Mark, A Meal, A Leper & The Kingdom Of God (part 5 of 5)

Beyond the fact that the meal is taking place at the house of a leper (though one may be tempted to imagine that the meal is taking place at Lazarus’ house because it is said “they prepared a dinner for Jesus there” (Mark 12:2), the “there” must be a reference to Bethany), when folding in the details from the Gospel of John, one is now urged to look a second time at the fact that Martha was serving.  Martha is not only serving, but she, a wealthy woman like her sister (who can afford to “waste” a valuable amount of perfume), is serving in the house of a leper.  This is unthinkable in that day. 

Clearly, Simon is somebody that is further down the social scale from Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, so the fact that a more noble member of society is serving in the house of somebody that is “beneath them,” is a radical shake-up in the normal social order, though such things seem to be quite commonplace with Jesus.  It is the presence of Jesus, and that alone, that is bringing this unthinkable occurrence to pass.    

The social mobility of modern times (for a large part of the world), along with the casual mixing of classes that makes it impossible to positively and concretely identify one’s socioeconomic status was unknown in the ancient world.  Various aspects of the culture, especially the setting of meals and banquets, revealed social status in no uncertain terms.  The fact that this is so foreign to most people causes results in missing these aspects that would have stood out in the early years of the church.  One tends to read past these things, whereas a time and a culture that is thoroughly accustomed to these things and ordered around meals, would have had very strong reactions and opinions associated with what was being seen in Jesus’ actions and what was being communicated by the church about Jesus’ actions. 

A prominent feature of this story is that Mark makes it a point to mention that Jesus is dining at the house of a leper named Simon.  For some reason, Lazarus is absent from Matthew and Mark’s story, and of course, is absent from any Gospel save that of John.  Though Lazarus’ lack of any presence at all in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is bizarre (to say the least), it is Simon who is conspicuous by his absence from the telling in John. 

Though Simon is not present in John, Lazarus, though he is famous and people are coming to see Jesus on account of him, is not presented as the honored guest.  He does not take the place of Simon, but is presented merely as “among those present at the table with Him” (John 12:2b).  Lazarus is just another guest, Martha is serving, and Mary is (according to John’s record, wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair---which brings its own provocative considerations that are beyond the pale of this study).  There is a dynamic at work here with this particular meal that should serve to provide structure for any thoughts and considerations of Jesus’ kingdom message.

A Tradition Of Wells (part 1)

…Jesus, since He was tired from the journey, sat right down beside the well. – John 4:6b  (NET)

The story of Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman, at a well that was said to be connected to Jacob, is rife with historical underpinnings.  The author of John’s Gospel would know this, and it is quite reasonable to presume that he (or she, one could suppose) wanted to draw on the rich tradition of wells that dot the landscape of Israel’s received traditions.  Indeed, there are so many wells to be found throughout the pages of Scripture, it is probable that a familiarity with these wells is entirely necessary.  It may well be the case that the composer demands that this presentation of Jesus be understood within that context, presuming a familiarity with this history on the part of those that will hear or read not only this portion of his narrative, but the whole of his narrative of the life of Jesus. 

Not only is it incumbent upon a reader to place him or herself alongside the woman at the well or in the midst of Jesus’ disciples when approaching so as to hear this story, but as consumers of a second-hand tale that began with a certain announcement about Jesus that provides the foundational structure by which one is able to understand the Johannine narrative, one must also approach the story of Jesus and the woman at the well from the perspective that the One speaking to her is the physical manifestation of the covenant God that has tacitly directed His people’s contact with wells from the very beginning. 

This study is not going to make an attempt here to interpret the interaction or to draw conclusions about the encounter between the woman and Jesus, but rather, intends to think backwards from the fact of the woman and the well, trekking through Scripture in a way that should have the result of vesting this story with its appropriate context.  Such would be the necessary steps that would put an observer in a position, if so desired, to rightly interpret the interaction and to form the conclusions about Jesus and His words in the pericope on offer that the author desires his audience to form.  A reader should not only do this here, but naturally, for all of the Gospels and for all of Scripture, for doing this is what will actually allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. 

As the search for Scriptural wells is here begun with Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan woman (an outsider from Israel) as the starting point, it should be noted with great interest that when it comes to the divine narrative, the first mention of a well is to be found in connection with another individual that would be considered an outsider from Israel.  The sixteenth chapter of Genesis finds Sarai (later Sarah), the wife of Abram (later Abraham), expelling a pregnant Hagar from her household. 

When Hagar ran away (having been expelled), “The Lord’s angel found Hagar near a spring of water in the desert” (16:7a).  Though it is here said to be an angel, the reader quickly comes to learn that it was more than an angel, as “Hagar named the Lord who spoke to her” (as the author’s use of Lord is the proper name for Israel’s God), “You are the God who sees me” (16:13a).  Further detail is provided with “That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi’ (16:14a), which is translated as “The well of the Living One who sees me.” 

Seeing God (part 5)

Continuing the quest for knowledge, and specifically to ascertain the defining characteristics of those that are “pure in heart,” who are also those that will “see God,” it is now time to forward in the sermon to the sixth chapter.  It is there that one encounters the second and only other use of “heart” in the course of this dissertation from the mountain.  This usage will prove to be quite beneficial in the quest.  It will not only impart knowledge, but also, along with so much else being said here, inform the ethical, practical, and performative mandate in association with the Christian’s charge to be the place where heaven and earth come together---the Creator God’s will being done on earth as in heaven. 

Interestingly enough, the “Lord’s Prayer,” from which these words of the covenant God’s will, earth, and heaven are lifted, constitute a portion of the preface to the second presentation of the heart.  It is worth mentioning that just as Jesus’ sermon began with a mention of the kingdom of heaven (5:3), so too does Jesus’ prayer include a mention of the kingdom of heaven within its opening statements, as Jesus says “Our Father in heaven, may Your name be honored, may Your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:9b-10). 

From there, it is not necessary to travel a great number of verses before hearing the context for Jesus’ mention of the heart.  Beginning in the nineteenth verse of this same chapter Jesus says “Do not accumulate for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal.  But accumulate for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and thieves do not break in and steal” (6:19-20). 

Given Jesus’ clear understanding that it is His God’s desire that His will be performed on earth as in heaven, and given the context of the kingdom of heaven come to earth that is everywhere present in Matthew’s narrative as well as being the foundational structure for this particular sermon, Jesus is not drawing a hard and fast dichotomy between the earthly realm and the heavenly realm.  Indeed, as it His intention to establish the Creator God’s kingdom on earth, the seeming dichotomy between earth (usually conceived of as the physical realm that is occupied by man) and heaven (usually conceived of as the aspired-to final destination of Christians) actually disappears. 

It is paramount to hear Jesus speaking from within His own culture and its conceptions, rather than from the position of a religious culture that is overly and improperly defined by Greek (primarily Platonic) and Enlightenment-driven thoughts of the separation of the physical from the spiritual.  Given the Jewish hope that the covenant God would establish His reign through His Messiah, restoring His creation as an attendant feature of the establishment of His kingdom, one would correctly hear Jesus speaking of earth and heaven in terms of past and future.  Treasures on earth would be linked to the old world and the old way of doing things prior to the coming of the Creator God’s kingdom that is heralded by the presence of Jesus, whereas treasures in heaven are linked to the new way of doing things, in association with the recognition of the God of Israel’s rule having come to earth.

It is following this talk of treasure, and its earthly (pre-kingdom of God) usage versus its heavenly (kingdom having come) usage, that Jesus speaks of the heart.  He says “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (6:21).  Yes, the disposition of one’s treasure reveals the disposition of the heart.  Clearly then, purity of heart is linked to the accumulation and disposition of treasure in ways that are commensurate with the establishment and extension of the kingdom of heaven.  

Love On John's Terms (part 12)

To this point, the observation of “miraculous signs” has been limited to the plural.  However, its usage in the singular must not be overlooked.  It cannot be said that the singular phrase is limited to the Gospel of John alone, as a singular use is also to be found in Luke’s Gospel.  However, as it is a single instance, it does not appear to play a role in the overall structure and movement of Luke, but this most certainly cannot be said of its role in the Gospel of John. 

Adding the uses of the singular “miraculous sign” to that of the plural, one finds an additional five instances of its role in the Gospel, thus bringing the total number of “miraculous sign” language to fourteen instances.  Clearly, it is a key component of what is being communicated by this author.  This makes sense, especially when reflecting on the fact that the pre-supposition of this Gospel is a very high Christology, operating on the premise that Jesus is the incarnation of Israel’s covenant God.  The hearers then, especially with this presupposition at play in their own community, are not going to be surprised that miraculous signs follow Him. 

“Miraculous sign” makes its first appearance in the fourth chapter, following the healing of the son of a royal official.  This is recorded as “His second miraculous sign when He returned from Judea to Galilee” (4:54).  It makes two of its five appearances in the sixth chapter, which is heavy with “sign” language.  All told, between the singular and the plural, the listener and the reader encounter this language four times in this chapter.  Considering the fact that the chapter contains the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus making His walk on the water, and His discourse related to bread (which ultimately springs from the feeding), this is unsurprising.  Does love play a role in any of this?  In this chapter that is filled with miraculous signs, and references to the same, is it possible to make any additions to an understanding of what “love” means on John’s terms?  As is almost always the case, the qualifying answer is “perhaps.” 

In the fourteenth verse the author writes “Now when the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus performed, they began to say to one another, ‘This is certainly the Prophet who is to come into the world.’”  This is an allusion to a statement from the book of Deuteronomy---a key component of the Hebrew Scriptures that weighed heavily on Jewish self-understanding in the second Temple period.  In the eighteenth chapter of Deuteronomy, as Moses continues to address Israel, he can be heard saying that “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you---from your fellow Israelites; you must listen to him” (18:15). 

Because Moses, of course, was understood as the man that the Creator God had raised up to lead Israel out from under Egyptian oppression, these words, as reported by John, must be seen and heard in that light and context.  The people were affirming Jesus as the new Moses.  Therefore, He must also be the one that is going to lead them out from under Roman oppression and occupation.  For the crowds, this Moses-like leadership is confirmed by the fact that Jesus has miraculously provided bread to a multitude of people there on the mountainside, just as Moses (though it was Israel’s God at work---one can say the same for Jesus from the perspective on offer by John) miraculously provided bread to the nation of Israel in the wilderness following their exodus.

This is not simply conjecture, because it is rather obvious that this is the way these things are meant to be understood.  To this point, later on in the sixth chapter Jesus is heard to say “I tell you the solemn truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but My Father is giving you true bread from heaven” (6:32).  This explicit mention of Moses (in the wake of the implicit mention of Moses in the fourteenth verse) in the midst of a section of the Gospel full of references to miraculous signs, calls attention to the single use of the plural “miraculous signs” that is to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures.  That use is in the one hundred fifth Psalm.  There, within a context of the Psalmist speaking about Moses and Aaron and the display of divine power that precipitated the Creator God’s delivery of Israel from Egypt, the Psalmist writes “they executed His miraculous signs among them” (105:27a).  Thus, one can surmise that John’s “miraculous sign” structure, especially here in the sixth chapter, plays on the exile and exodus motif (perishing and eternal life) that was established in the third chapter during the conversation with Nicodemus. 

Love On John's Terms (part 10)

Not only does Mary become the first to see Jesus, but she speaks with Him and is instructed to “Go to My brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God.’” (John 20:17b)  So “Mary Magdalene came and informed the disciples, ‘I have seen the Lord!’  And she told them what Jesus had said to her” (20:18).  Interestingly and in an ironic contrast, there seems to be an indication that Jesus’ own disciples did not necessarily believe Mary’s report, whereas the Samaritans believed the report of the woman that came to her (naturally, one supposes it’s easier to believe things being said about a live man at a well, regardless of the source, than things being said about a man that one is certain was crucified and placed in a tomb) . 

This report of Mary’s message and the natural, incredulous response to such a message, also gives witness to the nature of the spread of the Gospel and of the church in the days of the composition of this Gospel narrative.  Taken together, these two instances of women evangelists provide a context that provides a better understanding of what “love” means for this author, for his community, and for the church. 

The events of the sixth chapter of the Gospel continue to add to the insights on love that have been gained through this approach to John.  This is where the Johannine account of the “feeding of the five thousand” is encountered.  Just before the author delves specifically into the account of the feeding, the reason for the large numbers of people that are following Jesus is given.  Verse two reports that “A large crowd was following Him because they were observing the miraculous signs He was performing on the sick” (6:2).  Surely this presentation of Jesus as being overtly concerned with the sick is a component of the defining of the way that the love of Jesus is to be on display by, for, and through His disciples.  At the same time, this use of “miraculous signs” is something in which an observer can take interest. 

As one considers that the Gospel writer has a structure in mind, and that, rather than throwing together stories and sayings haphazardly, that structure can be recognized as being carried out across the whole of the Gospel (think about the comparison between the story of the Samaritan woman and that of Mary Magdalene).  Thinking along those lines, this use of the term “miraculous signs” becomes something of a “trigger phrase.”  When it comes to the Gospel accounts, the phrase is unique to John, and it is encountered on nine occasions. 

Taken together with the preponderance of the use of “love” in the Johannine corpus, the repeated use of “miraculous signs” becomes significant, though going so far as to make a direct correlation that says that the miraculous signs are the evidences of “love” would be unwarranted.  Though it would be difficult to disconnect the miraculous signs from the conception of the love of the Creator God that was presumed to have been on display and outworked through His Christ, one cannot help but think that the “signs” are somehow closely related to the way that “love” is to be understood, and how it is to be expressed by those seeking to truly understand what it means to be disciples of Jesus. 

Corinth's Communion (part 21)

Paul’s focus on “the body” as the body of believers is drawn out quite explicitly in chapter twelve of the letter, as he delves into the area of “spiritual gifts.”  Now again, just because the letter has crossed into a new chapter, that is not a signal that Paul is beginning a new sequence of thoughts.  As has been stated, this is a single letter and it has a unifying structure that cuts across all later divisions into chapters (12^th century) and verse (16^th century). 

This issue of the activities of “the body” seems to be a substantial component of that unifying structure, but this cannot be understood apart from conceptions concerning what is meant by the coming of the kingdom of heaven, ancient meal practice, the messianic banquet, the Lord’s Supper, Jesus’ meal activities and teachings, contemporary cultural and social forces, and the uniqueness of what could be observed by bodies of Christians that were modeling out the peculiarly appropriate, revolutionary, and rather subversive ethics that were serving to turn the world upside down (as suggested in the book of Acts) in so many ways. 

In the fourth verse of chapter twelve, Paul writes: “Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit.  And there are different ministries, but the same Lord.  And there are different results, but the same God who produces all of them in everyone” (12:4-6).  Where it appears that the participants in this church body want to point out individual spiritual achievements and capabilities, Paul repeatedly drags them back to “sameness.”  Where what are looked upon as “spiritual gifts” were apparently being used as a force to drag people apart, to separate, to divide, to structure, to create factions, to gain honor, and to stratify the church much like would be found within the culture at large, Paul stresses “sameness” amongst all people (contrary to the prevailing culture) so as to urge unity and equality amongst believers. 

Can it be the case that not only had the standard social divides crept back into this church and been put on display at their meals, but had a substratum of divides developed that was serving to provide further classifications, perhaps among those that occupied the lower end of the all-important and determinative honor and shame scale?  It would not be wise to be dogmatic when considering an answer to such a question, but certainly the question is one that might legitimately color our thoughts. 

Because it seems rather obvious that this church was in the unfortunate habit of employing standard social structuring at its Lord’s Supper meal that was supposed to but now failing to be reflective of the messianic banquet, with conceptions of honor and shame visible and at work, it would not be difficult to imagine that those on the lower end of the honor and shame spectrum---perhaps those excluded from meals or the symposium altogether, or those that were allowed to participate but not allowed to recline at the table because their honor status, for whatever reason, was insufficient---had taken it upon themselves to employ their own stratifying system. 

In this, it is possible that further delineations were made among the “shameful” (less honorable) group, with these delineations based upon perceptions of spiritual gifting, thus creating their own honor and shame hierarchy.  If this was taking place among those of lower socio-economic status, it is not at all difficult to imagine such constructs being adopted and practiced by those of higher socio-economic status (as this would be ingrained in them from birth), and therefore becoming rather pervasive.  

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).