Love & The Public Good (part 1)

Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. – Romans 13:8  (NET)

In the thirteenth chapter of Romans, Paul extends his discourse from chapter twelve, which delineated the love that will be exercised within the Christian community, writing “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (13:8).  This statement takes into consideration the pervasive structure of the debtor society of the Greco-Roman world, while it also seems to address the attendant and entrenched system of patronage and benefaction. 

Those that are instructed to “Owe no one anything” are encouraged to take the necessary steps to free themselves from the encumbrances of debt, and therefore free themselves from having to acquire a benefactor, as slipping into or maintaining such cultural norms will diminish the impact of the Christian community as a force for societal transformation, while it also, possibly, has a deleterious effect on the Christian meal table. 

The Christian, Paul would surely insist, is to be the patron of only one benefactor, that being Jesus, thus allowing the Christian to take the position of being a loving and altruistic benefactor to his community, his country, and to the world, as an enthusiastic representative of the kingdom of the Creator God.  When one considers the context in which Paul delivers the statement of verse eight, it should be noticed that he begins with “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except by God’s appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God” (13:1).  This is the paradoxical situation of the Christian. 

Yes, the confessed member of the body of Christ owes his allegiance to the kingdom of the covenant God, and yes, the Christian message is quite subversive in that it recognizes Jesus as the King of kings.  However, the Christian lives with a tension, recognizing “God’s appointment” of authorities.  That paradoxical tension of respectful subversiveness is well explicated by the second Psalm, which provides an example to be followed by the people of the Creator God and the nature of their interaction with governing authorities. 

There the Creator God’s people, via the Psalmist, are heard saying “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!  Otherwise He will be angry, and you will die because of your behavior, when His anger quickly ignites” (2:10-12a).  While this can also be taken as words of warning to those that this God intends to be His kings and rulers in this world---His divine image bearers, it is well-understood to be directed to human authority figures.

Undoubtedly, this is directed firstly to the kings of Israel, and then by extension, to the kings of the earth as the Creator’s people take up their role to be a shining light to the nations that do indeed exemplify divine blessing, with a desire to be continuous extensions of the positive end of the Abrahamic covenant (a blessing to all peoples).  Such is neatly summed up by the last part of verse twelve of the second Psalm, in which insists “How blessed are all who take shelter in him!” 

It is in this light, the light of love and the opportunity to be a legitimate and well-received voice to those rulers that are in need of submission to the imperial claims of Jesus, that Paul writes “For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants devoted to governing.  Pay everyone what is owed: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due” (13:6-7). 

Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 1)

Now while Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, reclining at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of costly aromatic oil from pure nard.  After breaking open the jar, she poured it on his head. – Mark 14:3  (NET)

Jesus is at a meal table.  Though there is not an explicit mention of a meal taking place, based on what is presented in the text it is appropriate to infer that a meal is taking place.  Mark writes that Jesus was “reclining at the table” (14:3b).  This is a clear indication that Jesus is participating in yet another meal, as it informs the reader that Jesus is utilizing a dining couch rather than an upright chair, and that He has most likely assumed the traditional posture of laying on the couch, propped up on one elbow, with His head near the table and His feet at the end of the couch away from the table.  Because this presents a much better picture of Jesus’ posture, it is then possible to form a more complete picture of what took place at this table. 

It is said that there was a woman “with an alabaster jar of costly aromatic oil from pure nard.  After breaking open the jar, she poured it on His head” (14:3c).  The text indicates that the woman did not stop with Jesus’ head, but might very well have poured out the perfume over the whole of His body, because Jesus, when some present scoffed at what was perceived to be a waste of a costly item that could have been sold, with the money given to the poor, responded by saying, “She has done a good service for Me… She did what she could.  She anointed My body before burial” (14:6b,8). 

There is an interesting dynamic that is at play here, having to do with the context in which Mark sets this event.  Though there is an intervening chapter of prophetic apocalyptic speech (pulling back the veil) by Jesus (Mark 13), the previous event that is recorded by Mark is that of Jesus observing the crowds making their offerings at the Temple.  While observing this activity, Jesus sees a poor widow who “came and put in two small copper coins” (12:42b), saying “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others… she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had” (12:43b,44b). 

Following that, Jesus goes on to tell His disciples that the very Temple to which this widow gave the last of what she had “will be torn down” (13:2b).  It would be difficult for the disciples not to draw the conclusion that the offering made by this poor widow, sacrificing all that she had for that which was going to be destroyed, was itself quite a waste.  From there, in terms of the presentation of events, Mark moves directly to the meal at which Jesus is present, and to the breaking open of the alabaster jar for the purpose of anointing His body, with the indignant insistence that this was nothing but a waste.  However, Mark is making a point related to the fact that Jesus saw Himself as the true Temple of God that would stand eternally, so that nothing offered to it could possibly be considered a waste (unlike the widow’s tragic offering). 

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.

Galatians & Giving (part 7)

The bottom line for this and every Jesus community was that “through love,” they were to “serve one another” (Galatians 5:13b).  Though this can be heard in the general sense of Christian service, it can also be taken more literally as Paul can be heard insisting that all were and are to take the opportunity to be servants at the meal table.  Just because somebody was responsible for serving at meal tables (women, slaves) outside the church gathering, that did not automatically mean that they were to be the servants at the church gathering.  In fact, the church and the Gospel may very well have insisted upon the opposite.  Regardless of that possibility, Paul insists that the appropriate attitude is “You must love your neighbor as yourself” (5:14b); and just as their service was not some generalized service, so too this “love” was not some general, undefined love. 

To that end, Paul quotes from the nineteenth chapter of Leviticus, making allusion to all that surrounds the specific quotation.  Further insight into the social dynamic that is at work can be gained by looking to that passage in Leviticus and finding “You must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich.  You must judge your fellow citizen fairly.  You must not go about as a slanderer among your people.  You must not stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake.  I am the Lord.  You must not hate your brother in your heart.  You must surely reprove your fellow citizen so that you do not incur sin on account of him.  You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you must love your neighbor as yourself.  I am the Lord.  You must keep My statutes” (19:15-19a).  It would seem clear that Paul has this in mind when he appends his thoughts, adding “However, if you continually bite and devour one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another” (5:15).  Interestingly enough, it would seem that talk of biting, devouring, and consuming can be understood as language that is connected to a meal table. 

Bearing in mind the Levitical allusion, and even though there is some intervening material dealing with the operation of the Spirit and the subsequent contrast between the works of the Spirit and the works of the flesh, does one not hear the Levitical pronouncement heavily informing the introduction to the sixth chapter, when Paul speaks and says “Brothers and sisters, if a person is discovered in some sin, you who are spiritual restore such a person in a spirit of gentleness.  Pay close attention to yourselves, so that you are not tempted too.  Carry one another’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (6:1-2)? 

Certainly, the words that lead into the opening statement of the sixth chapter could be brought into service here, as Paul writes “Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, being jealous of one another” (5:26).  When these words are heard at a mixed meal table, where all are cognizant of the wide range of potential sources of divisions and classifications and groupings that would be a natural component of every other meal gathering that would be known and even participated in on a regular basis by those that compose the church of Galatia, they should take on an even more profound meaning.    

Galatians & Giving (part 2)

The setting into which Paul wrote, and in which his letter would be read aloud to the assembled congregation, would most likely be that of a meal.  Paul makes clear the primacy of the meal table in his dealings with the Galatian church, utilizing the example of his negative and somewhat definitive experience in Antioch because it would most likely resound with them.  Hearing Paul’s letter read to them while they were at their standard gathering around the meal table would heighten the sensitivity to the issues that he is addressing in this church---with their giving practices being ancillary to the larger issues at hand.  Surely, one cannot imagine Paul employing an example that had no bearing on the issue with which he deals in this letter to the church of Galatia. 

In the second chapter, Paul writes “when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had 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” (2:11-12).  As was the case at Antioch, this church must have been failing to come together at an undivided meal table, as they continued to recognize the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, and therefore allowed for the upholding of the covenantal markers of Judaism (dietary laws denoting clean and unclean, circumcision, and Sabbath-keeping).  Paul saw this as highly problematic and will use the dichotomy to make his points concerning what is meant by justification.  More on this anon. 

It is necessary to spend a bit more time recognizing the structure of the church’s gathering.  In their adherence to the Jesus tradition, and very much in tune with prevailing custom and culture, the earliest Christian assemblies were centered on the meal table.  In this respect, they would have looked very much like the familiar associations of the day.  The major difference for the Christians would have been (or ideally should have been) the fact that the meal table of Jesus believers would not have been stratified according to the social order of honor and shame. 

There was to be no distinction between Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female, rich or poor, but all were to share equally in status at the table and in the food and wine that was available for consumption.  Paul called the Corinthian church to account for their failure to live out the model of the meal demonstrated by Jesus, pointing out their failure to have all at the table share in the same food and drink, in both quantity and quality.  It is not unreasonable to insist that such was on his mind in this setting as well. 

This shared meal would consist of two parts, the first of which was the deipnon, the second part of which was the symposium.  The deipnon is where the meal would be shared and where bread would be broken.  At the close of the deipnon, a libation would be presented in honor of the god of the association.  For the Christians, who were those who looked to Jesus as King rather than Caesar (the Caesareans), the libation would be presented, poured out, or consumed in honor of Jesus (think of Jesus and His taking of the cup “after supper”).  With this portion of the meal complete, they would move on to the symposium.  The symposium was the part of the event of the meal in which discussions were to be had, songs would be sung, people would speak in tongues (an ancient religious custom the records of which predates Pentecost by hundreds of year), messages could be delivered, etc…  Noting that this would have been customary and traditional, Paul also spoke to this situation in the first letter to Corinth. 

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 16)

While Christ was glorified in His Resurrection, one must never forget that the near-constant rejoinder to any mention of said Resurrection is that “God raised Him.”  Jesus humbled Himself, broke religious and political custom and tradition in His shared breaking of bread, touched the outcasts, taught openly to men, women, and children, washed feet, endured rejection and persecution, and willingly went to the cross in His demonstration of the appearance that would be taken on by the kingdom of His God.  These types of things would not have been defined as “glory-seeking”.  There was no honor to be gained here. 

So though glory and authority eventually came to Him, it was not sought.  It came to Him after He had gone to the lowest place of cursing and shame.  Truly, He showed hospitality (acted out the messianic banquet) without complaining, and even more truly, served all as a good steward of the grace of the Creator God.  Indeed, the very language here employed calls attention to that which is expected of those that bear the divine covenant.  Peter writes of serving and stewardship.  These terms are only separated from the meal table with great difficulty, while the grace of the covenant God, as He calls a people to Himself without regard to race or class, is rightly put on display at the Christian meal table as it celebrates their Lord Jesus.          

To talk of service and stewardship, and in considering the setting, Peter joins together “Whoever speaks, let it be with God’s words.  Whoever serves, do so with the strength that God supplies, so that in everything God will be glorified through Jesus Christ” (4:11a).  This is then punctuated with a declaration of the Lordship of Jesus, as Peter writes “To Him belong the glory and the power forever and ever” (4:11b). 

While one would certainly agree that there is a burden on the one that speaks, and that service can be tiring, one must not drift too far from the setting into which these words were delivered and for which they provide a controlling authority and dare not become too far removed from the meal table, as it is the meal table that keeps an observer in the proper interpretive context, instead of drifting off into anachronistic ideas about what is implied by speaking and serving. 

Modern conceptions should not be thrust on the text in a way that creates an artificial division of labor between preachers that preach and those that go about serving.  This is not an attempt to draw a dichotomy between the person that occupies the pulpit on Sunday morning and those that are then charged with visiting hospitals or distributing food to shut-ins.  Rather, we these words are to be understood in relation to that which defines the community of Christ-followers, which is their table fellowship.  When one speaks, he or she must do so with a heart of love, as well as grace, conscious of the demand for harmony at a table that could rightly, because of the variety and disparity of those that are coming together to share equally, have a bit of awkwardness associated with it. 

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 14)

Though it may be somewhat disconnected, and though it may be a tenuous stretch, in reaching the eighteenth chapter of Genesis, it should be noted with interest that Abraham, the one that was blessed of the Creator God for the expressed purpose of exemplifying divine blessing, “looked up and saw three men standing across from him.  When he saw them he ran from the entrance of the tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.  He said, ‘My lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by and leave your servant.  Let a little water be brought so that you may all wash your feet and rest under the tree.  And let me get a bit of food so that you may refresh yourselves since you have passed by your servant’s home.  After that you may be on your way.’” (18:2-5). 

It is further reported that “They ate while he was standing near them under a tree” (18:8b).  Though one should not presume that Abraham washed the feet of his visitors, as this was most likely performed by a servant, a kingdom-of-God-minded observer should be unable to pass by such words without a contemplation of the washing of the disciples’ feet that Jesus undertook before returning to the table where He would speak of “the one who eats My bread” (John 13:18) before passing a piece of bread to Judas. 

While this action has naturally become associated with Judas’ betrayal, the record of the Gospel of John only makes this clear in retrospect.  When Jesus gave Judas the bread and accompanying instruction, “none of those present at the table understood why Jesus said this to Judas.  Some thought that, because Judas had the money box, Jesus was telling him to buy whatever they needed for the feast, or to give something to the poor” (13:28-29).    

In keeping with the theme of covenant bearers being identified with the meal table and with meal practice, especially as it relates to the identifying practice of the messianic feast (as highlighted in Luke 13:29 in a well-placed elaboration on the pronouncements of prophets like Isaiah), and in-between the use of “non-Christian” (4:3) and “Christian” (4:16), one should not be at all surprised to find Peter instructing this church to “Show hospitality to one another without complaining” (4:9).  This is the language of conduct, deeds, and works.  It is not possible to escape the implications of the meal table here, as this is yet another demand to contravene the existing customs of the table and of the existing social constructs that would be on display. 

This showing of hospitality, without concern for social rank or honor, could be quite difficult to achieve, as the corrupted nature reacts against such notions.  This is where the mysteriously transformative power of the Gospel is sorely needed, and where it and its Spirit-empowered love is most visible and achieves its greatest impact.  It is as such considerations are made, letting the implications sink deep into hearts and minds, that one is left with little wonder as to why Jesus spent so much time at banqueting tables.  Clearly, this is something to which the culture, in His time, was attuned.  Accordingly, the impact of the table fellowship that Jesus displayed as He modeled out the messianic banquet was significant.  His followers seemed to have understood this well, making it a major focal point of the life lived in accordance with confession of Jesus as Messiah. 

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 12)

Some would look at this as the Gospels simply putting into Jesus’ mouth that which the early church leaders desired to hear Jesus saying, so as to provide back-up to their positions and a legitimization of their authority.  However, because what Peter is insisting upon flies in the face of basic social code and of predominant Jewish sensibilities in an era of nearly constant revolutionary activity, it most certainly must go back to the lips of one that put such activity on display in willingly going to the cross, with the power of the Resurrection later serving to back-up the words that would serve to inspire actions (by the Spirit, as through such responses it is being declared that Jesus is Lord---that the Creator God rules in and through His Christ) that would transform the world. 

Beyond that, Peter insists that the focus be on blessing others---good deeds/public benefaction again---because of the blessing that was being inherited.  Does Peter here speak of heaven?  In the sense that it was the role of the covenant people of the Creator God, in participation with the Creator God by His Spirit (which is the means by which a person is able to confess that Jesus is Lord) to bring heaven to earth (the Creator God’s will being done on earth as in heaven), yes, that’s exactly what it means. 

However, it goes further than that, in that any mention of blessing automatically reverts to the concept of the Abrahamic covenant and its promise to bless Abraham for the purpose of exemplifying divine blessing, as part of the Creator God’s plan to set the world to rights (to restore it from its fallen condition, to provide justification).  Consequently then, calling attention to the Abrahamic covenant calls to mind the worldwide body of Abraham’s children coming together for the great eschatological (end times=the time of the Creator God’s rule which began with Jesus’ Resurrection) feast that would mark the covenant God’s rule. 

So, once again, this study has landed on the power and importance of the Christian meal table, as it becomes increasingly clear that it is something of a social and cultural phenomenon that cannot be ignored in an interpretation of Scripture, whether that interpretation is spoken, written, or lived.      

With that point sufficiently made, this study can continue on to the fourth chapter of this first letter of Peter.  Maintaining a position at the table of fellowship and hearing these words along with their original hearers from within the context provided by the meal culture of the ancient world and the meal culture of the church, one must continue to interpret their meaning accordingly.  Therefore, it is possible to make the intended application when hearing “For the time that has passed was sufficient for you to do what the non-Christians desire” (4:3a). 

What are those things?  In relation to the practices and customs of the banqueting tables of the ancient world and to what has been learned about them, Peter adds “You lived then in debauchery, evil desires, drunkenness, carousing, drinking bouts, and wanton idolatries” (4:3b), all of which would feature prominently in feasts and celebrations, as honor and exploitation of position was a primary pursuit. 

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. 

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 6)

It is at this setting, one of a social egalitarianism represented by the church as it functions together and witnesses to the world through its table fellowship, that Peter can be heard speaking to individuals and groups seated around the meal table.  After insisting that all present need to be “subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake” (2:13a), with the use of Lord heard in the context of the Gospel’s claim and against Caesar’s claim, Peter goes on to reaffirm, without necessarily sanctioning, that there is a prevailing social order, writing “Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are perverse” (2:18). 

How does this fit with the leveling call of the Gospel and of the messianic banquet that communicates so much of the Gospel’s message?  If such lengths are gone to in order to show that there is neither slave nor free, why would Peter make statements that will serve to resurrect the very distinctions that the church, through the open commensality of its meal table, is tearing down? 

Naturally, the answer is to be found in love.  It is that self-sacrificial love to which Peter makes reference, as he goes on to write of enduring hardships in suffering unjustly (2:19).  Yes, Peter recognizes the injustice of the situation, but it is the call of the Christian, whether slave or free, to overcome injustice by acting in love towards the very master that may be the source of injustice (as one is careful to not retroject ideas concerning the experience of African slaves, which is quite a bit different from the slavery of the first century Roman world). 

He then draws what would be the very obvious parallel between the position of the slave and Jesus, as he references the doing good, suffering, and enduring, which finds favor with God (2:20) and writes “since Christ also suffered for you, leaving an example for you to follow in His steps” (2:21b).  Jesus provides the example of that which Peter is asking of those who find themselves as slaves, in that “When He was maligned, He did not answer back; when He suffered, He threatened no retaliation, but committed Himself to God who judges justly” (2:23). 

This could only be accomplished through a love that is phenomenal in its self-emptying and in its sacrificial preference; and indeed the meal table, in many ways, can provide a glimpse of such love, as those who would be afforded considerable honor willingly take the lowest position so that others might be exalted.  Indeed, is this not what is being said here when Peter goes on to say “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we may cease from sinning and live for righteousness”? (2:24a) 

The tree, of course, calls attention to the lowest and most accursed place, while the call to cease from sin and live for righteousness directs the hearer’s attention to the responsibilities of the people of the Creator God to become for the world the covenant faithfulness of that God, as had been the call of Adam, of Abraham, of Israel, and of the church through its Lord.  Lest believers allow themselves to be drawn back into a puerile individualism and subjective analysis of their own shortcomings in word and deed that are flippantly referred to as sin and that are only meager symptoms of a much greater malady, there must be a reminder that, in the context of the long-running plan of the Creator God’s covenant faithfulness and of human responsibility in and to that plan, that to cease from sinning will be to cease from the ongoing failure to rightly bear the divine image and its concordant responsibility to reflect the glory of the Creator God into the world.  

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 3)

This behavior learned through the church’s meal table (which is representative of the messianic banquet that has been transformed into that which is commonly thought of as the Lord’s Supper) is what makes the love that is embraced and professed by the Christian community tangible and observable, as it is expressed in such ways in order to bring glory to the Creator God.  Conversely then, a church composed of believers that is not operating with such a mindset, that is turned in on itself and seeking separation from the world so as to prepare themselves for their notion of heaven (a distant isle of blessedness, which is Greek thought, not Jewish), is actually modeling something that stands in fundamental opposition to what the confession of Jesus’ Lordship demands. 

A church that is turned in on itself is most likely not learning the principles of self-sacrificial love and the preference of one another for the benefit of the body, so that the body might benefit the community in which it is located as it demonstrates Jesus’ universal Lordship over all things and all areas of life, is probably perverting the meal table (symbolic or otherwise), having turned the Lord’s Supper (which is supposed be an enactment of the messianic meal as envisioned and put into practice by Jesus) into a source of personal benefit as well. 

Accordingly then, in that environment it is likely that the Lord’s table finds itself replete with authoritarian structures based on subjective spiritual rankings.  If love is not being learned and encouraged at the meal table, so that it aspires to the Jesus-backed vision of the messianic banquet, then it is highly unlikely that the church that is not learning these things is going to be engaging in public benefaction (good conduct/works/deeds). 

Ironically then, and transposing the issue for Peter’s time, the church that is isolated essentially becomes that which the Christians were accused of being.  Since they were not seeking the good of the world by their public display of Jesus’ Lordship, then yes, widespread maladies and calamities must be laid at their feet.  If they are claiming that their King is the true King (in opposition to Caesar’s claims), but not putting that claim into practice by demonstrating the fact that said Kingship extends to all things through their seeking of good for themselves and their neighbors, then the fundamental message of the Gospel (Jesus is Lord) is brought into disrepute.  Yes, they might as well be looked upon as atheists and cannibals, for all the benefits they are bringing to their world. 

One must never for a single moment lose sight of the fact that the hope of the Christian is to be resurrected just like Jesus.  It is this that is the repeated claim of the New Testament, and it stands in a polar opposition to a desire for an escape to heaven.  As they were thoroughly steeped in Jewish expectations concerning the kingdom of their God and the hope for resurrection thereby entailed, the earliest believers understood that Jesus was resurrected into this world with a glorified physical body, with that resurrection power set to work in this world. 

This resurrection is that for which the Christian hopes.  Christians living in isolation, concerned for nothing more than their personal eternal salvation rather than embracing a full engagement with the world to which their God is reconciling Himself through their overt kingdom-conscious actions and behavior, have a wrong-headed notion about the kingdom of God, seeing it as something distant in both time and space, rather than viewing it as did Jesus and His apostles, within their (fully Jewish) claim that the kingdom of their God was both present and coming. 

Good Conduct, Good Deeds, Good Works (part 2)

Yes, the Gospel will effect transformation in the lives of its adherents, and those effects will be seen in interactive relationships, as Christians attempt to live out their ambassadorship on behalf of their Lord and their God with respect to their interaction with others and the world.  This is the love that is referenced in Romans twelve and in first Corinthians thirteen, which demonstrate the tangible working out of that love based on what appears to be primarily learned at the meal table of the body of the church (note that the talk of love in both of those letters is surrounded by considerations of the meal table). 

It is this basic demonstration of love and of preferring of one another, and of the apparently awesome transformative power of the Gospel that is then put on display by individuals (functioning as and for their communities), which is what is worked out in the thirteenth chapter of Romans.  Not that Paul’s writings are determinative for the way that one approaches the writings of Peter, but it is with such things in mind, as early evidences of the way in which Jesus (His death and Resurrection) is being interpreted and understood, that one can look to Peter and hear him being so incredibly insistent on the social nature of the Gospel. 

It is worthwhile to first understand this aspect of Peter’s first letter before moving on to what becomes the rather obvious dealings with the church’s meal table (recognizing that the church constituted itself around a meal table).  Peter insists that the church is “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (2:9a), declaring that the covenant God calls the church to be “a people of His own,” that they “may proclaim the virtues of the one who called… out of darkness into His marvelous light” (2:9b). 

Though there is certainly a mysterious and never-to-be-completely-comprehended power to be found in the very proclamation of the message that Jesus is Lord, it should be noted that the proclamation that Peter has in mind is more deed-based than word-based (though the word is not to be neglected---deeds would lead to the opportunity for words to be heard).  To this end, Peter calls this church to “maintain good conduct among the non-Christians, so that though they now malign you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God when He appears” (2:12). 

In that day, Christians were accused of being atheists because they did not worship Caesar or the Roman gods, of being cannibals because of what was said at their meal table (eating the body of their God that they also claimed was a man who had been killed and physically resurrected), and of being usurpers of the social order because they refused to acknowledge the standard and orderly divisions of society in their public or private gatherings. 

Eventually, Christians would become scapegoats, as blame for all manner of maladies and calamities would devolve upon them.  Peter understood that this was happening and would happen, and that much of this was owing to the fact of the radical nature of the lived-out Gospel (incredible social disruption --- women equal to men, slaves and free on equal footing in the Christian community, recognition of a power  higher than that of Caesar and a kingdom greater than that of Rome). 

For this reason, Peter, using the language of public benefaction, calls the church to be civic-minded, doing good deeds that will be recognized as beneficial for their community.  In this way, contrary to being singled out and maligned for being a negative force in society that would be specifically tied to claims about an alternative Lord and way of living, their good deeds would bring glory to the God to which their allegiance was sworn through the Christ.  As the New Testament readily demonstrates, this sense of public benefaction would be learned at the meal table.   

Corinth's Communion (part 1)

Now when you come together at the same place, you are not really eating the Lord’s Supper. – 1 Corinthians 11:20  (NET)

When one grasps the importance of meals and the meal table in the first century world and for the early church that sprung up into that world, as they were an effective means by which to communicate concepts concerning the kingdom of heaven, any mention of meals can be vested with a significant amount of weight and meaning.  This can be done even if there does not appear to be any overt controversy or angst in the situation. 

However, one such place in which there does appear to be much controversy concerning the meal table is the church at Corinth.  This angst is expressed by the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, which is the place where one is able to discover the most detailed treatment of the communion table, outside of the Gospels, in the whole of the New Testament.  The words used in Paul’s presentation of the communion in the eleventh chapter has been, for centuries, the basis for the celebration of communion, shedding clear light on the practice of the early church, as Paul helpfully elaborates on the goings-on that we see in the “Last Supper” of Jesus and His disciples. 

At the same time, while extraordinarily helpful, those same words have been the source of much controversy, as words like “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  A person should examine himself first, and in this way let him eat the bread and drink of the cup.  For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself.  That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead.  But if we examined ourselves, we would not be judged” (11:27-31), have been applied in a number of not always altogether helpful or appropriate ways. 

Quite often, there is an encouragement to apply these words in an individual and personal manner, which fits well within a notion of salvation that is predominantly individualistic and focused on an other-worldly escapism.  However, this type of application presents us a bit of a problem, as it is unlikely that such notions would have been the thrust of Paul’s understanding, nor that of the early church.  It is a near certainty that such would not reflect the worldview in which Jesus Himself was ensconced, which was also the world in which He would re-orient the Passover celebration and its meaning towards Himself. 

While there is certainly a sense of individual salvation to be found, as the collective salvation of the covenant people would naturally include the salvation of individuals, Jewish thoughts of salvation, especially as connected with the Passover celebration, as would come to be the case for the church’s communion table, were oriented towards the deliverance of the people of the Creator God from exile and oppression, with the deliverance from out of Egypt as the functional model.  So while there is indeed an individualistic component here, that individual benefit cannot be disconnected from the community. 

Also, the escapism that is prevalent in so many popular interpretations of the communion passages of chapter eleven would not have been a part of Paul’s worldview.  The guilt and judgment reference in the passage previously quoted would not at all be connected with the eternal destination of one’s soul, and would certainly not have been used as a means of limiting participation at the communion table or of generating fear and trepidation at partaking of the elements.  

A Table In Philippi (part 1 of 2)

Therefore, if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort provided by love, any fellowship in the Spirit, any affection or mercy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, by having the same love, being united in spirit, and having one purpose.  Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself.  Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interest of others as well. – Philippians 2:1-4  (NET)

If one was to be at a meal table with the church in Philippi, and comes to that table well aware that Paul’s words are conjuring up a meal-table-based context for his use of what comes next in the Philippian letter, then Paul’s incorporation of what has long been considered to be an early Christian hymn gathers to itself an important dimension. 

The Christian meal table provides an amazing and enlightening context for the hearing of “You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, who though He existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature.  He humbled Himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death---even death on a cross!  As a result God exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will blow---in heaven and on earth and under the earth---and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (2:5-11). 

Yes, a glorious and familiar passage no doubt, seemingly given new life when considered in relation to that which came to represent the vision of the messianic banquet (the Lord’s Supper/communion).  Having just heard these words, the honorific tone should be noted, but at the same time, the subversive nature of the language cannot be dismissed.  The Gospel (Jesus is Lord of all) is the thrust of the statement, and this world-power-challenging proclamation was at the heart of the messiah-based renewed kingdom of the Creator God movement that would come to be called Christianity.  

As the growth of the Christian movement (kristianos) is borne in mind, as it took its place alongside the movement of the Caesar cult (kaisarianos) in the Roman world, it is possible to hear the second portion of this song of praise as an aping of the language of the Caesar cult (as Paul does in his usage of “from faith to faith” in Romans 1:17).  At the same time, it is not only the second half of the song that apes the cultic language, so too does the first half.  The elevation of Caesar above his defeated or soon-to-be-defeated opponents would be a natural outgrowth of his apotheosis (deification/becoming a god).  Yes, not only is Caesar exalted above all as divine, but Caesar’s enemies, who may think of themselves as gods in their own right, are actually slaves.  They are ordinary men.  They will die at Caesar’s hands.    

Experts In The Law (part 6)

In light of all that has been said and done in the moments leading up to this statement on the lips of these people (Jesus welcomes sinners and eats with them---sinners broadly defined as those that stand outside the group of covenant members), one cannot help but imagine that those hearing the telling of this Gospel would find themselves laughing.  It is almost as if this statement demands to be read as a punch-line, in which the Pharisees and the experts in the law are presented as unfortunate dupes.  Indeed, it almost seems as if Luke wants his audience to reach the conclusion that there is a group that is not quite getting it, even though Jesus is attempting to make things as obvious as He possibly can. 

This most definitely serves to de-legitimate the role of these men.  Not only could they not answer Jesus’ simple questions, but now, even though Jesus has made things as simple as possible---offering a parable about a banquet, a directive about banquets, and then another parable about a banquet, Luke demonstrates that the point has been completely missed by these men, as they go right back to what was presented as one of their earliest accusatory attempts at discrediting Jesus. 

If can be recalled that, in the fifth chapter, Luke employs his second use of the phrase “experts in the law” (5:30), which accompanied their complaint that Jesus was eating with tax collectors and sinners (5:30).  That, of course, was at a banquet given for Jesus (5:29).  When one is carefully attuned to the fact that this is an ongoing narrative, and that there is a certain structure and flow to Luke’s presentation (which makes sense in light of the fact that it is a dramatic presentation designed to be consumed in a single sitting), it would probably not be a mistake to surmise that Luke’s words of the fifteenth chapter are intended to cause a recall of scene of chapter five. 

Considering this then, it should be noted that the fourteenth chapter began with a mention of experts in the law and Pharisees (Temple representatives), moved on to a question posed by Jesus, and concludes (in terms of the chapter divisions) with a healing.  The movement of the fourteenth chapter actually concludes with the fifteenth chapter’s opening complaint that “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”  In chapter five, Jesus forgives sins (a Temple function), the audience learns about hostile thoughts and questioning on the part of the experts in the law and the Pharisees (a question), and then comes a healing by Jesus.  From there, Luke moves to the complaint about with whom Jesus is eating.  Within a culture that is accustomed to listening to stories, holding ideas together over extended tellings, and processing information accordingly, this bracketing structure would not be lost on Luke’s audience.        

This complaint about Jesus’ table companions comes to be voiced on a regular basis.  It is a relatively prominent feature of the Gospel portraits of Jesus.  Considering the importance of the meal table in that day and time, this fact should go a long, long way towards informing an observer about a major thrust of Jesus’ ministry (table fellowship), along with informing that same observer about a major focal point of the early church and the oral traditions about Jesus (table fellowship), with these given considerable weight by His crucifixion and Resurrection, as those oral traditions are eventually codified as the Gospels.  In consideration of this, it is important to not overlook an instance of the use of “experts in the law” leading up to its use in the twentieth chapter, which could lead to overlooking a usage that will serve to provide enlightenment as the way in which Luke is pushing his hearers to react and respond to such usage. 

Experts In The Law (part 5)

So in the fourteenth chapter, when Jesus makes reference to a meal table that will be at least partially occupied by experts in the law and Pharisees, and Luke writes about the way in which Jesus was noticing how some guests chose their places of honor, and then Jesus is heard speaking about humility and exaltation, those that hear this do so with ears that have also just heard Jesus make reference to a messianic banquet, wherein Jesus has used words about the last becoming first (exaltation) and the first becoming last (humility).  These two things cannot be disconnected.  Furthermore, because the fourteenth chapter begins with Jesus challenging the experts in the law and the Pharisees, and because there is no change of setting until the seventeenth chapter, there is every reason to believe that all that follows from that initial, unresponded to challenge is at least tacitly directed to those same groups. 

After making His previous point, within a setting that has been informed by a messianic banquet reference, a challenge to the experts in the law and the Pharisees, and a rather instructive parable, Jesus goes on to offer instructions in regards about engagement in table fellowship “to the man who had invited him” (14:12a), saying “when you host an elaborate meal, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind” (14:13).  Jesus then offers up a parable of a banquet (doing so while at a banquet) in which the man who made invitations ends up inviting “the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame” (14:21b).  The man in the parable even takes it one step further, as he sends his representatives “out to the highways and country roads” to “urge people to come in” (14:23b). 

This not only amplifies the words of the thirteenth chapter while also reinforcing the personal instruction that had been on offer by Jesus to the one who invited Him, but the punctuation of the parable, in which the subject of the parable exclaims “For I tell you, not one of those individuals who were invited will taste my banquet” (14:24), also dramatically illustrates the last to first, first to last, exaltation to humility, and humility to exaltation motif that frames this section of Luke.  In addition, it brings an interesting clarity to what had also been heard in the thirteenth chapter, which was a statement about those left out of the messianic banquet, in which they say “We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets” (13:26), to which the Creator God (presumably) replies “I don’t know where you come from!  Go away from me, all you evildoers!” (13:27) 

The ongoing and escalating conflict between Jesus and the experts in the law and the Pharisees, along with Jesus overt challenge to them just a few verses later, function to make it quite clear who it is that is the point of reference in such statements.  The previously mentioned delicious irony is to be found in the fifteenth chapter, because after Jesus, who is living, working, and speaking in such a way that indicates that He is indeed the Messiah (while Luke’s audience has already heard the confession of Jesus as Messiah), makes His points about the people that were participating in meals.  While remembering that the setting has not changed and that Jesus appears to still be at the same meal mentioned in the first verse of the fourteenth chapter, the “Pharisees and the experts in the law” complained that Jesus was welcoming sinners and eating with them (15:2). 

Ahab, Jezebel & A Vineyard (part 2 of 2)

So what happens with this plan that has been set in motion by Jezebel?  As directed, “The men of the city, the leaders and the nobles who lived there, followed the written orders Jezebel had sent them” (1 Kings 21:11), unaware of the source of the orders, and believing that they had come from the king.  With this belief in mind as the story is read, one can surmise that it is doubtful that the original communication that was presumed to have come from Ahab used the term “villains” (at least, not in the way that some tend to think of villains---in reality, they were the unwitting dupes of an oppressor). 

Ultimately, the men who carried out these orders would have believed that they were simply acting in accordance with the demands of justice.  As far as they knew, and regardless of his honor standing in the community, one would suppose that there would be little reason for them to think otherwise, Naboth had actually done that of which he was accused.  Accordingly, they would be predisposed to believe that he was indeed deserving of the rightful judgment that they knew would take place.  Jezebel took advantage of this situation.  So “They observed a time of fasting and put Naboth in front of the people.  The two villains arrived and sat opposite him.  Then the villains testified against Naboth right before the people” (21:12-13a), as this would have been a gathering of the entire community, “saying ‘Naboth cursed God and the king.’” (21:13b) 

Just as the community leaders were not necessarily complicit in this act of injustice, neither were those who testified against Naboth.  Again, as far as they knew, this information and directive came from the king himself.  Predictably, “they dragged him outside the city and stoned him to death” (21:13c). 

It would seem that this horrible achievement of Naboth’s death was predicated on honor and the meal table.  The two “villains” that were set opposite Naboth would be seated to his right and left, in what would likely have been the positions of greatest honor at a meal or any community gathering.  These persons that were seated immediately to the right and to the left of the chief seat could also have been presumed to be possessive of even greater honor than the one seated in the host position, and these two men would not have been unknown to the community.  If there were unknown, or known to be men of lesser honor, their testimony would not have been acted upon so seriously. 

Accordingly then, when these two men, who were undoubtedly well-respected men of the community and not simple villains whose words would carry no weight with the community, offered these words of testimony about Naboth, their testimony would have been presumed to be truthful and would have carried a tremendous amount of weight.  Thus the resulting fate of Naboth.  

Clearly then, when the opportunity is taken to move past a merely superficial reading of the story of Ahab, Jezebel, Naboth, and the vineyard, one can conclude that the story is less about Jezebel (who is undoubtedly cast as a villain) and Ahab, and much more about the abuse of power, corruption, and injustice that so often accompanies unnecessary acquisitiveness (desire to continually acquire things).  It is not primarily (or even necessarily) a story about a rebellious wife usurping her husband’s authority and lording over him, or the story of a weak man and husband, as it is so often portrayed.  It is a story of oppression and murder that is brought about by a perverted use of the very provisions of justice that were put in place by the Creator God so as to enable His image-bearers to reflect His glory.