such as Isaiah, we hear him speaking on behalf of God, delivering a judgmental cry and saying “Learn to do what is right!  Promote justice!  Give the oppressed reason to celebrate!  Take up the cause of the orphan!  Defend the rights of the widow!” (1:17). 

The corollary to this is “Your officials are rebels, they associate with thieves.  All of them love bribery, and look for payoffs.  They do not take up the cause of the orphan, or defend the rights of the widow” (1:23).  Ezekiel sounds a similar note, saying “They have treated father and mother with contempt within you; they have oppressed the foreigner among you; they have wronged the orphan and the widow within you” (22:7). 

Ostensibly, because the Creator God delivered His judgment against His people, as announced and explained by these prophets in connection with their idolatry, their mis-treatment of the resident foreigner, the orphan, and the widow could be said to have stemmed from their idolatry.  Had they been pure of heart, it would have been demonstrated in their care for these groups, though one should not pretend to insist that such care created a purity of heart.  Their lack of purity of heart was revealed in their treatment of the ones to whom the Creator God directs so much of His attention and concern.  Owing to this, the covenant God’s people saw Him in a way that they did not want to see Him, but that He had certainly promised.  In the big picture, Jesus’ talk of being “pure of heart” is set against idolatry, be it ever so subtle.   

Love On John's Terms (part 13)

When it comes to the question of love on display, the fifteenth verse of John’s sixth chapter informs the reader that “Jesus, because He knew they were going to come and seize Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again up the mountainside alone” (6:15).  How does this show love?  There is a marked and remarkable self-restraint on the part of this man Jesus, as He refuses to succumb to the people’s desire to make Him king; and perhaps even the temptation to receive the acclimation must at least partially stem from the fact that an acclimation of Him as king is going to come with a declaration of war against Rome. 

Of course, the author writes from a position of the knowledge of what happened when the Jews rebelled against Rome a few decades preceding the time of the written composition of this work (though it is a possibility that the oral tradition that eventually took this written form preceded the written work by a number of years), whereas Jesus is presented as having an implicit knowledge of what will happen if He allows Himself and His people to travel the path that will follow from their desire to make Him king.  Not only will destruction come to Israel, but the plans for the kingdom of the Creator God, and how it is to be brought about, will be nullified.  Here, through this withdrawal, Jesus preserves His disciples, these people, and His nation, in a way that does not derail the purposes of the kingdom that He believes begins and is to be found in unity with Him.  So indeed, this could be looked upon as an example of love to be worked out, understood, and manifested by the community of those that claim allegiance to Jesus.   

The use of “miraculous signs” in the second verse of the sixth chapter of John has been mentioned, as it is this instance that took this study down this particular path.  The sixth chapter contains another usage of the phrase, and it occurs following the story of the feeding of the five thousand.  There, when pressed as to how it is that He had been able to make it to the place at which He was now encountered, Jesus says “I tell you the solemn truth, you are looking for Me not because you saw miraculous signs, but because you ate all the loaves of bread you wanted” (6:26).  To that He adds, “Do not work for the food that disappears, but for the food that remains to eternal life” (6:27a).  Here, as in the third chapter and the conversation with Nicodemus that stemmed directly from His actions in the Temple as they were recorded in the second chapter, the witness of miraculous signs is tied to “eternal life,” which the hearers of this story know is linked to the need for belief in Jesus as the harbinger of the kingdom of Israel’s God. 

The notion that Jesus’ miraculous signs, especially as they relate to the provision of bread, are connected to the kingdom of God, is given further concretion by the people’s response, which is “What must we do to accomplish the deeds God requires?” (6:28b)  This, of course, comes as Jesus expresses the love of His God, and as there is a desire on the part of the hearer or reader to know what it means to express love to and for one another in aspiration towards discipleship, as this is what Jesus is said to desire from His people.  Relating to the belief in Jesus in connection to the presence of the kingdom of the Creator, Jesus simply offers “This is the deed God requires---to believe in the one whom He sent” (6:29). 

Here, Jesus insists that belief must take on the form of a loyal allegiance to the Creator God and to His purposes to lead His people in an exodus (eternal life---the life of the age to come invading the present) and to bring them into that which He has promised to them, as the statement makes a push towards the previously mentioned reference to Moses.  This push towards Moses culminates with the response to Jesus’ statement about the deeds required by God, which is “Then what miraculous sign will you perform, so that we may see it and believe you?  What will you do?  Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” (6:30-31) 

Corinth's Communion (part 7)

By countermanding the example that had been provided by Jesus in the context of His announcement of the presence of the kingdom of heaven in which He reversed and flattened out the social order, this church community in the city of Corinth was apparently guilty of not being a unique and shining light to the world.  It seems that they were indeed calling what they were doing the Lord’s Supper, and that they were speaking of it in terms of the messianic banquet, but with what was happening there, which is precisely the opposite of reversing and flattening out the social order, but rather operating with it and reinforcing it, Paul tells them “you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper” (1 Corinthians 11:20b). 

If one is going hungry while another becomes drunk and presumably satiated with as much food as desired (with serving taking place according to socially accepted honor-related customs) while all were sitting at the same table, how could this possibly be looked upon as the Lord’s Supper?  Paul could rightly ask where compassion and love and preference are on display in such a situation?  Most decidedly, those qualities are not present.  Paul does not deny that the members of this church community come from different segments of society.  He does not deny that there are individuals from all socio-economic levels coming together, nor does he level any part of his critique in this direction.  He accepts that this will be the case and does not rail against such things.  However, he does write “Do you not have houses so that you can eat and drink?” (11:22a)  The Apostle was not concerning himself with the facts of the eating and the drinking.  This was not the thing with which he took issue. 

Eating and drinking were fine, as long as the meal table was shared equally with all and sundry.  What appears to have concerned him was the fact that the entrenched forces of the world, backed up from time immemorial by the powers and rulers and kingdoms of the world and by the way that they went about gaining and maintaining power, were infiltrating that which was supposed to represent the kingdom of the Creator God---which was to model, based on Jesus’ example and insistence, an entirely different way of establishing and growing a kingdom---perhaps even an entirely different way of being human.   

Following up on his rhetorical inquiry about private houses in which the people could eat and drink to their heart’s content, Paul asks “Or are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing?” (11:22b)  How horrible that this situation had crept into the church of the Christ!  By bringing the banqueting table and festal meal practices of the world into the church, and by attempting to erect and maintain, within the church, the same social divisions and boundaries that existed outside of the church, they were extending the shame (in an honor and shame society) felt by those that they supposedly referred to as brothers and sisters in their union with the Christ, while blindly referring to their perverted (in the sense that it was completely improper) meal table as the Lord’s Supper.  It is no wonder that Paul writes “Should I praise you?  I will not praise you for this!” (11:22c), before going on to talk about the Lord’s Supper as it is meant to be. 

In the recounting of what he is said to have received from Jesus and which he had passed on to this church (11:23), Paul makes it clear that Jesus gave the bread and the cup to all, and that none were left out.  That was not the first time that Jesus had done this, as the same thing can be seen to have  happened at the feedings of the multitudes over which Jesus presided---presumably, all shared equally.  With this in mind, can one even imagine engaging in a celebration, calling it the Lord’s Supper, and not allowing all to participate?  Of course not! 

It seems that many do engage in such a practice in their churches on a regular basis, as individuals are actively and purposefully excluded from participation at the Lord’s Supper.  This exclusion is often based on what might very well appear to be, upon a closer and far more informed and contextualized reading of the words of Paul regarding examination of self and judgment, a seriously flawed practice.  Some even exclude themselves based on this type of reading.  The exclusion of some from participation in the meal due to social custom, however, appears to be precisely what was taking place.  Standard meal practice, in which inequality was rampant, was in effect, and it was being referred to as the Lord’s Supper.  This could not possibly be that for which Jesus had gone to the cross as part of the inauguration of the kingdom of His God on earth, so it is little wonder that Paul was somewhat angry with this church.

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.”  

Water Into Wine (part 6)

Rather than looking upon this sharing of the best wine at the latter end of the wedding feast as an act of considerable generosity and thoughtfulness on the behalf of this bridegroom, which some may be prone to do, this would be readily perceived as a slight to his honored guests.  Questions would arise.  Why was it that they not receive this wine?  Why was it that they were not thought to be good enough to receive these superior libations? 

It would be wondered why the bridegroom was mocking his guests in this way.  Rather than being enjoyed by the elites and those in the community that possessed the most honor according to the court of public opinion and reputation, the best wine is now going to be enjoyed by the servants and less honored guests, thus putting those that were less honorable on the same level as the honored guests.  Worse still, what this would have accomplished at the level of perception (which is what mattered), this elevated those that were possessive of less honor above the honored guests, which could be perceived as an insult to honor, thereby becoming a source of conflict for the bridegroom and his family (as well as the family of the bride).  

The head steward, as indicated by the presentation of the author of the text, comes to realize the dynamics that are now at play.  It is interesting that the author includes the information that the head steward of the feast did not know the source of the wine (John 2:9), and it is upon his tasting of the wine that he is spurred into action.  The actions that follow, which are often interpreted as his commendation of the bridegroom, can only be so interpreted outside the context of cultural meal practice and the social constructs that are on display in the meal. 

Rather than interpreting his actions in this way, what can also be realized is that the head steward, as he thinks about all of the problems that have now been presented to both him and the bridegroom due to the revelation of this new and better wine that is now being served at the end of the meal, must take quick action on his own behalf, so as to preserve his own place of honor and standing in the community (whatever that may have been).  If he does not take these actions, it is he that runs the risk of being shamed, and this is what can be understood to be playing out in the story. 

The head steward, of course, is the master of the feast.  Chief among his duties would be the duty to see to it that the most honored guests had received the best wine and the best food.  This is crucial.  Now, unbeknownst to him, and certainly without his approval, the best wine is going to go to the guests at the lower end of the honor spectrum.  Among other things, this would mean that the head steward had not done his job, thus he would be shamed (though this shaming would not stop with him). 

Thinking quickly then, the steward makes his way to the bridegroom and says “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the cheaper wine when the guests are drunk.  You have kept the good wine until now!” (2:10)  Again, one must resist the temptation to think of this as simply a matter of the head steward offering some type of praise to the bridegroom for his unexpected generosity.  This is much more likely to be the head steward’s attempt to shift the negative reactions that are sure to come, along with the associated dishonoring that is bound to take place, on to the bridegroom and away from himself. 

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). 

Table Of The Justified (part 3)

Resuming with the fifth verse of the fourteenth chapter of Romans, we read “One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike.  Each must be fully convinced in his own mind” (14:5).  Paul does indeed value the role of conscience, for it is individual believers, be they Jew or Gentile (all are justified---participate in the covenant people---on the same basis), acting in love and compassion, that compose the communities that are to be the signposts of the kingdom of God.  Thus, “The one who observes the day does it for the Lord.  The one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God” (14:6). 

Here, giving thanks to God is the abiding concern, rather than “opinions” or “abstaining.”  We should not be surprised to learn that Paul, the apostolic advocate for the kingdom of God and Gentile participation in that kingdom project on an equal basis with Jews, wants the focus when it comes to the activity of the citizens of that kingdom to fall upon God.  Paul reasons “For none of us lives for himself and none dies for himself.  If we live, we live for the Lord; if we die, we die for the Lord.  Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.  For this reason Christ died and returned to life, so that He may be the Lord of both the dead and the living” (14:8-9).  With this, we are reminded that the list of thoughts/ideals that should linger in the background as we hear the words of this chapter should include the fact that calling Jesus “Lord,” especially in connection with talk of living or dying, is a subversive claim against the one who bore that title---Caesar.  Claiming allegiance to another Lord and another kingdom, and doing so in Rome of all places (not to mention that the one being looked to as Lord was executed as a state criminal), could most certainly get one killed.

Returning our focus to food and to all of the issues attendant to that (Gentile justification, the unity of the church, the family of God composed of all peoples, the importance of the church’s meal table, the value and place of traditional covenant markers, costly acts of sacrificial love performed by those that claim allegiance to Jesus as Lord, and the role of faith), we read “But you who eat vegetables only---why do you judge your brother or sister?  And you who eat everything---why do you despise your brother or sister?  For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God” (14:10).  Judging and despising clearly stand counter to the ethic of love and compassion, while the fact that “we will all stand” for God’s judgment again emphasizes the unity and equality of all believers, regardless of national origin or ethnicity identifiers, as the family of God. 

Emphasizing that point, Paul employs the services of Isaiah, communicating “For it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to Me, and every tongue will give praise to God.’  Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God” (14:11-12).  The quotation from the forty-fifth chapter of Isaiah calls to mind the God that vindicates and delivers, with that vindication extending to “the earth’s remote regions” (Isaiah 45:22b).  There, the prophet writes that “All the descendants of Israel will be vindicated by the Lord and will boast in Him” (45:25).  Of course, we know that Paul is of the opinion (a most valuable opinion) that all those that believe in Jesus as the crucified and resurrected Messiah of Israel and Lord of all compose the Israel of God, and that said belief (with the accompanying transformation of heart and mind by which the belief is accompanied) is all that is required for one to participate in the family of God that is now composed of all nations.  Such considerations cannot be divorced from our consumption of these words. 

Consequently, “we must not pass judgment on one another, but rather determine never to place an obstacle or a trap before a brother or sister.  I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself; still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean” (14:13-14).  Not only is this the place where love and a self-denying and compassionate understanding become operable, but this is also the place where Paul, clearly relying on his awareness of the Jesus tradition as embodied by Mark seven, points out that uncleanness is not an intrinsic quality of a certain item of food.  Indeed, like Jesus, Paul makes the point that if there is uncleanness, it is extrinsic and linked to the person there dealing with the food.  Coming to terms with this is of great import for the church’s wall-removing, undivided meal table.  To this point, Paul adds “For if your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat” (14:15a), that is, if the food on the table is creating stress and friction for a part of the body of believers, and you know it (regardless of the reason or the source, be it Jewish or Gentile sensibilities), “you are no longer walking in love.  Do not destroy by your food someone for whom Christ died” (14:15b).  Yes, Jesus died for all, Jew and Gentile, and food should not be an issue that causes one to withdraw from the family of the kingdom of God. 

Jerusalem & The Justification Of Gentiles (part 2 of 2)

After Peter spoke, “The whole group kept quiet and listened to Barnabas and Paul while they explained all the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them” (15:12).  So here we have the repetitive theme of the power and presence of the Holy Spirit, and therefore confirmation of Gentile justification (covenant inclusion) as indicated by the reporting of miraculous signs and wonders.  Consequently we find that, “After they stopped speaking, James replied, ‘Brothers, listen to me.  Simeon has explained how God first concerned Himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for His name” (15:13-14) and “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God” (15:19). 

With this James stands in solidarity with Paul.  All that is necessary for Gentiles is that they believe the Gospel and so participate in the covenant in equal standing with those who are members of Israel (as indicated by their own covenant markers).  This belief in the Gospel corresponds with the story of Abraham, so all is well.  Unfortunately, he could not leave well-enough alone.  Apparently, the idea of Gentile inclusiveness apart from some form of outward covenant marker was untenable to James and the others in Jerusalem.

Part of Paul’s indictment of Peter in the letter to the Galatians makes mention of James, as it was “Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles” (2:12).  Luke softens this in Acts to “some men came down from Judea” (15:1a).  When we consider that the issue of table fellowship was prominent in Antioch, there is little wonder that James adds “we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things defiled by idols and from sexual immorality and from what has been strangled and from blood” (15:20).  We should take notice that all of this has to do with food.  We know this because the issue at Antioch sprang from the withdrawal of Jewish believers from table fellowship, with circumcision as a natural follow-on issue, though it was secondary. 

There are not three separate issues here, with two having to do with moral behavior and one having to do with food.  Thinking along such lines pulls us away from the appropriate context and the issues at hand amongst the believers.  The table was where the believing congregation gathered, and because the meal table was of paramount importance for the shaping of societies and communities in the day in which the church first came into existence, so also the church’s meal table was of paramount importance.  We must understand that.  Once we comprehend the community-shaping-and-identifying power of the meal in the Greco-Roman world, we can comfortably come to terms with Paul’s being quite exercised at the way that it being misused in Corinth, and why it is foundational for Paul’s challenge to Peter in Galatians, which sets him off on the path of writing about the nature of justification in that letter.

James is not suggesting that they “abstain from things defiled by idols” and to “abstain from sexual immorality” out of a concern that the believers be circumspect about the moral and spiritual condition of those with whom they are dining.  If that was the case, the addition of “abstain from what has been strangled and from blood” would seem wholly out of place.  Instead, we must hear this as a single directive, all of it having to do with food and the meal table.  James apparently does want the Jews and Gentiles to be able to share the same table (the divisions and problems at Antioch began at the meal table), so these particular directives are what will allow the Jewish believers to join the Gentile believers at the same table.  James wants the Gentile believers to abstain from food that has been defiled by idols, food that has been defiled by sexual immorality, food that has been defiled by strangling, and food that is defiled by the presence of the blood.  If they do this, then they will be able to join the Jewish believers (the true people of the covenant?) at their meal table.  Failing this, in his estimation, table division should not continue.

Paul, and apparently Peter before the men arrived from James arrived in Antioch, did not find it necessary to hold out such restrictions.  For Paul, and apparently Peter (the Cornelius story of the tenth chapter of Acts playing a role in this), the only thing that mattered was the belief in Jesus as Lord, with that functioning as the basis for open table fellowship between Jew and Gentile.  Paul would not insist that Jewish Christ-believers eat food that they would consider to be defiled, but he would insist that such food not be the basis for the failure for all to come together at the same table, or be the justification for separate meal tables in the church.  At the same, as evidenced by what James wants to write, there does appear to be unanimous agreement that if the meal table was divided, so too would the church be divided.  Hierarchies and divisions would develop and be exacerbated, and this would ultimately be destructive to the church and deleterious to the message of the Gospel.  James wants to put the onus on the Gentiles, insisting that they conform to Jewish custom in this matter.  Paul, on the other hand, wants love to rule the day.