Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom of God (part 2)

In the same chapter, when Jesus stands before the Sanhedrin, Mark writes that “Some stood up and gave this false testimony against Him: ‘We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this Temple made with hands and in three days build another not made with hands.’” (Mark 14:57-58)  The author punctuates this with “Yet even on this point their testimony did not agree” (14:59), but He is clearly cognizant of and counting on an awareness of what must have been the well-known Jesus tradition recounted in the Gospel of John (not relying on John, as Mark came first, but what would have been the oral and possibly written Jesus tradition), in which Jesus says, “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up again” (2:19).  Shortly thereafter, John helpfully provides the gloss on Jesus’ words by informing the reader that “Jesus was speaking about the Temple of His body” (2:21). 

When all of this is taken together, the reader sees a widow giving all that she has (which is an almost worthless amount) to a Temple that is going to fall, which is ultimately a wasteful action, whereas the woman with the alabaster box gives something of immense value in recognition of the One that is the eternal Temple, causing the onlookers to refer to this as a wasteful action.  Jesus makes it clear that it is the former (the widow’s gift) that was wasteful (and tragic), whereas the latter was “a good service” (14:6b), and therefore not wasteful. 

Because the stories in the Gospels demand to be heard within Jesus’ pronouncement that the kingdom of the Creator God is at hand, one must ascertain what this has to do with Jesus’ kingdom understanding.  It is by this that Jesus addresses the prevalent and apparently incorrect understanding that the kingdom of His God would be centered in Jerusalem, with all nations coming to its Temple to offer worship to Israel’s God.  Jesus makes it quite clear that even though they were correct in believing that all nations would in fact come to worship the Creator God by means of the Temple, that Temple by which this God would be worshiped, in recognition of His kingdom, would be Himself (Jesus).     

To go along with the interesting theological Temple dynamic that has been inserted into the narrative here in chapters twelve and fourteen of Mark’s Gospel, the place of the meal in which Jesus is engaged and at which He is anointed, as He says, “for burial” (14:8), is the house of “Simon the leper” (14:3).  Yes, Jesus is dining at the home of a leper, and therefore dining at the home of one whose entire existence is one of impurity in relation to Jewish law and custom.  Simon would definitely have found himself at the lower end of the honor and shame social spectrum, if not outside of it altogether as one unable to even compete for honor. 

As a leper, Simon would stand almost completely outside the social order, as he would translate ritual impurity to those who came into contact with him.  In the eyes of those that were in a position to observe this meal, Jesus Himself would have fallen into ritual impurity, and amazingly, within Mark’s narrative, Jesus can be seen doing this immediately before Passover.  Though He is looked upon as a respected rabbi within Israel at this point in time, Jesus apparently finds Himself unconcerned with the perceptions. 

Galatians & Giving (part 6)

After making reference to the familiar process of acquiring a slave (“to redeem those who were under the law” 4:5a), Paul continues with the language of slavery as he draws upon the custom of the adoption of slaves as sons, which would serve to demonstrate the great magnanimity of the master that performs such an adoption.  To do this he adds “so that we may be adopted as son sons with full rights… So you are no longer a slave but a son, and if you are a son, then you are also an heir through God” (Galatians 4:5b,7). 

To this Paul appends “Formerly when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods at all” (4:8).  Now to be sure, there may be some in this congregation that are not going to like what they are hearing, as it is heavily disruptive of the social order and certainly takes no heed to the all-important sense of honor before the community that is diligently pursued and jealously guarded.  Paul would naturally understand this, but like Jesus, it is simply not a cause for concern on his part, as it has no place in the pursuit of the establishment and expansion of the kingdom of the covenant God. 

Paul has discarded all honorific attachments, considering it unimportant in relation to what is necessary to embody the kingdom.  He’s more than content to take the lowest place, as He understands His Lord to have done and also directed His followers to do.  So even though Paul understands what makes for true honor, he’s not deluded about the way that this line of thinking is going to be received.  However, he understands it to be vital and necessary if the followers of Jesus are going to model out the kingdom of their God through their meal table, in the way that it was demonstrated by the one they call Lord.  Reinforcing the possibility that Paul is making waves and quite possibly creating animosity through what he insists that believers do, he writes “So then, have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (4:16) 

Considering the language of slavery, and if one wants to hear Paul correctly from within the world in which he lived and the congregation to which he spoke, it must be understood that when Paul goes into his later analogy, comparing Sinai and the law with Hagar (and Ishmael) and slavery, whereas belief in Christ is set forth as the means for the expression of inclusion under the covenant in comparison to Isaac (and Sarah), one does not have to hear this as condemnation or an assertion of superiority. 

Clearly, Paul does not want those who he insists do not need to adhere to the outward marks of the covenant that are associated with the law to somehow feel superior to those that bear and uphold those covenant markers, while also confessing their belief in Jesus as Lord.  This would be antithetical to his purposes.  Rather, one is probably better served by holding on to the social dynamic that is at work, seeing Paul’s continual leveling out of the community, with all (be they the wealthy master of a slave), whether Jewish by birth and therefore a part of the Creator God’s originally elected people, or a Judaizing Gentile that has come to believe that they must uphold the covenant markers that were then in place, being slaves at one level or another.  For that reason, they should then be quite incapable of vaunting themselves over those that were actually slaves.  

Corinth's Communion (part 7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water Into Wine (part 2)

Returning then to the wedding banquet that Jesus would have been attending, with it taking place in the context of a culture that overtly operated on the premises of honor and shame, those considered to be possessive of the least amount of honor would be seated at the far end of the table.  Thus, the banquet table in the ancient world would be an effective microcosm of the stratifications of the existing social order.

So how does this visible social stratification at the banqueting table have any bearing on Jesus turning the water into wine?  It would seem that it has much to do with the “when” of the miracle.  To understand the significance of what has happened, and to continue layering in levels of understanding, it is necessary to do some historical contextualizing so as to recover an aspect of the ancient world and its feasts that has been almost completely lost to the modern, western world. 

This effort at contextualization turns first to Pliny the younger, a magistrate of ancient Rome, who lived from the late first century into the early second century.  As a part of his writings, he provided information about feasts and community meals in and before his day, and his reports speak to the social order that is demonstrable in the service progressions in the meals.  In reference to a meal at which he was an honored guest (and so would have been seated adjacent to or quite near the host), Pliny writes: “Some very elegant dishes were served up to himself and a few more of the company; while those which were placed before the rest were cheap and paltry.  He apportioned in small flagons three different sorts of wines; but it was not that the guests might take their choice: on the contrary, that they might not choose at all.  One was for himself and me; the next for his friends of lower order (for you must know the measures of friendship according to degrees of quality); and the third for his own free men.” 

What Pliny here describes is quite common, and one can see how this report might be applied to painting an appropriate picture of the wedding feast at Cana and the attendant miraculous turning of the water into wine.  Pliny makes the point that while there were three different sorts of wines presented to the table, one should not be deluded into thinking that each person at the table was going to be able to choose which of the three wines they were going to take for themselves.  If all were looked upon as equals, this might be the case, but this was not the prevailing situation. 

It can here be seen that there were clear delineations made between and among guests.  In case the seating position relative to the host was not a sufficient indicator to a person of his perceived (and thus actual) societal ranking as adjudicated in the court of public opinion, the quality of the food and wine which he would find offered to him (which would also be connected to his seating position) would be a further indicator. 

Naturally and as one would expect, the host would have the finest wine and food served to his most honored guests, with the lesser wine served to those that were understood to be slightly less honorable (in this honor and shame society in which all competed to accrue honor and eschew shame---this would not be a commentary on someone’s character, but merely their public standing), with the poorest quality wine and food offered to those that were the least honorable, who also would have been seated the furthest away from him at the u-shaped table, if they were fortunate enough to be seated at the table at all (women, for instance, would not be seated at the table, but would be positioned in seats along the walls).