Historical Continuity (part 2)

Jeremiah, who is not even close to finished with his scathing indictment of Israel, would go on to say “But just look at you!  Your are putting your confidence in a false belief that will not deliver you.  You steal.  You murder.  You commit adultery.  You lie when you swear on oath.  You sacrifice to the God Baal.  You pay allegiance to other gods whom you  have not previously known.  Then you come in and stand in My presence in this Temple I have claimed as My own and say, ‘We are safe!’  You think you are so safe that you can go on doing all those hateful sins!” (Jeremiah 7:8-10) 

Though many of these things were most likely being carried out by the acting priesthood, it is safe to presume that the people, who also stood under Jeremiah’s gaze, are doing the same while also being complicit in the activity of their leaders.  Jeremiah continues to deliver the words of the Lord, saying “So I will destroy this Temple which I have claimed as My own, this Temple that you are trusting to protect you.  I will destroy this place that I gave to you and your ancestors, just like I destroyed Shiloh” (7:14).  These are harsh words indeed.  Jesus’ words, as they are directed at the Temple authorities and call Jeremiah to mind, were no less harsh.

So it is plain to see that Jesus is using Jeremiah and the historical situation there recorded as His model.  However, is it appropriate to consider if Jeremiah had a model upon which he drew in some way?  If Jesus is relying upon something within Israel’s history to trigger the thoughts that He desired the people to have and to provoke the response and hopefully transformation that He desired to see, it would be reasonable to suggest that there was something within Israel’s history prior to Jeremiah’s day upon which he was relying as well. 

Surely, if Jesus is not limited to only bringing new teaching founded upon an entirely new basis, then it would not be right to foist this type of responsibility upon one of the prophets.  Therefore, beyond the assertion that Jeremiah obviously had to base his understanding of the delivery of the covenant God’s judgment on Israel’s covenant failures, one could assert that Jeremiah’s words and ministry had to be rooted within the history and covenant by which Israel was defined in order for it to have any conceivable impact and permanence (which, as has been said, would have been true for Jesus as well).     

If this premise is accepted, then to what historical situation might one look in order to gain insight into Jeremiah’s understanding?  Is it possible to find something similar to the people’s reliance upon the Temple itself to protect and preserve them from the judgment that was owed to them?  The first book of Samuel records a story that may provide an answer to those questions.  The fourth chapter records in a story in which it is reported that “the Israelites went out to fight against the Philistines… The Philistines arranged their forces to fight Israel.  As the battle spread out, Israel was defeated by the Philistines, who killed about four thousand men in the battle line in the field” (4:1b-2). 

When considering the way in which the Creator God deals with His people, raising up foes such as the Babylonians and the Romans in order to exercise His judgments, as referenced by Jeremiah and Jesus, then the Philistines, clearly, demand to be understood as an instrument of the Creator God’s judgment against His covenant people, exercised in accordance with His covenant promises as the covenant people failed to live up to their covenant obligations. 

Corinth's Communion (part 10)

It should continue to be borne in mind that the communion table was approached within a culture with a ready understanding of the social significance of meals and meal practice, as well as by a church that looked upon the Passover celebration (that had been transformed by Jesus) through the lens and light of the messianic banquet and all that such implied.  In many ways, though there is a need to avoid painting with too broad of a brush, one can discern that the communion table---that simple ceremony that Jesus delivered “after supper”---had effectively become symbolic of the messianic banquet, and therefore symbolic of the establishment of the kingdom of heaven. 

This symbolism carries a significant amount of weight in the areas of theology and practice.  Theology because the communion table, in carrying the heavy weight of so much meaning, tells its participants a great deal about the God that Jesus intended to reveal and to be revealed through His church that was intended to reveal the appearance that would be taken by the advent of the Creator God’s kingdom.  Practice because in looking back to the example of Jesus (through His own meal practice), the participants at the communion table are able to learn a very basic premise of what it would look like when they were living and acting like those who truly believed that Jesus had been enthroned, and that the Creator God had indeed begun to rule this world through Him. 

Much like the covenant markers of Judaism (primarily circumcision, dietary prescriptions, and the keeping of the Sabbaths) had become the indicators of those that intended to participate in the kingdom of the Creator God, so too did participation in the communion, performed with an ear and an eye towards the inclusive, socially flattening and barrier eliminating model that was said to have been presented by Jesus and which was being shared through oral communication at the point that this letter to the Corinthians was written (as evidenced by the fact that Paul feels compelled to confirm the tradition that had been presented to him), indicate one’s intention to participate in the kingdom of God on earth, doing so through confirming the Lordship of Jesus by both word and deed. 

This would include living out the implications of the model that was to be found in what would have been the well-known practices of table fellowship of the one that was being looked to as King, and acknowledging the ministerial and missional prominence of the readily communicated stories (as evidenced by the fact that they take up a sizable amount of the Gospel accounts) that served to demonstrate the way that Jesus approached and spoke about the meal table, along with His handling of questions and concerns about the same.  

This would also have to be borne in mind alongside the oft-repeated fact that His positioning Himself as Messiah, whether implicitly or explicitly, meant that the meal tables of Jesus and therefore the table that the early church looked upon as the one table of singular importance, had undeniable messianic banquet sensibilities and would have to be considered within that terribly important context.  For these reasons (among other), it would seem to be incumbent upon believers, observers, participants, and expositors to move past a pre-occupation with individualistic concerns, and about whether one is able to approach the communion table in a particular condition of heart or soul that becomes determinative of the way that the Creator God is going to view a sincere actor as they take the elements and participate in the Lord’s Supper. 

Problems For James (part 2)

There, immediately after elevating orphans and widows (1:27), who were among the most overlooked and ostracized groups in all of society, James goes on to write “My brothers and sisters, do not show prejudice if you possess faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1).  James is here addressing those that confess Jesus as Lord, and therefore identify themselves as participants in His kingdom movement. 

Bearing in mind the honor and shame culture and the social stratification that would be on display in public gatherings (especially community meals), and keying in on the idea that prejudice should not be shown, James writes “For if someone comes into your assembly” (2:2a), which is an assembly that is most likely going to include a common meal as was standard practice for those that sought to follow the model that Jesus had adopted, “wearing a gold ring and fine clothing, and a poor person enters in filthy clothes, do you pay attention to the one who is finely dressed and say, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and to the poor person, ‘You stand over there,’ or ‘Sit on the floor’?” (2:2b-3) 

Though the words are not used, this mention of one person being seated in a good place, with another person relegated to standing or sitting on the floor is a reference to table/meal practice.  Because Greek culture had infiltrated Jewish culture to a point, it is here possible to hear the language of protoklisian (chief seat) and eschaton (lowest place).  Those in receipt of this letter, along with those who would read it apart from the original audience, who would have been imbued with the cultural understanding that made this language commonplace and understandable, would have quickly and easily imagined the banqueting constructs that are being referenced. 

Common cultural practice dictated that the most noble and esteemed would have been given the best seats at a banquet, whereas the least would have been left standing or taken their places on the floor.  The honored guests (in the eyes of those in attendance) would have received the best food and wine, and the less honorable guests (in the eyes of the attendees and the court of public opinion) within that honor and shame society, would have received items of much lower quality if anything at all.  What does James say about this situation that is taking place in the church community to which his communication is addressed?  He says, “If so, have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil motives?” (2:4)  Clearly, the harsh language indicates that this type of behavior had no place within the church.   

In a way that continues to echo the example and the teachings of Jesus, when heard from within a construct which has James envisioning the character of the meal practice of the church, James goes on to say “Listen, my dear brothers and sisters!  Did God not choose the poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that He promised to those who love Him?” (2:5)  If a banqueting table is in mind, this mention of the kingdom, along with the use of “heirs” (which provides the Abrahamic covenant context that the author, due to his mentioning of Abraham that is soon to follow) that accompanies the contrast between rich and poor, places James squarely within the Jesus tradition that served as a constant reminder of the messianic banquet and of the unexpected way in which the Creator God was going about the business of establishing His kingdom, as reflected in the unexpected way in which Jesus was said to have gone about His daily ministry.