Letter To Laodicea (part 92)

As has been seen, the issue of table fellowship, and its implications for the community of the church and for its standing as the representatives of the kingdom of heaven, is a crucial and oft-repeated theme of the New Testament writings.  We must take the time to consider the fact that the writings of the New Testament, whether we are thinking about the letters penned by a variety of authors or the Gospels and the book of Acts, are composed at definite historical times and place, within or for communities of believers, and as responses to given sets of concerns.  When such a set of facts is taken into consideration, the consistent presence of, or allusions to Christian meal practice (whether that of Jesus or of the early church) cannot go unnoticed.  Indeed, it must strike us with a jarring force that will serve to shape or re-shape our fundamental approach to Scripture interpretation.  This, of course, must be commensurate with a serious and dedicated attempt to grasp the Christian writings from within their own social and historical context, rather than the lazy and unreasonable reaching for meaning that begins with a consideration of our own societal and cultural norms, and the backwards application of worldviews that are concordant with the world that is in our view, upon the first century world in which Jesus walked and in which the writings that make up the New Testament were penned. 

In our abbreviated, and certainly non-exhaustive trek through the Gospels, we spent a great deal of time and space presenting the social world of Jesus, while pointing out the seemingly inordinate amount of time that Jesus spent at meals, the seemingly inordinate amount of space and ink given to the record of His time at meals, and historically, the amount of blood spilled and energy expended to defend and propagate these sacred writings that are so infused with stories and instruction related to meal practice.  All of this seems to be inordinate only if we are dismissive of the significance of ancient meal practice along with the importance attached to the meal in the early church as being representative of the messianic banquet---therefore enlightening us as to why the Gospel authors went to such great lengths to portray Jesus as being a regular, instructing participant at meals. 

Though we skipped over the book of Acts, if we were to spend time in examination of that work, we would find a present though limited concern with issues surrounding Christian meal practice.  With Romans, which is almost universally and primarily looked upon as Paul’s grand treatise concerning justification by faith, we come to realize, because we discern that justification is intimately connected with and related to Paul’s concerns with the kingdom of God, that the results of justification are practically worked out at the table.  Therefore, because notions of the kingdom of God and of God’s present rule through Jesus are associated with the messianic banquet, we were able to see that any understanding of justification, and therefore what it means to be a participant in the kingdom of God and of what that participation may look like, will eventually concern itself with Christian table fellowship (because of the powerful social forces whose work is on display at the meal tables of the ancient world). 

We spent a great deal of time dealing with what, because of the treatment of the Lord’s Supper in the eleventh chapter, become table-fellowship-related issues in the first letter to the Corinthians.  Though we spent no time with the second letter to the church at Corinth, because we have been made aware of the issues of the symposium (and though the second letter to the Corinthians may be a compilation of more than one letter), we can sense that Paul did not see the response that he desired, as he practically demands that they become more generous in their self-sacrificial support of their poor brethren, and because we hear him launch into a speech of “boasting” (a regular feature of the symposium), which Paul ultimately defines as foolishness, that simply seems to mock this church (and therefore their continued mis-management of the table of the Lord). 

If we were to spend some time in Ephesians, hearing the words of the letter as a first-century hearer that is not thoroughly imbibed in a Christian culture that looked at heaven as the distant isle of the blessed where the immortal soul would go for eternity when it finally sluffed off this shabby and second-rate body and departed from this shabby and second-rate creation, but rather, as a hearer of the good news of the Jewish Messiah that created an expectation of God’s realm of existence coming to earth, of a renewal of creation, and of the resurrection of the body into this creation (just like Jesus), while also operating with a mental construct that took into consideration the looming social structures of the day (banquets), we might hear words such as “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even though we were dead in transgressions, made us alive together with Christ---by grace you are saved---and He raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, to demonstrate in the coming ages the surpassing wealth of His grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus” (2:4-7), in relation to receiving positions of honor (along with all believers, in equal honor) at the messianic banqueting table.  Accordingly, when we read “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast” (2:8-9), and hear those words in conjunction with knowledge of prevalent and powerful social customs, while considering that it is more than possible for the letter to have been audibly delivered to a church body while they shared a meal, together with awareness of the Jesus traditions concerning the humble being exalted (which we find in the account of the meal that begins in the fourteenth chapter of Luke), and then observing that the letter goes on to speak of the unity of Jews and Gentiles, we gain an entirely new awareness of the profundity of this aspect of that which was crucial for the early Christian communities.       

Letter To Laodicea (part 91)

It is readily apparent that Paul's dissertation on "tongues" in this fourteenth chapter is presented from within the context of the community of believers and of concern for the kingdom of God, as the Spirit of God is at work and manifesting itself.  Ultimately, grasping this sense of community, as it is related to the Lord's Supper and the problems being addressed in Corinth, is ever so crucial to our discerning the problems in Laodicea.  For that reason, we continue here in the chapter, picking up at the twenty-sixth verse, in which we read “What should you do then, brothers and sisters?” (14:26a)  Paul demonstrates his concern for the practical outworking of that which he has said to this point, so that the community of believers might effectively represent their King and kingdom, letting self-sacrifice and love have its way in determining the way in which the church will interact, fellowship, and present itself as it seeks to better understand its God. 

Expounding upon his own question he writes “When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation” (14:26b).  The Apostle expresses his awareness that the exercise of spiritual gifts is widespread, and that it is not limited.  In fact, he encourages this, as we can see.  He needs to, however, reinforce a guiding ethic, so that the exercise of spiritual gifts does not devolve into a competition for honor and honored seats at the table of fellowship.  The guiding ethic then, is Paul’s insistence to “Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church” (14:26c).  Because Paul will go on to offer helpful guidelines for how this strengthening might take place, we should not consider the strengthening of the church in some fuzzy, mystical sense, but in the hard and concrete sense of things in which Paul has operated to this point. 

The dichotomy here is between that which weakens the church and that which strengthens the church.  That which would weaken the church would be that which seems to disavow the claims of Jesus and His Gospel, causing the church to fall into a general conformity with the surrounding world.  This would be accomplished through the standard pursuit of honor, and would ultimately find itself being manifested at the church’s meal table.  That which would strengthen the church would be that which would confirm the claims of Jesus and His Gospel, causing the church to make good on its claim to represent a new type of humanity.  This new humanity, standing in radical dissimilarity from the society and the world in which it was to be found, would be the humanity that revealed its confession of Jesus as Lord through its faithful demonstration of the messianic banquet---representing the in-breaking of the kingdom of God in the midst of a world still rife with darkness, evil, pain, and suffering.

The strengthening of the church, as the community by which the world is to glimpse the kingdom of God, and as the community that is to go about the business of extending the reign of heaven into the community in which it finds itself (God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven), is that which must be under consideration in what follows.  Paul writes “If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret” (14:27).  Why?  So that the church may be strengthened---so that the church may represent the kingdom.  This is the purpose of the gathering of fellowship.  The church does not gather so that individuals might be made to feel a certain way, or so that individuals in attendance might feel themselves lifted up into the heavens.  No, the church gathers together so that ultimately heaven can come to earth, as His people learn how to better represent Him and to reflect His glory into His world. 

The sense of community is palpable, as Paul goes on to write, “But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church.  Let him speak to himself and to God.  Two or three prophets should speak and the others should evaluate what is said.  And is someone sitting down receives a revelation, the person who is speaking should conclude” (14:28-30).  The one who concludes, in deferring to another, is demonstrating preferential treatment to another brother or sister, not insisting that his or her own exercise of a spiritual gift has a greater value.  The community of believers remains in sight as Paul says “For you can all prophesy one after another, so all can learn and be encouraged” (14:31).  All are to be encouraged.  All are to be strengthened.  If Christ is going to be adequately represented by this church, then there is to be no exclusive group.  Paul’s concern is for the body.  He demands that this church eat and drink with “a careful regard for the body” (11:29b).  If they do not, continuing instead in their discriminating, prejudiced, and hierarchical practices, they will effectively continue to cast Jesus out of their midst.  This, unfortunately, does not seem to be an isolated problem.      

We have been brought full circle back to the Lord’s Supper in Corinthians, which has a tremendous bearing on the goal of our project.   It has become clear that what Paul means by “recognizing the body” must be interpreted by the mounting argument throughout the letter.  When we hear Paul’s words against the societal background, the Jesus tradition, and the messianic banquet, Paul is stating an axiomatic truth, that all members, rich or poor, of the church are also the body of Christ, therefore they are all one and equal members.  However, the Corinthians have reverted back to the popular social guidelines of their day, by which the wealthy are distinguished from the poor by way of class division at their banquets.  Paul simply states that, “This is not the Lord’s Supper.”  For as we have been studying, Jesus’ celebratory banquets were all inclusive, regardless of class or status.  As a matter of fact, Jesus banquets reversed the entire social order altogether, turning the honorable guests into the shameful and vice-versa.  So in drawing these social boundaries they have undone Jesus’ end-time banquet, and they are no longer functioning as the intended new-humanity.  This, unfortunately, is not an isolated complaint.

Letter To Laodicea (part 90)

Continuing on, with the underlying theme of exalting that which is good for the body of Christ, Paul writes, “Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I help you unless I speak to you with a revelation or with knowledge or prophecy or teaching” (14:6).  Notice that Paul’s concern is not the personal, spiritual benefit to be had by speaking in tongues, but rather, helping this congregation grow in a love that will be manifested at their messianic-feast-recognizing meal table (celebration of the Lord’s Supper).  Paul insists that a tongue can provide benefit for the body that is charged with living as the kingdom of heaven, but only when accompanied by interpretation.  For that reason, he is more inclined to see revelation, knowledge, prophecy, and teaching as beneficial for the church, as it seeks to meet the obligation with which it is charged. 

To assist in their understanding, Paul provides an analogy, writing “It is similar for lifeless things that make a sound, like a flute or harp” (14:7a).  Is it possible that Paul is here indicating that any speaking in tongues that does not involve a strengthening of the church community is lifeless?  Lifelessness would indicate that it is devoid of the Spirit of God.  Is Paul saying that speaking in tongues, like every other gift of the Spirit, is a community-oriented gift?  In this light, it becomes clear that the gifts of the Spirit that have been outlined by Paul (messages of wisdom and of knowledge, gifts of healing, performance of miracles, prophecy, discernment of spirits, tongues, interpretation of tongues), and which would still be in the minds of the hearers of the letter as this letter is being read out loud in a single sitting, are meant to be exercised in fellowship?  Therefore, a gift of the Spirit, exercised in private for one’s own personal benefit, might very well be considered to be lifeless, as it is self-centered, certainly not self-sacrificial in a way that is designed to benefit the community.  When we consider the words of Jesus, in which He speaks of feeding the hungry, offering cups of cold water, clothing the naked, and visiting those that are sick and in prison, the community (and therefore kingdom of God) oriented aspect of the Christian life takes center-stage. 

We keep this in mind as we return to Paul’s analogy and hear “Unless they make a distinction in the notes, how can what is played on the flute or harp be understood?” (14:7b).  A concern with being understood is a concern for the community.  Paul continues, saying “If, for example, the trumpet makes an unclear sound, who will get ready for battle?  It is the same for you.  If you do not speak clearly with your tongue, how will anyone know what is being said?  For you will be speaking into the air” (14:8-9), and therefore not providing a benefit to the church---merely drawing attention to oneself (and gaining honor for oneself???). 

Continuing on in demonstration of his concern for something that appears to be terribly problematic within this church body, allowing us to surmise that this particular gift was being abused, with that abuse on full display at the meal table, Paul writes “There are probably many kinds of languages in the world, and none is without meaning.  If then I do not know the meaning of a language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.  It is the same with you” (14:10-12a).  Clearly, Paul’s emphasis still lies with the exercise of spiritual gifts for the purpose of building the community that can adequately represent the kingdom of heaven within and to the world.  To that end, he adds “Since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, seek to abound in order to strengthen the church” (14:12b).  More than anything, Paul says, the purpose of the exercise of spiritual gifts must be the strengthening of the church.  Anything less than that will fall short of what God intends for His people. 

Interpretation then, becomes a key component in the consideration of speaking in tongues.  Interpretation not only allows for understanding of what has been said, but it also provides the opportunity for the Spirit to be at work in another person---that being the one providing the inerpretation.  This is especially crucial in not allowing for divisions and hierarchies and privileged positions to be had in the church, while reminding all that the exercise of spiritual gifts are communally oriented.  Just as words of prophecy, wisdom, teaching, and revelation, as well as miracles and healings, are only of benefit to the church in a relational setting as they strengthen the church, the same must be said of tongues.  If there is no relational, communal aspect to tongues, then clearly, it does not serve to build up the church.  “So then,” Paul writes, “one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.  If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unproductive.  What should I do?  I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind.  I will sing praises with my spirit, but I will also sing praises with my mind” (14:13-15). 

What is the application of all of this for Paul?  He writes, “Otherwise, if you are praising God with your spirit, how can someone without the gift say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?” (14:16)  Love, which always has the kingdom of heaven in mind, demands that the one who speaks in tongues---praying, singing, and praising with their Spirit---maintain a conscientious awareness of whether or not the exercise of their gift is going to have a direct benefit for the church, and by extension, the kingdom of heaven.  Paul adds, “For you are certainly giving thanks well, but the other person is not strengthened” (14:18), and therefore, you are being selfish and not acting with a neighborly, self-sacrificial love.  Paul goes on to say “I thank that God that I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in the church I want to speak five words with my mind to instruct others” (14:18-19a), thus able to benefit all and strengthen the church so that all are honored, “rather than ten thousand words in a tongue” (14:19b).  

Letter To Laodicea (part 89)

Returning to the thirteenth chapter of first Corinthians then, we resume our observations here with Paul’s statement that “Love never ends” (13:8a).  We hear that in association with a community that is creating divisions and hierarchies, both social and spiritual, and allowing those divisions and hierarchies to have a place at the meal table that is meant to represent the flattened-out world of the messianic banquet.  They are subverting that which is meant to be subversive, and acting in a way that is not in concert with what has been taught them about love (and here reiterated by Paul). 

In addressing the divisions that have been become a part of the structure of this church, Paul pushes them to the margins, writing “But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside.  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside” (13:8b-10).  When received in the proper setting and understood within the flow of the letter, what is perfect would seem to be the presence of the consummated kingdom of heaven.  The church is to be the practitioner of that which has been established through the Resurrection of Jesus and the new world that was brought into existence with that Resurrection, in anticipation of that expected consummation.  If we know that these things will end and be set aside, then certainly any divisions and hierarchies within the church that take away from the unity of the meal table and that are constructed based upon the exercise of these spiritual gifts, should be set aside in the course of that practice of the kingdom of God. 

When Paul adds “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child.  But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways” (13:11), it is as if he is telling this church that they need to grow up and put aside the ways of the world that surrounded them, and to stop being infected by an overt, Christ-and-kingdom-denying concern with honor and shame and status.  The ethic of love, as it was and is to be embodied by the confessors of Jesus as Messiah and Lord, is to be overly concerned with neighborliness (such as that which was put on display by what must have been the well-known, though not yet recorded in Lukan form, parable of the Good Samaritan), rather than selfish pursuits (whether social or spiritual) that would only serve to divide and to corrupt the purity that Jesus expects to be on display through the table-based, community informing, fellowshipping witness of His church. 

Now, this is not to diminish the operation of the spiritual gifts, as Paul does say “Pursue love and be eager for spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” (14:1).  However, Paul wants to make it clear that the exercise of spiritual gifts is not for the cultivation of a private spirituality or a “personal relationship with God” (though these are certainly side benefits), but for the benefit of the community in which they are exercised.  This is made patently obvious when we read (hear) “For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit.  But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation.  The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, the one who prophesies builds up the church” (14:4). 

This is not the place for a discourse concerning the nature of speaking in tongues, or of what is meant by prophecy, but it is the place to point out that Paul does indicate that there should be a desire to prophesy, setting this over speaking in tongues.  The reason given is that prophecy “builds up the church,” whereas tongues does not.  However, we also hear this along with the insistence that “I wish you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy” (14:5a).  Why is this?  Because “The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets so that the church may be strengthened” (14:5b).  Here, Paul makes it fairly clear that the true value of speaking in tongues, especially when the exercise of spiritual gifts is directed towards the edification of the community in the operation of mutual and self-sacrificial love, is in the strengthening of the church, which occurs when interpretation occurs.  The gift of tongues is perverted when it becomes a measuring stick for spirituality (just as any gift of the spirit is perverted when it becomes a measuring stick for spirituality), especially if it leads to artificial and damaging hierarchies and stratifications within the church, thereby causing the church to look no different than the on-looking world.  The only difference is that the seats at the table are determined by the abuse of that which comes from the Spirit of Christ.  Surely, this is the type of thing that would make our Lord want to vomit! 

Letter To Laodicea (part 88)

Once again, lest we entertain the notion that it borders on folly to continue to bring the meal table into the discussion as we consider these chapters of Romans (and 1 Corinthians), we find ourselves justified in so doing as we see the fourteenth chapter begin with “Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions.  One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables.  The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him” (14:1-3).  Separated from the meal table, this becomes a complicated exercise of mental abstraction, productive of all manner of opinions.  When placed at the meal table, in full knowledge of the importance of the meal table and its social significance, this becomes an avenue for the expression of neighborly love (13:9-10). 

We are forced to continue making sense of Paul’s words in this chapter in relation to the meal table, as we go on to read “The one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God” (14:6b).  Ideally, each person views the eating of the others at the table, not with eyes of suspicion, as if there is some type of pursuit of honor occurring (whether it is being attempted through eating or not eating), but with the eyes of love.  It is these eyes---eyes connected to a transformed mind (12:2), that will allow all to put aside selfish notions and see the actions of others, whether this is completely true or not, as being part of their thankfulness to God for their being allowed to participate in His kingdom.  Continuing in the milieu of the Christian meal table, and continuing to hear these words along with the original hearers who would have been hearing them while at the meal table (thus increasing the poignancy of the letter), Paul continues with “But you who eat vegetables only---why do you judge your brother or sister?  And you who eat everything---why do you despise your brother or sister?” (14:10a)  Remember, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor” (13:10a), and in regards to the social implications of the meal table, words like “Do not be conformed to this world” (12:2a) would still be freshly ringing in their ears. 

Emphasizing his point and the crucial nature of the table of Christian fellowship, making for a tremendously useful hermeneutical structure that will serve us well when considering the Laodicean church, Paul goes on to write “I know and an convinced in the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean in itself” (14:14a).  This use of “Lord” in the phrase “in the Lord Jesus,” because of the conceptions associated with the use of “Lord” under Roman rule (the Caesar) is a clear reminder of the established kingdom of God.  Its usage at this point reminds the hearers that all that has been said, and all that will be said, when prefaced or contexted by “the Lord,” or “Lord Jesus,” must be understood within the parameters of the universal Lordship of Jesus and His kingdom.  When heard at a meal, or used in conjunction with references to meal practices, images of the messianic banquet are conjured to the imagination.  Continuing on then, we read “still, it is unclean to the one who considers it unclean.  For if your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer walking in love.  Do not destroy by your food someone for whom Christ died.  Therefore do not let what you consider good be spoken of as evil” (14:14b-16). 

By now, we should find attempts to extract these statements about food from their appropriate setting, which is the church’s regular practice of the messianic banquet, or of that which represents the messianic banquet, to be an impossibility.  They must be understood, not as guidelines for eating, but as the outworking of self-sacrificial love that first seeks what is best for one’s neighbor, thus fulfilling the law (serving as an identity marker for the people of God, which was the way that Paul used and referred to “the law”).  With our understanding of the social significance of meals, and of what meals communicated to those that were given the chance to view them, the church was forced to recognize that their conduct at meals was an extraordinarily vocal (though voiceless) witness to those in positions of observation, as those that identified themselves as citizens of a different kingdom, who indicated that they were subject to a different King, and who claimed to be able to extend this kingdom and the rule of its King in an entirely different way from that of any kingdom the world had ever seen, were given the regular opportunity to put that kingdom on display.  That display was the meal table, as it was a microcosm of the community, and therefore, of the kingdom represented by that community.  If love and preference for one another was on display, then those who observed (whether observing from afar or observing because they were invited to join in at the table) would see the goodness of that kingdom and its King.  If battles for honor and shame, or false humility, or a lack of preferential treatment, or obvious judging in trivial matters was on display at that table, then what should be seen as good would end up being spoken of as evil, and the advancing kingdom would be stopped dead in its tracks. 

The church was never to lose sight of the fact that their meal table was so much more than a meal table, but that it represented their King and the rule of His kingdom.  It is for that reason that Paul would write “For the kingdom of God does not consist of food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (14:17).  Expressions of love, birthed out of the Spirit of God that is present whenever people are calling Jesus Lord, whether in word or deed, are what create a meal table (a communion).  It is for this reason that “the one who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by people” (14:18).  To all of this, as he writes to this mixed audience of Jew and Gentile, Paul adds, “So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for building up one another.  Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.  For although all things are clean, it is wrong to cause anyone to stumble by what you eat.  It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything that causes your brother to stumble” (14:19-21), with this stumbling connected to the expression of the kingdom of God through His people, rather than that brother’s cultivation of personal holiness (though holiness, as we tend to think of it, is a by-product of a constant concern for the compassionate expression of Christ’s rule).            

Letter To Laodicea (part 87)

It is worthwhile to re-read this section as a whole so that we can frame it within a statement made very early in this letter to the Romans.  Paul writes “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. Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.  For the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not cove,’ (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’  Love does no wrong to a neighbor.  Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law” (13:7-10). 

Because this is a mixed congregation of both Jews and Gentiles, we can surmise that Paul’s use of “the law” would be well understood to be those basic provisions of the law (circumcision, Sabbath keeping, food regulations, refraining from worship of idols) that served as identity markers for Jews, and were constant points of contention and division in the early church.  Knowing this allows us to see how the unity and actions of love outlined and encouraged in chapter twelve come into play.  In addition to that, as we continue to consider that this is a letter that will be read to a gathered church at a single sitting, we hearken back to a very early statement in the letter, wherein Paul uses the phrase “from faith to faith” (1:17). 

This simple statement sees Paul borrowing from the imperial propaganda of the day, which presents Caesar as the supreme benefactor.  The statement implies that Caesar is faithful to his subjects, providing them with peace and security, and therefore his subjects are faithful and loyal to him and to Rome.  We must hear the words of the thirteenth chapter with such words and thoughts in mind, in the knowledge that Paul is presenting Jesus as the actual supreme benefactor, of which the Caesar is merely a parody.  All civic interactions proceed within this framework, and the self-sacrificial love modeled by Jesus, which saw Him go to the cross (unconcerned with the shame because of the honor He trusted would come), becomes the model upon which the life of the Christian community is based (unconcerned with shame because of the honor that comes with what counts as the fulfillment of the law, thereby marking one out as a member of the people of God and a participant in His kingdom). 

From here, Paul advances again towards the meal table, which it is clear that he has in mind, as he goes on to write “Let us live decently as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in discord and jealousy” (13:13).  Though it is not meant to serve as an accusation, this is language that should remind us of the symposium, and as it is possible that this church is hearing this letter while gathered for fellowship that will include a meal, the language would not be lost on them either.  It is to this then that Paul adds “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to arouse its desires” (13:14).  We do a great disservice to the apostle if we simply substitute personal and subjective notions of “the flesh” here, rather than considering “the flesh” within the context of the potential for disunity, division, stratification, and unwarranted authoritarianism within the church. 

We must also take this statement into consideration in the context of the dissertation regarding the Christian’s responsibilities towards governing authorities.  A desire of the flesh might be, because one considers himself or herself to be part of the kingdom of God, to cast off all restraint and disregard governing authorities.  This was obviously a real possibility, which would account for Paul’s insistence that such authorities are “God’s servant for your good” (13:4a), and that it is “necessary to be in subjection” (13:5a)  (Note: Though democracies did exist, Paul does not have knowledge of a government that is constituted by “We the people,” such as to be found with the United States of America; so it is incumbent upon all generations of Christians, the world over, to understand Paul’s words in context and then to work out the implications of those words within their own time and place, guided by the dictates of the existing kingdom of heaven.) 

Rather than thinking about putting on the Lord Jesus Christ in the context of the cultivation of private spirituality, the understanding of putting on of the Lord Jesus Christ should be shaped, and processed horizontally and outwardly, by embodying the transformational, kingdom-of-God-contexted love that was put on display by Jesus throughout the entirety of His mission, culminating in the cross.  This would certainly serve to quell any fleshly desires that might be manifested (separations based on honor and shame) or discussed (open rebellion against Rome that could result in the taking up of arms and the discrediting of the Jesus movement) at the meal table, thus resulting in a life of true holiness (a life laid on the altar of sacrifice in service to God).  

Letter To Laodicea (part 86)

Peering into the thirteenth chapter of Romans, Paul extends his discourse on the nature of 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, which can also have deleterious effects 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 God.  When we consider the context in which Paul delivers the statement of verse eight, we see that he began 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 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 God and the nature of their interaction with governing authorities.  There we find God’s people 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). 

Undoubtedly, this is directed firstly to the kings of Israel, and then by extension, to the kings of the earth as God’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.  Such is neatly summed up by the last part of verse twelve of the second Psalm, in which we read “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). 

As we read about “respect” and “honor,” we must remember the culture of honor and shame, and understand this part of what Paul is saying accordingly.  Naturally, if the Christian has complied with his duty to be a voice to the rulers, doing good so as to receive their commendation (13:3b), with this doing of good the language of public benefaction, and if the church has been complicit in its responsibilities to care for orphans, widows, lepers (sick), and the poor, then the governing authorities will be able to restrict the scope of its activities to being “God’s servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer” (13:4b), rather than engaging in all manners of activities with which the Christian will find disagreeable.  This then, allows the Christian to pay taxes with a clear conscience, properly acknowledging God’s provision of those charged with government functions. 

Of course, this also bears on the responsibility of the church to communicate the words of one who preached the kingdom of God, as in the Gospel of Luke we find it recorded of John the Baptist that “Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, ‘Teacher, what should we do?’  He told them, ‘Collect no more than you are required to.’” (3:12-13).  The idea that tax collectors would collect only that which they were required to collect would have been quite the radical notion in that day, as it was well understood that tax collectors, quite simply, collected more than what was required, lining their pockets and enriching themselves with the excess.  Yes, this issue of government and taxes, as presented by Paul, must be understood within the context of the church’s responsibility to embody the love of God by effectively preaching the Gospel of the kingdom and living out in their own community the principles of that kingdom.  If a government, on this side of the cross, has become oppressive, with oppression generally linked to high levels of taxation (while we understand that the average person under the Roman empire paid well over half of their income---in the course of a subsistence lifestyle---in taxes, with this often leading to debt and ultimately slavery, which brings in the issue of “owe no one anything”), then the church of Christ need only look at itself and its failure to remain true to Jesus’ message of the advent of the kingdom of God, and of God’s desire to bring the rule of heaven to earth, as it has most likely retreated into an escapist fixation that limits the acceptance of Jesus’ challenging and world-altering message to going to heaven when one dies.