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. 

Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 4)

This account of Jesus dining at the house of Simon the leper provides a bit more detail.  Here, the reader is informed that “six days before Passover,” (thus answering the question as to whether or not Jesus had adequate time to complete purification rituals before celebrating Passover---so Jesus (the Messiah) went to the cross in a state of ritual impurity, and the early church was unconcerned with this aspect of the story, though it would have certainly attributed to the scandalous, stumbling-block nature of the message of Jesus) “Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom He has raised from the dead.  So they prepared a dinner for Jesus there.  Martha was serving, and Lazarus was among those present at the table with Him” (John 12:1-2). 

If one did not have the stories of Matthew and Mark, when reading this story in John it would be possible to get the sense that Jesus is dining in the house of Lazarus, Martha, and Mary.  If He was doing so, that would be quite understandable.  Lazarus had, quite naturally, become famous.  Many people, as John reports few verses later, came to this house to see both Jesus and Lazarus (12:9).  Not only that, there are indications that the family may have had some wealth, and therefore may have been an honored family within the community, with that indication being the fact that Mary had the costly perfume with which to anoint Jesus, and the fact that the gathered guests make mention of “the poor,” with the words themselves ringing out and serving as an indication of the dichotomy that existed between the poor and those that were joining Jesus at this meal.  However, this meal is not taking place at the house of the now-famous-and-potentially-wealthy Lazarus, but rather, at the house of Simon the leper.       

In the ancient world, it was customary for a community to receive a famous and honored individual into their midst with great pomp and ceremony.  Often, a delegation from the community would go outside their town, meet the arriving person of prominence, and accompany them back to their locale.  This is referred to as a “parousia”.  There are several examples of parousia in the life of Jesus, and even one when He goes to Bethany to raise Lazarus from the dead.  There is no record of Jesus being received in this way upon this visit to Bethany, but one can imagine that such an event took place, as His fame could only have grown as Lazarus continued to live amongst the people. 

As a part of the reception, there would be a determination made as to which member or family of the community was the most worthy and important individual, in the best position to accept the dignitary into their house, most capable of reflecting favorably on the larger community so as to give the best possible impression to the honored guest, and able to bring honor to the whole of the community in the process.  As was said, it would have been a natural choice, owing to previous events, for Lazarus to host Jesus in Bethany.  The fact that Jesus loved Lazarus and His sisters would have contributed to this more than natural arrangement.  However, it is Simon the leper that receives the honor of hosting a meal for Jesus. 

Whether this is the choice of the community or Jesus’ choice one is left to wonder, but what is clear is that one who would normally be marginalized and even ostracized in the community for a variety of reasons is the one that has this honor.  If the story of Zaccheus (as a prime example of Jesus choosing His own host) is any indication, it is likely that it is Jesus that has made the choice of meal location, but it is not something about which one can be dogmatic. 

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 23)

At the same time, Paul does not romanticize widows, and does not unduly elevate them, as he still stresses the equality of the church and the need for all to be treated equally---this was the counter-cultural corrective to the usual treatment of widows.  It stands written: “Honor widows who are truly in need” (1 Timothy 5:3a).  Unsurprisingly, Paul commences with the use of “honor” language.  As is known, this goes far beyond treating them deferentially or simply respecting them, as talk of honoring widows affords them a status (a status that is to be shared by all, as all honor would ultimately be directed to the Lord that has subjected Himself to the greatest shame) which they would be unable to attain outside of the church.  This is balanced with the “in need,” as Paul keeps the unity of the church body in view, always cognizant of the fact that the scale, owing to the social conditioning that is a component of human nature, can often be tipped too far to one side, with widows being afforded honor that is quickly converted to rank, status, and special privilege. 

The “in need” is followed up with “if a widow has children or grandchildren, they should first learn to fulfill their duty towards their own household and so repay their parents what is owed them” (5:4a).  Here one notes the mention of “their own household,” which is a contrast with the church body, which, owing to the fact that the gatherings of the church took place in private homes around a common meal, would be often referred to as a “household.”  Though there would be no honor involved in caring for a widowed mother or grandmother, and especially because there would be sacrifice on the part of the children and the grandchildren, it is insisted upon that “this is what pleases God” (5:4b).  Speech, conduct, love, faithfulness, and purity indeed. 

In contrast to the widow that has children or grandchildren, “the widow who is truly in need, and completely on her own, has set her hope on God and continues in her pleas and prayers night and day” (5:5).  As part of the non-romanticizing of widows, on the other hand, “the one who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives” (5:6).  Here, it is necessary to make a further point about honor and shame, in that shame was equivalent to death.  So an interesting construct has been created. 

Paul insists that widows that are truly in need be honored, which will include her receiving the support of the church body and their meeting all of the necessities of her life, which is contrary to cultural norms.  This has been tempered with a call to duty for children and grandchildren of widows to live sacrificially, in accordance with the demands that the Creator God has placed upon His covenant people.  Paul then revisits the widow that is truly in need, who should be on the receiving end of the honor that would not normally come to her, pointing out that part of her commendation stems from her continuation in pleas and prayers, contrasting that with the widow that is concerned only with the pursuit of pleasure (Epicureanism?), who is already dead (shameful).    

To this is added, “Reinforce these commands, so that they will be beyond reproach” (5:7)---reproach being a term of honor versus shame, as conceptions of honor and shame are reworked and appropriately retooled within the church.  Though the church community will not be structured by perceptions and assignments of honor and shame, Paul very much desires the community of the covenant of faith to develop new and revolutionary ideas in regards to that which is truly honorable and deserving of honor, and of that which is shameful and deserving of shame.  To that end, he insists that “if someone does not provide for his own, especially his own family, he has denied the faith,” the mark of the covenant that is calling Jesus Lord, with all that is implied thereby, “and is worse than an unbeliever” (5:8).  For the body of Christ, there could be no greater source of shame.    

Timothy & Countering The Culture (part 14)

Observers can be assured that hierarchical structures, which, in that day, were thoroughly wrapped up in the very competition for honor that is rejected by the church of the crucified Messiah, is nowhere in sight in this treatment of the qualifications for those that aspire to the position of overseer.    

Lest it be presumed that an unwarranted step is being here taken by linking “overseer” with the meal assembly that was the regular setting of the gathering of the church in its earliest days, and lest it be deemed that too much weight is being put on actions centered upon the meal as an effective counter-cultural witness, it is possible to bolster this position by acknowledging the letter’s movement directly from “overseer” to “deacon.” 

In verse eight of the third chapter Paul writes “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not two-faced, not given to excessive drinking, not greedy for gain” (1 Timothy 3:8).  This allusion to drinking cannot be looked upon as a general principle, plucked out of mid-air as an ideal.  Rather, it must be understood to be concretely connected to the eating and drinking of the church at its meal table.  That meal table, to be sure, in its arrangement and in the way it was conducted, as it was rooted in the meal culture that was foundational for society in general, and as it held to the witness of the meal tables of Jesus and the way in which He conducted Himself and spoke at those tables, was a powerful image of the kingdom that the Christians proclaimed, and of the God that was being honored and worshiped at the gatherings of their association.

Along with this, it is incumbent to add to an investigation of the letter a perusal of the introduction of the “deacon” to the church.  To do so it is necessary to look to the book of Acts.  Now, it is highly unlikely that Timothy had access to the book of Acts as the church has it today, but it is certainly plausible that Timothy would have been familiar with the story that described the advent of the position.  Since deacons are referenced, it is a given that the recipient of the letter did not need to have the position explained to him, being well aware of the “how” and the “why” of their function within the church.  

So what was that function?  Why was the position in existence?  In the sixth chapter of Acts Luke writes that “in those days,” which were some of the very earliest days of the church, “when the disciples were growing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Greek-speaking Jews against the native Hebraic Jews” (6:1a).  Here, one encounters the all-too-familiar divide between Jew and Gentile within the church, though it is somewhat masked by the fact that both sides of this divide were said to be Jews. 

What was the source of this particular division?  Division between the Gentiles that were Jews by conversion and those that were ethnic and national Jews came about “because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food” (Acts 6:1b).  This food-related divide is probably best illustrated by the experience that Paul recounts from his time in Antioch.  This record is found in Galatians, where Paul writes “when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he has clearly done wrong.  Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles.  But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision” (Galatians 2:11-12).  What Paul describes in Antioch, which is from a time period after the events recorded here in chapter six of Acts, first played itself out within the church at an intra-Jew level before playing itself out at an intra-church (between Jew and Gentile, and between Gentile and Gentile) level.

Speaking In Tongues (part 32)

Skipping past what appears to be an interpolation that does not seem to fit at all with the ethos of Paul’s letters (verses 33b-35, which is sometimes found in manuscripts at the conclusion of verse forty, with this fluid placement indicative of its potentially extraneous nature, not unlike the story of the woman taken in adultery of John chapter eight, which is not found in many early manuscripts and sometimes shows up after Luke 21:38), this study picks up with Paul asking the question “Did the word of God begin with you, or did it come to you alone?” (1 Corinthians 14:36)  This is a rather pointed question, and seems to flow quite naturally from the statement concerning disorder and peace.  It is clear that the question is directed to the wider church, but one is forced to wonder why. 

Though dogma-level assertions are probably not possible, considering the regular competitions for honor that took place amidst the meal associations of the day, it is possible that here Paul speaks to the possibility of multiple church bodies within the same community entering into some type of similar honor competition that pitted body against body in their attempts to honor their object of worship (namely Jesus).  As it is quite easy to see churches effectively competing against each other for members, for recognition, and for the types of public honors that are available in our own time, this possibility does not seem overtly remote. 

Closer to home, an individual member of the body that was the primary recipient of this message (leaving open the possibility that this letter was directed to multiple assemblies of Christ-worshipers) could hear these words in a more personal manner, as they follow hard upon Paul’s insistence that participation within the church should be widespread, with all exercises attributed to the influence of the Spirit accorded equal value. 

This equal valuation of the Spirit’s presence and the person through whom the Spirit is active (with whether or not Jesus’ Lordship, which can be declared in any number of ways, and especially in ways that are derived from the understanding of the Jesus tradition that was then in circulation prior to the formation of the Gospels as we have them, is affirmed as the sole determiner of the activity of the Spirit of the Creator God), along with the insistence upon mutual subjection (preferring one another in humility) in the exercise of the gift that Paul most highly encouraged, provides a helpful framework in which a hearer could understand the words of verse thirty-six, making it possible to understand it as Paul’s continued encouragement for individuals to continually disavow the personal accumulation of honor. 

Hearing these words in this way could lead to seeking opportunities for community affirming mutual subjection that is based upon the desire to emulate the one to whom they look as Lord (who consistently sought out the lowest place rather than the highest place while instructing His disciples to do the same, who performed the role of a slave, and who set Himself amidst those considered to be possessive of shame or who stood completely outside the system of honor and shame, such as children) and who is deserving of all honor.  

Speaking In Tongues (part 12)

The language of honor and shame should heavily influence any reading of these passages in the Corinthian letter.  Also, one must take note that it is Paul’s treatment of the standard division-inducing practices that were common to their world, and their being unfortunately put on display at the Christian meal gathering that included an honoring of Jesus while also hearkening to His meal practices that were designed to show forth the messianic banquet that denoted the coming of the Creator God’s kingdom and rule, that precedes Paul’s going on to deal with “spiritual gifts” (12:1). 

An observer should most definitely hear Paul, through his treatment of meal practice and his decrial of division and giving weight to those considered more honorable, forming the basis for what comes next in his letter.  One cannot underestimate the importance of that to which Paul has been building in this letter.  To be sure, he has dealt with a number of issues, but there is nothing that takes up more of his attention than the issue of spiritual gifts, and they take up a large measure of his attention within a letter directed to a church that is overly concerned with issues of honor and shame and are allowing that construct to dictate the functioning of the church.  The “spiritual gifts” are the subject of chapters twelve, thirteen, and fourteen---the largest section of the letter by far.  The practices of the church, and the way that honor was being assigned within the church loom large when delving into chapter twelve. 

This study has prepared for this special attunement by all that has been covered to this point, especially so that Paul can be heard doing more than offering a list of spiritual gifts in the first part of the chapter.  It is now possible to join the Corinthian believers at their meal gathering that has been stratified based on honor concerns, fully realizing the potential honor gathering opportunities linked to public speech acts, and hear Paul say “With regard to spiritual gifts, brothers and sisters, I do not want you to be uninformed.  You know that when you were pagans you were often led astray by speechless idols, however you were led.  So I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is cursed,’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit” (12:1-2). 

Paul makes it clear that everyone, without exception, who refers to Jesus as Lord (a public speech act) is somehow motivated to do so by the Spirit of the Creator God (the confession of Jesus as Lord is said to be evidence of the work of this Spirit, however that takes place).  This can then be heard as a leveling out of the church body.  Regardless of the quantity or type of speech acts that Paul will go on to detail, it is clear that the entire body of believers stands on equal footing, both spiritually speaking (in the area of gifts) and when it comes to honor---all have the Spirit of the covenant God operable within them---when they call Jesus “Lord.” 

Now an observer is in a position to be able to hear about the “gifts of the Spirit” in a different and perhaps more enlightened way than has perhaps been previously experienced.  Honor and shame constructs must be held in mind.  There must be an awareness of the role of ecstatic speech (glossolalia), along with a rudimentary historical knowledge of the practice.  There are divisions and factions within the church, with these factions linked to speech acts.  There are concerns regarding the meal practice, and that this meal practice, more than anything else, was a lamentable demonstration of the importation of the societal values of the surrounding culture into the life of the body of the Christ. 

It is incumbent upon the reader to bear these things in mind and to hear the words of the apostle from the position of being seated at a meal table.  Seated at that meal table, it is possible to look around and mentally register the results of the functioning of the honor and shame culture, the value placed on ecstatic speech, the divisions that Paul has referenced, and the fact that this meal practice looks quite a bit different from that of the Jesus tradition (and apparently, from that which Paul first taught them).    

Speaking In Tongues (part 5)

As a denizen of the first century Greco-Roman world and as a popular teacher that would have been increasingly viewed through messianic lenses, Jesus would have been quite conscientious of the way that He was perceived by the public.  That said, He appears to be almost completely unconcerned with the honor and shame system.  It almost seems as if He viewed it as being quite backwards, with actions seen as most honorable by the wider public, perceived by Jesus as being shameful, and vice versa. 

At times, Jesus accepts the honors being afforded to Him, but generally He only accepts honoring or honorific statements when they come from those that do not possess any public honor (tax collectors, lepers, those that have been possessed by demons, unclean women, etc…).  When the rich or the rulers attempt to honor Him (and thus flatter themselves and attempt to accrue honor by their own association with Him), perhaps by calling Him “good,” He disavows the approbation.  He routinely speaks of the first being last and the last being first.  He interacts with tax collectors, who may have money and a measure of power, but who are not looked upon as being honorable in the least.  He touches lepers.  He allows dishonorable women to touch Him.

He is more than happy to take the lowest place at a meal, eschewing the places of honor and instructing His followers to do the same.  He washes the feet of His disciples, which is the role of a slave and a reminder of the slave’s shameful place.  He allows children who, being children, do not have a place in the honor and shame pursuit (they do not have honor or shame accorded to them), to come to Him.  When they do, He tells those who are listening to Him that they must enter the kingdom of Israel’s God as little children---unconcerned with the pursuit of honor or the avoidance of shame (which has nothing to do with a “childlike faith”).  He ultimately ended up on a cross, which was the lowest and most shameful place of all, and He went there willingly as He embraced the role of Israel for the world. 

These things (the honor and shame culture along with Jesus’ treatment of this broad social construct) would have been well understood by Jesus’ followers and those that made up the believing communities that attempted to live out what it meant to be the renewed Israel that represented the rule of the Creator God through the remembrance of and reflection upon the orally transmitted Jesus tradition.  When Paul wrote his letters, especially what are considered to be the early letters, there were at that point no known and codified written record of the life of Jesus.  There were no Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as they exist in their present form.  Paul doesn’t have his own body of work or the letters from other apostles from which to draw, nor do the early believers.  What they had were the words of the apostles. 

Those apostles shared their stories of Jesus (a relatively unified story to be sure, though with different emphases, as is obvious from the variety of presentations of the life of Jesus that can be seen in the Gospels) so that those who threw in their lot with the crucified and resurrected King (the church) might do their best to model out the example that He provided, as the movement of the kingdom of the Creator God began to spread through the world via the instrument of the church, with this spread understood to have been motivated by the Spirit of God.  They too were to be motivated to eschew honor and embrace shame, especially if such brought glory to their King and to their God and extended the reach and rule of that Kingdom as they conscientiously strived to bring heaven to earth by mimicking the counter-cultural behavior of Jesus. 

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 4)

So when Peter speaks of good conduct and good deeds, he is not necessarily speaking about refraining from activities that the Christian community looks down upon, but instead he is speaking the language of self-sacrificial love.  For that reason, as does Paul, in dealing with the ramifications of their substantial claim on Jesus’ behalf and of what is going to be learned through their table fellowship, Peter instructs this church (who are most likely hearing this letter read to them in the setting that would be most conducive to such things---the acted out messianic banquet of the church’s meal table) to “Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good” (2:13-14).  This is language that is practically identical to what is to be found in the thirteenth chapter of Romans, which is highly instructive when it comes to the church’s interaction with and for the world. 

Whether Peter was influenced by Paul or Paul was influenced by Peter, the point is that both were influenced by the demands of the reality of the kingdom of Israel’s God that was actualized at the Resurrection of Jesus.  In Romans, Christian love (along with concerns about the meal table) bracket Paul’s concern for interaction with governing authorities, as the church functions in its ambassadorial role, declaring “So now, you kings, do what is wise; you rulers of the earth, submit to correction!  Serve the Lord in fear!  Repent in terror!  Give sincere homage!” (Psalm 2:10-12a).  It is no different for Peter, with this fact continuing to demonstrate how incredibly large looms the meal table for the early Christian communities---as it should through all of time. 

Peter continues, writing “For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good” (2:15).  Taken together with the “those who do good” of the fourteenth verse, Peter is here reinforcing the need for public benefaction, as this is what such words implied when used in that day.  Most believers, with the overt suggestion and experience of Christianity as intensely personal (and it is, but the only reason for it be intensely personal is so that it may be intensely social in demonstration that the kingdom of heaven has invaded this world and that Jesus is its Sovereign), are accustomed to reading “good deeds,” “good works,” and “doing good,” as either the avoidance of that which is considered to be “bad deeds,” or in the Reformation-oriented paradigm of the doing of good works for the purpose of earning salvation. 

Therefore, an over-compensating reaction attempts to smooth out this supposed wrinkle in the Scriptural witness by saying “No, we don’t do good works to earn salvation, we do good works as a response to God’s having saved us” (which is true), with all of this colored by a mis-guided notion about what is meant by the “works of the law” and the way that those “works of the law” functioned in the days of Jesus, Peter, and Paul. 

It takes a bit of work to discover that the language of good deeds, in this context, is truly about seeking to do what is best for the communities in which the believers lives.  In general, believers have no problem extending helping hands “to those who belong to the family of faith” (Galatians 6:10b), but often forget the attitude that was basic for those who understood themselves to be the harbingers and representatives of a real and present kingdom, which was that “whenever we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people” (6:10a), while finding that there is a natural inclination to do good for those with whom one shares a meal.  This is what truly allows the people of the Creator God to function as a light to all peoples, fomenting a desire to become aligned with this movement of cosmic reconciliation, and in so doing bring glory to the God of the universe. 

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. 

Son Of Abraham (part 1 of 2)

Then Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this household, because he too is a son of Abraham!” – Luke 19:9  (NET)

Jesus, in a move that was likely to have been viewed as shocking by many of its witnesses, went “to be the guest of a man who is a sinner” (19:7b).  That man, of course, was Zacchaeus.  Zacchaeus was not only one of the hated tax collectors that worked in collusion with the Roman authorities and serving as a constant reminder of Israel’s continued subjection to a foreign power, but he was also tagged with the second epithet of being a “sinner” (someone who did not live up to covenant obligations).  Luke informs his audience that Zacchaeus was, in fact, a “chief tax collector” (19:2), and that commensurate with such a position, he “was rich” (19:2). 

When Jesus encounters Zacchaeus while passing through Jericho, He invited himself to the house of this rich, chief tax collector, saying “I must stay at your house today” (19:5b).  Though it is not explicit in the text, one can certainly find an implication that Jesus was going to be sharing a meal with Zacchaeus, who was going to serve as His host.  Now, this is not the first time that Jesus has made what some would consider to be a questionable choice in dining companions.  The Gospel of Luke, and indeed all of the Gospels, are littered with accusations of Jesus dining with “tax collectors and sinners,” which simply was not perceived to be comely behavior for a man that was somewhat clearly presenting Himself as a messiah figure. 

Beyond that, even when Jesus is not going to dine with those that are perceived to be the wrong people, and dines with the “right” people instead, He still comes in for criticism, be it for allowing a disreputable woman to wash His feet (chapter seven), or for not washing His hands (chapter eleven).  Seemingly, Jesus can’t quite do things properly.  Such is His burden.

Now, no record of Jesus’ interaction with Zacchaeus is provided.  Luke moves from the complaint about Jesus to reporting that “Zacchaeus stopped and said to the Lord, ‘Look, Lord, half of my possessions I now give to the poor, and if I have cheated anyone of anything, I am paying back four times as much!’” (19:8)  Why Zacchaeus does this is left for the audience to determine.  Clearly though, he is quite overwhelmed by Jesus’ presence.  Perhaps he was also a witness to Jesus’ healing of the blind beggar, which was done “As Jesus approached Jericho” (18:35a)? 

To that point, Luke write that “When all the people saw” this healing, “they…gave praise to God” (18:43b).  Obviously “all” does not mean “all,” as it is a use of hyperbole, and one should not presume that Zacchaeus was part of this group that offered praise to the Creator God as a result of the healing of the blind man, but surely, even if he did not personally witness it, the news of this healing would have come to the ears of Zacchaeus, as tax collectors were certainly attuned to the local goings-on.  Whatever the reason, the fact remains that Zacchaeus is reported to have said these things after welcoming Jesus joyfully (19:6b), and presumably after hearing the complaints of the people. 

It is Zaccheus’ expression of financial commitment that prompts Jesus’ statement of “Today salvation has come to this household, because he too is a son of Abraham!” (19:9)  Though this commitment by Zacchaeus and the resulting words from Jesus were probably surprises to Jesus’ audience, it would not necessarily come as a surprise to those that have been paying attention to Luke’s narrative.  In fact, the story of Zacchaeus represents something of a summary of what has come before and is a vindication of Jesus’ teaching. 

In chapter eighteen, Luke presents a parable from Jesus about “Two men” who “went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector” (18:10).  In this parable, the tax collector “stood far off and would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am!’” (18:13)  Without need to recount it here, suffice it to say that the Pharisee’s prayer was somewhat different. 

Jesus explains that “this man went down to his home justified rather than the Pharisee” (18:14).  Interestingly, if one went from the Temple to Jericho, one would be said to have “went down to his home” (to be fair, all are said to “go down” from Jerusalem) which fits nicely with the story of Zacchaeus (but Luke has also told the story of the “Good Samaritan, in which “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho” (10:30a), so it is not at all difficult to surmise that Luke wants his audience to think of the tax collector “going down” to Jericho from the Temple).  One also notices that this tax collector referred to himself as a sinner, which is also said of the tax collector Zacchaeus, which offers some additional symmetry to the accounts.  

Proclaim The Lord's Death (part 2 of 2)

In the second chapter of the first letter to the Corinthian congregation, Paul reports that he “decided to be concerned about nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (2:2), while also mentioning that if the rulers of the age truly understood the message of Jesus, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (2:8b).  Though thoughts of the resurrected Christ naturally permeate the entire background of the letter, as there would be no church apart from a resurrected Messiah, and though there is a reference to the raising of Jesus in the fourteenth verse of the sixth chapter, the movement of this letter suggests Paul’s desire that the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) be closely (and foolishly, as he will point out) associated with the crucifixion, and therefore the cross.

Why should this be the case?  Why is it that Paul apparently believes that it is the crucifixion, rather than the Resurrection, that should be the locus of attention and proclamation when the church comes together to take up the bread and the cup (share an egalitarian meal)?  Is it because the cross, rather than being looked upon as a thing of beauty and as an object of grace, was considered to be the lowest place of ultimate suffering and complete shame?  Might this be a reflection on the traditions then in circulation in which Jesus is understood to have instructed His disciples to take up their cross and follow Him---willfully going to the places of suffering and shame, because Jesus is Lord, as the means by which the kingdom of the Creator God is made manifest, established, and advanced? 

Putting aside the fact that it was rather obvious that there were individuals in the church at Corinth that needed to be reminded of the willingness to endure suffering and shame that is demanded of those that proclaim loyalty to Jesus, which is made clear by the language that precedes Paul’s recitation of the tradition of the Lord’s Supper, the focus on the death of the Christ situates those who sit together at the meal table at the foot of the cross, as they are become identified with their crucified Lord, and are branded as He was, as foolish and shameful---as failures according to the way the world has always looked at such things.

What will it mean to be identified with a crucified Christ?  As the new age, signaled by the Resurrection, looms large in the background, what will it mean to truly proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes?  Paul provides his hearers with a guide in the fourth chapter of the letter.  As the believer listens and considers the communion in which he or she gratefully participate, this guide is indelibly stamped by Jesus’ crucifixion as Paul writes “For, I think God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, as men condemned to die, because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to people. We are fools for Christ… We are weak… we are dishonored!  To the present hour we are hungry and thirsty, poorly clothed, brutally treated, and without a roof over our heads.  We do hard work, toiling with our own hands.  When we are verbally abused, we respond with a blessing, when persecuted, we endure, when people lie about us, we answer in a friendly manner.  We are the world’s dirt and scum, even now” (4:9-13). 

May the believer indeed be empowered to be the spectacle of the cross to an on-looking world, proclaiming the Lord’s death at His table and in the world in which He reigns---demonstrating that reign by living as part of a community that embodies the cross (suffering and self-sacrificial love).  Let not the members of the congregation of those that proclaim allegiance to Jesus as Lord take up the bread and the cup alone to signal their union with the Christ, but indeed, let there be a commitment to taking up that vile instrument of death and of the power that attempts to stand against the purpose of the Creator, gladly enduring its foolishness, its suffering, and its shame so that the Lord and God, Jesus the Christ, might be glorified and His kingdom might be extended.  When sharing in the cup, let it be done as a sincere and faithful attempt to always and forever remain the humble tradents, adherents, and servants of the crucified King and the cruciform kingdom.                

Proclaim The Lord's Death (part 1)

For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. – 1 Corinthians 11:26  (NET)

Here in the first letter to the Corinthians is what appears to be the very first, surviving, written record of the what has come to be referred to as the Christian practice of communion.  Though it was undoubtedly something that took place as part of a communal meal---as it refers to actions instituted by Jesus that took place at a meal, for the majority of modern believers, it exists primarily as a ceremony involving the bread and the cup, minus a meal. 

Even though the element of the community meal has been largely lost by the church, the communion demands to be understood within the context of the Passover, stretching the hearts and minds of its participants all the way back to the time of Israel’s Egyptian exodus.  Thus it serves to remind those that partake of the elements of the extraordinary, intervening power of the Creator God, and of His actions undertaken on behalf of His covenant people. 

Surely, the Christ-event was and should be thought of along such lines.  In addition to that, owing to what came to be understood as Jesus’ messianic presentation of Himself, as He did and as He taught (to borrow a sensibility from the opening of the Acts), the communion itself, when it is reduced to simply the bread and the cup, becomes a microcosm of the messianic banquet, which Jesus Himself was likely to have been consciously enacting every time He situated Himself at a meal.  The messianic banquet signaled, among other things, that the Creator God’s rule on earth had been established.  When Jesus joined a meal, and especially when He offered teaching and parables that had the kingdom of the Creator God as its subject, this also should be taken as a signal that said kingdom had come in and through Him, and that a new age had dawned---eclipsing the old age as the Creator God had begun reconciling all things to Himself through the presence of His Christ. 

As one considers the message that surrounds the Apostle Paul’s presentation of the Lord’s Supper, as he mentions his having received from the Lord what he had already passed on to this church community prior to the occasion of the writing of this letter, it is curious that he concludes his recollection with the insistence and directive that “every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.”  It should be noticed that Paul makes no explicit mention of the Resurrection. 

Though there are Passover and messianic banquet sensibilities at play, along with all that is implied by those things, and though it is obvious that a resurrected Christ is implied in the phrase “until He comes,” Paul seems to restrict the proclamation of the communion to an invocation of the Lord’s death.  By focusing on the Lord’s death, quite naturally, there is a focus on the cross---on crucifixion.  It seems to, at least at this point as Paul writes to this particular community and as an attempt is made by an observer to be situated alongside this community so as to be able to hear the voice of the Spirit of the Creator God that was presumed to be at work through the Apostle, elevate the cross of the Christ to a position of primacy in relation to the Christian meal table and its celebration of communion. 

Though at first glance this seems a bit odd, especially when one considers Paul’s overt pre-occupation with the Resurrection and its implications (not to mention the great dissertation of the Resurrection that will shortly be heard by the recipients of his letter).  However, when observing the structure of the letter that Paul has provided to this point, there is a realization that this focus is not odd in the least.  In the first chapter of the letter, the Apostle writes “Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he?” (1:13b), along with “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless” (1:17).  Shortly thereafter, he adds that “we preach about a crucified Christ” (1:23a).  This letter kicks off and would appear to be premised by the message of the cross.  

Corinth's Communion (part 26)

What then was the injustice inside this church?  Has Paul mentioned it to this point?  Of course he has.  He has already written “For when it is time to eat, everyone proceeds with his own supper.  One is hungry and another becomes drunk… are you trying to show contempt for the church of God by shaming those who have nothing?” (1 Corinthians 11:21,22b)  This may seem trivial at first glance, but when placed in perspective, the fact that there is an element of injustice at work can be easily perceived, and it is being perpetrated by the members themselves.  It should most certainly be the case that inside the gathered body of Christ, and especially as they were coming together for a meal that carried a considerable amount of theological weight, that all share equally in the meal. 

If the church itself was unwilling or unable to feed those inside the body, and if the church itself was unwilling or unable to be sure that those that were counted as brothers and sisters of the kingdom of the Creator God did not go hungry, then how could it possibly find itself in a position to do the same thing for the world?  Some members of the gathered congregation eating and drinking and doing so to their fill while others went hungry, with this hunger and thirst occurring within plain sight of those that ate and drank to their fill, who were themselves in a position to exercise a very small amount of the self-sacrificial love that took Christ to the cross by sharing so as to insure that nobody went hungry, was nothing short of an injustice that has no place inside the church. 

Indeed, Paul was right to bring up the issue of shame.  If the church was not the example that it needed to be in modeling out a different kind of living, and if it did not put that different mode of living on display at the meal table in recognition of the demands of its Lord, where it could be easily recognized by those both inside and outside of the church (no divisions, no separations, no stratifications, no inequality), then how was that church going to inspire the viewing world to change its mode of living and to recognize its true Lord?  If those that were supposed to be representing the end-time kingdom of the Creator were more than happy to eat and drink while their very own brothers and sisters in the covenant went hungry, then they were certainly not operating in love. 

Now, this is not to say that there is anything wrong with eating and drinking, but it is to say that those that lay claim to a confession of Jesus as their Lord, who are ambassadors for the existing kingdom of heaven while serving in anticipation of its consummation, are called to a position of conscientious love.  Believes are very much within their rights to enjoy that with which they have been blessed (in food and drink and in all other areas), but this enjoyment should be done in a way that is tempered by an understanding that there are those, perhaps through no fault of their own, who go without much of that which is basic to life. 

Perhaps the position here called for is to offer praises to the Creator God for His bountiful provisions, while also offering a lament for the evil that is active in this world (in so many ways) and which is working against the proliferation of the provision of the God that shows forth His rule through the Lord Jesus and through His church (His body) that is active in and for the world as an extension of the Creator’s care.  Of course, it is not enough to praise, and it is not enough to lament.  Both suggest a call to dutiful action by the church, for the world, in humble and loving service to its Lord and its God.

Corinth's Communion (part 24)

Having persuaded this church to recognize the facts that they have allowed distinctions and divisions to creep in and become established, with this critique extended to the entirety of the church, as all (whether perceived as being high or low within the church ) would have to tacitly agree to participate in such arrangements, Paul promptly dissuades them from any sense that this is appropriate by delivering the words “But you should be eager for the greater gifts” (1 Corinthians 12:31a).  By making reference to the “greater gifts,” Paul has diminished all of the things about which they are boasting and are using in their spiritual honor competition and associated hierarchical arrangements based on their spiritual gifts (some of which, such as speaking in tongues, were prevalent in society at large before the advent of the church, and thus already had certain types of honor attached to their performance as part of a group). 

Before continuing on to what comes next, a reminder  to maintain the proper mindset must be observed, if one wants to be able to properly discern Paul’s message and his intent.  Yes, presuming and surmising is taking place in this study, and such things are being done in hope of being able to make educated guesses in the process.  A failure to grasp details can result in missing out on major points.  However, by attempting to become immersed in the culture, and attempting to become situated within a church community of first century hearers in the city of Corinth that is a part of and is shaped by the Greco-Roman world, rather than as private twenty-first century readers that occupy a world that is, for the most part, vastly different from the world occupied by Jesus, Paul, and the members of the Corinthian church, offers a greater chance of success in determining the problem, the message, and Paul’s intentions associated with the delivery of the message that his letter to this church communicates. 

It is upon this declaration concerning the “greater gifts,” which followed his rhetorically purposeful diminishing of the “spiritual gifts” that were prized by the congregation and being used for inappropriate stratification and spiritual honor competition, that Paul enters into what is thought of as his great soliloquy upon love.  While beautiful in and of itself, it cannot and should not be considered apart from what comes before and after, or apart from a consideration of Paul’s somewhat contentious communication to this church.  When Paul insists that “Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious” (13:4a), it is incumbent upon an observer to hear these words as would Paul’s original hearers. 

If this is accomplished, it is done with a knowledge that most believers are missing the mark in the exercise of spiritual gifts, and that what is referred to as love is actually nothing more than individual and selfish pursuit of honor and its attendant of a better position at the table, that all may bask in the performer’s glorious spirituality and ultimately come into submission to a hard-earned spiritual authority.  Re-calling attention to the possibility that this is being read at the symposium portion of the meal that would have been this church’s regular time and mode of gathering in that time and place, Paul goes on to write “Love does not brag, it is not puffed up.  It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful” (13:5).  This statement would have come as a stark contrast to Paul’s words of chapters eleven and twelve, through which the congregation would have been forced to recognize their rude and self-serving behavior.  

When one hears the words of the “chapter of love,” they are heard according to the tone of the letter as a whole.  There is much instruction taking place throughout the letter, and much of the instruction is in the form of correction.  The correction, of course, implies that there are problems that need to be corrected, indicating a need to alter an existing course of action or accepted situation.  So as Paul writes about the nature of love, which must be tied to the correction that is on offer from him, he is not simply espousing a set of free-floating ideals to be met, or thinking of words that will eventually come to be read at weddings (though there is certainly nothing inherently wrong with this), but pointing out to his audience where it is that they are falling short of the ideal that is tied to their all-important and paramount confession of Jesus as Lord. 

Corinth's Communion (part 20)

Speaking of the body, as Paul stresses the importance of the movement of the whole of the church body---with individual practice subsumed to its relevance to the strengthening of the church body (highlighted in chapter twelve) as that body attempts to exist as a microcosm of the kingdom of heaven (the will and rule of the Creator God expressed vicariously on earth through a community of covenant people) while also being an ambassadorial light to the world that speaks boldly of the reign of the Creator God and the coming together of heaven and earth that is accomplished through the death and resurrection of Jesus (which is what is stressed at the communion table)---and though the topic is different than that which is addressed in the fifth and sixth chapters, a move to the tenth chapter sees Paul again taking up and operating within the motif of the meal. 

There, Paul again stresses the significance of the body of believers that comprises the church community (eyeing this in the light of the mention of the need for a careful regard for the body in 11:29) when he writes “Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?  Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ?  Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). 

Perhaps the peculiar, subversive, absolute, and expected equality expressed at the Christian meal table, with all partaking equally in the same food and drink without succumbing to the cultural pressures of honor and shame, is what is here in Paul’s mind when he speaks of the breaking of bread and sharing in the body of Christ, as the members of the covenant community are tasked with continuing the mission of the Christ by being His ongoing physical presence in and for the world, with this powerfully symbolized by the way in which the meal is shared?  With the importance placed on the meal table in that time and place as a reflector and shaper of culture (or the reinforcer of its norms), the church’s meal table becomes a transformative force for its participants, with that transformation making its way outside the “four walls” of the church.   

Additionally, one does not overlook the Abrahamic covenant pretensions that are present with the mention of blessing in conjunction with the sharing of the cup and the breaking of the bread.  All talk of “blessing,” when on the lips (or the pen) of the covenant people, is provided context by that covenant.  Consequently, one must affirm that there is something of grand importance in the breaking of the bread that speaks to the body of Christ---the church---and its role to be a blessing for the world.  This role is powerfully communicated to an on-looking world through meal practice.      

In moving beyond the eleventh chapter, further evidence that Paul’s “careful regard for the body” (11:29) when participating in the Lord’s Supper is encountered, demonstrating that this “careful regard for the body” has little to nothing to do with that which occupies the thoughts of the participants as they consume the bread and the wine.  Rather, even greater weight is lent to the idea that Paul has in mind the environment and setting that has been created by the group that is attempting to celebrate that which they are calling the Lord’s Supper, and to the idea that he is calling specific attention to the social constructs that were so important in delineating those that cast their allegiance with King Jesus.  

Corinth's Communion (part 19)

With this foundational context in place, it’s now possible to let Paul speak for himself at length, as the modern observer is now situated at a meal (with symposium not far from the thoughts) with this particular Christian body and able to hear: “I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.  In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world.  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard or a swindler.  Do not even eat with such a person.  For what do I have to do with judging those outside?  Are you not to judge those inside?  But God will judge those outside.  Remove the evil person from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:9-13). 

When attempting to consider how this is to be interpreted first by its recipients, and then by the later church (throughout the centuries) that should make every effort to hear and understand as a first century listener so as to make proper application to practice in an attempt to live out what it would mean to be a Christian in their own situation (place and time), this cannot be read apart from a comprehension of the social forces that were at work and in place in that time. 

Just as the celebration of the Lord’s Supper (initially a community meal to be sure that would eventually devolve to the symbols of bread and wine and the communion ceremony) would be a microcosm of all that was intended for the kingdom of the Creator God, so too would a celebratory meal and attendant symposium be a microcosm of the larger society in which such are taking place.  Additionally, this section of the letter demands to be heard as a whole, without division or isolation of independent thoughts. 

Because of the mention of not eating with such people and with the dis-association list given here that is repeated and expanded upon in the sixth chapter, it also demands to be heard in the context of a meal, thus reinforcing the insistence of this study.  Finally, the letter demands to be heard in the context of what the meal says about the gathered body of believers, both to its participants and any observers.  For purposes of this study, because of Paul’s mention of judging, the letter must be heard with a pronounced mindfulness of what Paul says about eating and drinking without careful regard for the body (of believers) and the eating and drinking of judgment that such would entail. 

Yes, at the risk of redundancy, this letter must be considered in whole as the mounting argument that it is.  One does violence to the text and to Paul’s thesis when statements are carelessly isolated and used as aphoristic-truth clubs with which to beat people over the head in an effort to reinforce previously arrived at conclusions that are based on subjective prejudices and biases.  While one should recognize that Paul does indeed deal with a variety of problems, failing to see that there is a substantial progression that is based upon an underlying rhetorical movement with a particular point of reference, would be a wanton abuse of the Apostle’s work that might lead the reader into all sorts of erroneous conclusions while missing the larger point of the letter altogether.  It is imperative to recognize that the substantial progression in the letter appears to be closely related to Paul’s concerns with “the body.”

Corinth's Communion (part 18)

In the process of considering whether or not this concern about the imposition of the cultural honor and shame system is a legitimate approach to take in an attempt to understand Paul’s concerns, the larger movement of the letter to the Corinthians, and the singular importance of the meal to the early Christian communities, it is appropriate to here revert to the fifth chapter of the letter, to continue to build an awareness of the structure of the mounting argument about the body of believers that comprise the church community that takes place within the letter, and perhaps culminates in Paul’s communion dissertation of the eleventh chapter.  

Bearing in mind the short discussion of the historical facts of the symposium that has been previously presented, while also keeping in mind that Paul’s letter will be read to the gathered church (not in silent isolation and contemplation), and perhaps strategically read in the midst of the meal that will eventually devolve into the symposium (which some in the church were probably imagining to be an example of the messianic banquet), is necessary to the effort to attempt to hear the Apostle in the same circumstances in which his initial hearers found themselves. 

As was seen through the reading of much of the sixth chapter, when it is read in the light of a meal and the symposium, a great deal of illumination is on offer when coming across words such as “Your boasting is not good.  Don’t you know that a little yeast affects the whole batch of dough?” (5:6)  The very mention of bread could function as an indicator that Paul wanted (and expected) this letter to be read in conjunction with the church’s meal, while the mention of boasting calls attention to the boasting that was a regular and accepted component of the symposium.  

Going on, Paul writes, “Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough---you are, in fact, without yeast.  For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (5:7).  This use of Passover terminology presumes that this church, located in a Gentile city and presumably populated by Gentiles, has been well-instructed in the history of Israel, so as to properly see themselves as a part of that continuing narrative of the covenant people, as apart from an understanding of the exodus the talk of Christ as Passover lamb would fall on ignorant ears. 

At a meal, with the messianic feast of the Lord’s Supper and what it communicates about the church and its role as emissaries of the kingdom of God in view, the recipients of the letter go on to hear “So then, let us celebrate the festival (whether the actual Passover or simply the Lord’s Supper in recognition of the messianic feast in which the Passover is consistently called to mind to provide the messianic-banquet-informed communion with its depth of meaning) not with the old yeast, the yeast of vice and evil, but with the bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth” (5:8). 

Not only does the talk of yeast and bread strongly indicate that a meal is taking place and is the setting of the gathering of the church and the reading of the letter, and not only do the mention of yeast and bread serve as additional references to the Passover in particular, but it is also the case that such talk calls to mind that which would have been part of the oral traditions concerning Jesus that were then in circulation.  Specifically, those traditions are likely to have included Jesus’ reported reference to the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod, which could certainly produce thoughts of the two great feasts over which Jesus presided (found in the Gospel of Mark, which may have been the earliest and most widely know thread of Jesus traditions within the orally oriented church community).  

Corinth's Communion (part 17)

Ultimately, Paul is not critical of the fact that there is a celebratory meal taking place.  That is not a fundamental issue.  Paul does not necessarily rail against the institution of the symposium or the convivium itself, nor does he express opinions on the nature of eating and drinking (or what is consumed), except when he enters into a dissertation on practices of eating that are rooted in the need for the community to operate with a compassionate and self sacrificial love and sensitivity. 

Clearly though, with the symposium in view, he has concerns with some things that take place at this portion of the meal.  However, he does not appear to have a desire to alter the fact that it takes place.  Rather, his concern seems to lie with the fact that love, and the preferring of one another that will come with the modeled-out love of Jesus, is not being shown forth through the various activities that lie within that view.  It appears that Paul, understanding the example of Jesus at meals, while tying in the messianic banquet (rule of God) aspects of Jesus’ meal activities, sees the tremendous importance of the meal---especially as a force within society.  Consequently then, he wants to see this powerful force re-shaped in a way that will cause it to reflect the priorities of the kingdom of the Creator God. 

The more damning aspect of the activities of the church is that, with the powerful social forces that are at work, this church seemed to be participating in activities at their meal and related symposium, with those activities maintaining and expressing the requisite social stratifications and divisions that one would expect in that day, but which were clearly verboten for the church of the Christ.  In this way, this church has made their celebrations (meal and symposium taken together) indistinguishable from any other such celebration that might be taking place in Corinth. 

To make matters worse, they are doing this while they referring to what they are doing as the Lord’s Supper, and thus by extension pointing to it as their own version of the messianic banquet.  This is highly problematic, especially if the very forces that deface and defile their God’s creation, and which dishonor and defame divine image-bearers for the pleasure and amusement of another set of divine image-bearers, are on display. 

If the honor system was in effect in an obvious way at this church’s meal table, then this was going to be a problem for Paul.  If the “first” were making sure that they were still first and recognized as such (possessive of more honor in the court of public opinion and so getting all of the food and drink that they want, or getting the best), while also making sure that the “last” were still recognized as being the last (possessive of less honor in the court of public opinion and relegated to receiving the leftovers or the worst, if anything at all, which was standard operating procedure for the meal tables of that time and place), and if they were doing so within the event that was supposed to be a tool that would mark them out as being a very different community in which preferring one another was the order of the day and in which the first shall be last and the last shall be first (the shameful/humbled being exalted and the exalted/honored being humbled---a flattening out of society in which there was neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, but in which all were one in Christ, which was the vision of the messianic feast that marked out the time that the Creator God did indeed rule on earth), then this was certainly not the Lord’s Supper, and thus was most certainly not representative of the kingdom of the Creator God of Israel. 

Corinth's Communion (part 16)

A symposium would be overseen by a “symposiarch,” or a “master of the feast.”  Among the many duties of this person would be making a decision as to the strength of the wine for the evening, and this would depend on whether serious discussions were going to be taking place, or whether sensual indulgences were all that were on tap for the gathering.  The wine would be drawn from a large jar that was designed to be carried by two men, with the wine then served to the guests from pitchers. 

Continuing to learn about this social institution, Paul’s words of the sixth chapter are kept in mind as information is gathered about customary central features of the symposium.  Though free women of status were not allowed to attend such events, female prostitutes were often hired to accentuate the festivities.  This brings Paul’s mention of sexual immorality and prostitutes (1 Corinthians 6:13,15) into play, as Paul’s critique of this church is considered in the light of meal practice and the symposium.  Together with the prostitutes, slaves and boys would also be employed for entertainment and used to provide service, thus drawing attention to Paul’s mention of being “bought at a price” (6:20), which is the language of slavery. 

In effect then, the symposium or convivium was a male-oriented drinking session that would traditionally be held at the end of a meal.  Greek pottery of ancient times, including the time of Jesus and Paul, frequently includes decorations depicting symposium, showing that the range of activities would include drinking, music, singing, dancing, games, and sexual intercourse. 

As one imagines what might very well be the raucous nature of the symposium, and as one holds in mind the vital nature and importance of meal gatherings as demonstrated by Jesus and therefore embraced by the early church, can Paul not be understood to be writing into the context of this type of event (rather than in as a general approbation) when he delivers words such as “Do not be deceived!  The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God” (6:9b-10)?  This makes a great deal of sense if Paul is addressing a church that is engaging in this practice, while they presumptuously and falsely refer to it as their celebration of the messianic feast, which is the very thing that was suppose to signal the in-breaking of the kingdom of the Creator God.   

So not only is one forced to begin considering having “a careful regard for the body” in the mode of the body of believers (rather than the personal body or the body of Christ in terms of the bread of the communion table), but there is also a requirement to deal with the idea that Paul’s delineation of the parameters of the Lord’s Supper, or the communion table, are offered within the context of a grave concern over what is being put on display, or conversely, what is not being put on display by the meal practice of the Corinthian church. 

Paul appears to be quite concerned with the fact that love---true love as demonstrated by compassion and mercy, which should be reflected by image-bearers that are supposedly claiming Jesus as their Lord and living by the precepts on offer by Him in both word and deed and which are part and parcel of the celebration of the communion, is being left off the table.  This is in the wake of understanding the communion as a microcosm of the messianic feast by which it is confessed that Jesus is Lord, and in which the in-breaking of the Creator God’s compassion and mercy for this world is looked to and celebrated, with this having taken place by and through the Christ-event. 

Corinth's Communion (part 5)

It is of interest to note that on one hand, this Corinthian church is remembering Paul and maintaining the traditions that he had passed on to them, but on the other hand and in many ways, they had become completely dismissive of that which Paul passed on to them as coming from Jesus Himself.  Thus, no praise from Paul when it comes to their practice of the early church tradition of the table of the Lord.

Continuing to move forward, and considering what is happening within this church, it is paramount to keep in mind that the culture possessed strong, dividing, separating, stratifying societal forces that were in existence and readily demonstrated at the meal tables of the ancient world.  Because of the language that is in use, when great pains are taken to understand and reflect upon the importance of meals in that time, it becomes possible to identify the fact that Paul is communicating in the context of problems centered on meal practice.  It is with this in mind that Paul can be heard saying “I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.  For in the first place, when you come together as a church I hear there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it” (1 Corinthians 11:17b-18). 

Paul is not speaking into a vacuum.  This body of believers that meets regularly around the meal table as a central feature of their gathering is going to know about their own divisions, and they are going to know where those divisions are most clearly able to be seen.  This letter, which would have been read out loud to the congregation in one sitting, has already made mention of “jealousy and dissension” (3:3), and beyond the eleventh chapter---quite noticeably in chapter twelve---Paul is going to address further divisions that have sprung up in connection with the ongoing honor competition.  Because those divisions come on the heels of what he is communicating in the eleventh chapter that is going to be clearly situated within church meal practice, and because the congregation is going to hear these words in short order (with no private reading and no artificial chapter and verse divisions), they actually play into the divisions that Paul is referencing in the eleventh chapter.

Returning to the nineteenth verse, Paul is found to have written: “For there must in fact be divisions among you, so that those of you who are approved may be evident” (11:19).  This is a rhetorical exercise (part of the basic education process of the Greco-Roman world), and the use of rhetoric is commonly employed by Paul.  He is not saying “there must be divisions so that we can know, and know correctly, who among you is truly saved and approved by our God.”  Such a thought would move the analysis in the wrong direction.  Rather, he is being critical of their divisions and of the steps that are taken to highlight or to make quite evident who it is that can be identified as those who are “approved.” 

Because he goes on to write “Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper” (11:20a), it can be noted that Paul is indeed addressing divisions and those who are “approved” in the context of the church’s meal table (their celebration of the Lord’s Supper/communion).  This talk of the “approved,” which is directed to a people steeped in the honor and shame culture and the social stratification associated with it, seems to be a clear reference to the honored guests and the chief seats of the world’s banqueting tables.  Realizing this opens up a whole new world of understanding.