Letter To Laodicea (part 99)

Long has it been the case that the words of this hymn (easily memorizable and formulaic presentation of the Gospel of Jesus) have been juxtaposed with what we encounter in the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of John.  Indeed, it may very well be the case that the widespread circulation of this hymn, together with the widespread and foundational understanding of the systemic importance of the meal table for the church (and therefore the rooting of popular understanding of this hymn within the context of the church’s messianic banquet inspired meal table, along with the subversive nature of the language in its relation to the Caesar cult) is what prompted the author of John to include what we read there.  If this is the case, and if the knowledge and importance of the early hymn was at least partially responsible for the inclusion of the content of the thirteenth chapter of John (providing justification for the use of an undoubtedly true story, especially when we consider the societal function of the meal table and the reversal which was insisted upon by Jesus according to the Jesus tradition that is reflected in the letters and would come to be recorded in the Gospels), then because this letter came before the composition of John, it is possible that this letter itself had an impact on John’s presentation of Jesus. 

If that can be imagined, then the preface to the hymn that Paul provides, which is “instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more than yourself” (2:3), is the context in which we approach Jesus’ washing of the disciples’ feet.  Therefore, when we read that “You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had” (2:5), and do so while hearing these words at a meal, we are unsurprised to find that Jesus did this washing of feet when “The evening meal was in progress” (John 13:2a).  When we read “Because Jesus knew that the Father had handed all things over to Him, and that He has come from God and was going back to God” (13:3), we easily hear the hymnal echo of “who though He existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped” (2:6). 

Remember, though it is not obvious at first glance, with much labor we have been able to deduce that Paul is writing with the Christian meal table in mind, as is John (quite obviously).  There is a great deal of implicit meal-related understanding at work when Paul employs the language about Jesus, whereas John has a more overt presentation when it is written that “He got up from the meal, removed His outer clothes, took a towel and tied it around Himself” (13:4).  Here, Jesus, who had probably been occupying the protoklisian at the meal (most likely due to the group’s acclimation rather than of His own accord), presents Himself as a slave, essentially taking the eschaton position.  Yes, He “emptied Himself by taking on the form of a slave.”  In this slave position, made all the more meaningful because it takes place during the course of a meal, “He poured water into the washbasin and began to was the disciples’ feet and to dry them with the towel He had wrapped around Himself” (13:5).  Not only does he perform the duty of a slave, which is the duty of those that do not possess honor, but He even goes so far as to use His very clothes for the purpose of drying the feet that He has washed, dishonoring Himself to an even greater extent.  Given its context, Jesus was heaping shame upon shame.  In a culture in which shame was equivalent to death, we can see that not only did He take the opportunity of “looking like other men” and “sharing in human nature,” but “He humbled Himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death.” 

As was just mentioned, Jesus took the eschaton position at this gathering.  As also mentioned numerous times in the course of this study, there was no lower position in all the world at that time than the Roman cross.  It was the eschaton of eschatons.  So just as Jesus took the lowest possible position that could be taken at the banquet, which was that of a foot-washer that used His own clothes to dry wet feet, so too “He was obedient to the point of death---even death on a cross!”  After submitting Himself to the veritable death of His shameful actions at this meal, we read that “when Jesus had washed their feet and put His outer clothing back on, He took His place at the table again” (13:12a).  Similarly, having been lowered to the most shameful position on earth (the cross), God exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name.”  Yes, in the exaltation of the Resurrection, He took up His position at the right hand of God---the seat to the right hand of the protoklisian, which would signify that He was the most honored guest at the messianic banquet.  Having humbled Himself, He would be exalted (a reminder of Luke 14), with the master of the banquet directing Him to move to a higher place, in which “every knee will bow… and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”  It was with His exalting Resurrection, of course, that He is clothed with a new, glorified body.  Figuratively, as “He took His place at the table again,” Jesus had “put His outer clothing back on.” 

Obviously, the connection between the hymn in Philippians and the story in John are inescapable.  Because the author of John made it a point to illustrate the well-known hymn through the story of Jesus at the Last Supper, this means that the meal-related implications of the hymn, of its meal-related presentation in the letter to the Philippians, and the singular importance of the meal for the early Christians is inescapable as well.  We must know that all of this is quite telling for the way that the letter to the Laodiceans is to be understood.   

Letter To Laodicea (part 98)

All of these worthy considerations position us to view one of the most famous passages in the New Testament in an entirely different light.  If we are at a meal table with the church in Philippi, and if we are well aware that Paul’s words are conjuring up a meal-table-based context for his use of what comes next in the Philippian letter, then Paul’s incorporation of what has long been considered to be an early Christian hymn gathers to itself an important dimension.  The Christian meal table provides an amazing and enlightening context for the hearing of “You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, who though He existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature.  He humbled Himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death---even death on a cross!  As a result God exalted Him and gave Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will blow---in heaven and on earth and under the earth---and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (2:5-11). 

Yes, a glorious and familiar passage no doubt, seemingly given new life when considered in relation to that which represented the messianic banquet.  Having just heard these words, we note the honorific tone, but we cannot dismiss the subversive nature of the language.  The Gospel (Jesus is Lord of all) is the thrust of the statement, and this world-power-challenging proclamation was at the heart of the messiah-based kingdom of God movement that would come to be called Christianity.  As we bear in mind the growth of the Christian movement (kristianos), as it took its place alongside the movement of the Caesar cult (kaisarianos) in the Roman world, it is possible to hear the second portion of this song of praise as an aping of the language of the Caesar cult (as Paul does in his usage of “from faith to faith” in Romans 1:17).  At the same time, it is not only the second half of the song that apes the cultic language, so too does the first half.  The elevation of Caesar above his defeated or soon-to-be-defeated opponents would be a natural outgrowth of his apotheosis.  Yes, not only is Caesar exalted above all as divine, but Caesar’s enemies, who may think of themselves as gods in their own right, are actually slaves.  They are ordinary men.  They will die at Caesar’s hands.    

Having said that, it is interesting to see how early Christians put all of this familiar language and imagery to use.  Certainly it would have been said of the Caesar that “the gods exalted him and have given him the name above every name, and that at the name of Caesar every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Caesar is Lord.”  Unlike Caesar, however, it was said of Jesus that His Lordship over all (including Caesar) came about through a process that the rulers of the world would not have supposed.  Whereas Caesar positioned himself as the son of god (divi filius), and laid claim to his rule according to this proclamation, Jesus “existed in the form of God” but “did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped.”  Whereas Caesar exalted himself and enslaved others to extend and enrich the empire of the one referred to as the son of God, to bring about the kingdom of God, Jesus countered “by taking on the form of a slave.”  Whereas Caesar and his sycophantic worshipers lauded him as being a man among men and therefore endowed by the gods with the right to rule because of the superiority of his very nature, the true Emperor, Jesus, came “looking like other men” and “sharing in human nature.” 

Caesar, of course, inflicted his power (the pax Romana) upon the peoples of the world by the looming threat of death, whereas Jesus became “obedient to the point of death.”  The Roman cross and its accursed death was the emblem of power of Caesar and of his right to unchallenged rule.  All those that presumed to challenge his divinely appointed and sanctioned rule would meet their ends upon that emblem.  So naturally, Jesus, as the anti-Caesar, went to “death on a cross,” with His Resurrection proving that the great powers of the world (Rome, Caesar, death) had no power over Him.  Whereas the cross was meant to shame, it was Jesus’ path to exaltation.  This, of course, was contrary to all thinking in that day.  The fact that the early church so freely employed the language of death by crucifixion, within a world that had a robust understanding of the explicit implications of such a death (you’re not a king), and within a Jewish world that saw such a thing as evidence of God’s highest cursing, gives tremendous weight to the firm belief in the fact of Jesus’ physical Resurrection.  The Resurrection is the only explanation for the language here employed.  If there was the smallest doubt that Jesus did not physically raise from the dead, then the church would certainly not give triumphant voice to the fact of His crucifixion at the hands of Rome.    

Letter To Laodicea (part 97)

So yes, we will be able to hear Paul’s letter to the Philippians in the context of the table of fellowship, as it is most definitely set against the norms of the day.  As the letter is read to this assembled congregation that is highly favored by the Apostle, he encourages them to “conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ, so that---whether I come and see you or whether I remain absent---I should hear that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind” (1:27a).  As we remain attuned to the meal table, and to themes associated with the meal table, what immediately follows the mention of one spirit and one mind can certainly strike us in a way that sets up an interesting context for what we will read in the first half of the second chapter. 

Paul desires to see this church “contending side by side for the faith of the Gospel... not being intimidated in any way by your opponents”  (1:27b-28a).  When we think about the divisions of the world that were so commonplace and which were brought into view by the customary meal practice of the ancient world, and when we think about the frictions in Corinth and Galatia, along with what were certainly the understandable struggles within every church as they sought to live out what they understood to be Jesus’ message and vision of the kingdom of God (as it was informed by Isaiah’s vision of the all-inclusive messianic banquet) in which the first are last, the last first, and all seek out the lowest place (with these words uttered in the context of a banquet), it behooves us to take serious note of this encouragement towards “contending side by side for the faith of the Gospel.”  Undoubtedly, the pressure to segregate and stratify, as a means of making the Christian message more palatable and the church of Christ more inviting to those from every rank of society, was intense.  Additionally, the pressure to hold to old covenant markers as a means of identifying the people of God and of participation in that kingdom, which carried with it an invitation to contention within the body rather than a contending side by side (as we see in Galatians), would induce a denial of the faithfulness of God that was found in the announcement of the rule of Jesus as Messiah and Lord of all (the faith of the Gospel). 

It is as we see this church at the meal table, as we position ourselves there along with them, and as we understand the intense struggle concerning the community’s table (thus signifying the world-changing power of a well-understood and properly contextualized execution of the Lord’s Supper), Paul’s words come to take on an entirely new life.  Having been encouraged to contend side by side (as they looked around, and presumably, because Paul was quite complementary of this church for the most part, saw themselves faithfully representing that which was demanded by their understanding of Jesus and His kingdom), they go on to hear Paul say “Therefore, if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort provided by love, any fellowship in the Spirit, any affection or mercy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, by having the same love, being united in spirit, and having one purpose” (2:1-2).  Do these words not echo what we find in Paul’s message to the Roman church, the Corinthian church, and the Galatian church?  If so, and if we recall the context of issues concerning the meal table that provides the setting for Paul’s instructions and directives concerning the church’s love, fellowship, affection, unity, and purpose, then we are forced to hear what follows from within the same context. 

This, then, makes an eminent amount of sense when we go on to hear “Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself” (2:3).  This certainly calls to mind the unending societal competition for honor that played itself out at the world’s banqueting tables.  More than that, this calls to mind the words of Jesus that would be recorded in Luke.  It is very much worth returning there to read “Then when Jesus noticed how the guests chose the places of honor, he told them a parable.  He said to them, ‘When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, because a person more distinguished than you may have been invited by your host.  So the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, “Give this man your place.”  Then, ashamed (notice the juxtaposition of honor and shame), you will begin to move to the least important place.  But when you are invited, go and take the least important place, so that when your host approaches he will say to you, “Friend, move up here to a better place.”  Then you will be honored in the presence of all who share the meal with you.  For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.’” (14:7-11) 

Naturally, this church did not have access to the Gospel of Luke (only oral tradition can be confidently asserted at that point), but since Luke was one of Paul’s companions and essentially his biographer, and since this letter was one of Paul’s letters written from prison in Rome (and therefore a late composition), it is not unreasonable to suggest a familiarity on the part of this church with this portion of the Jesus tradition.  Indeed, the call to avoid selfish ambition or vanity, and to act in humility and treat others as more important, when heard from a position at the meal table, cannot help but call to mind these words of Jesus.  The insistence that “Each of you should be concerned not only about your own interests, but about the interest of others as well” (2:4) goes a long way toward solidifying this position.  Interestingly, as we contemplate the unavoidable importance of the meal table within the early church, as they sought to understand and live out the massive implications of the Resurrection of Jesus, we are not left to wonder why the Gospels, which come after most of the letters chronologically, take the shape that they do, regularly featuring Jesus at meals (banquets).  Clearly and quite understandably (considering the imagery of the messianic banquet), the meal table was a vital component of what was and is a Jewish messianic movement, and a defining aspect of what was being communicated about Jesus by His Apostles.          

Letter To Laodicea (part 96)

On our steady (if slow) return march to Laodicea, we move from Galatians to Philippians.  We approach the text of the Philippian letter in much the same way as we have been approaching the letters to Rome, Corinth, Galatia, and Ephesus.  In fact, we attempt to approach the letter (and all the letters) in the manner of first century hearers in a predominantly oral/aural culture, and sensibly hear them as direct and pointed communications that are meant to critique and praise, while at a time and place that would have been entirely appropriate to the early church, which was the table of fellowship, as Christ’s people sought to distinguish themselves from their communities through their faithful enactments of the wonderful vision of the eschatological messianic banquet.  Yes, there has been much repetition of this theme, but because it is an overt and subversive confession of the rule of God in Christ that is being portrayed by this relatively simple action, and because most of us give little thought to this idea, it is worth repeating ad nauseum. 

This occasions a quick reminder that it is not only the letters that make a request to be heard from such a position, but the Gospels are also designed to be heard as theo-dramas---scripts for performance through recitation---that will instruct their hearers about Jesus in a standard and uniform way.  Though in this day we have the privilege of approaching all of Scripture privately and individually, the Scriptures were to be heard in a community---a community that shared a basic story that stretched back to the first words of Genesis.  Jews who heard the content of the Gospels and the letters of the New Testament were thoroughly immersed in the story of their people, shaped by what seemed like an endless procession of exile and exodus.  Gentiles who heard letters and the stories that would come to be codified in the Gospels were in need of instruction in the story of Israel so that they could make sense of what they were hearing.  That is the position in which the vast majority of Christians find themselves.  All would hear as part of a community shaped by Greco-Roman culture and customs, in a world ruled by a Caesar.  

If we do not, or if we are unwilling to make the effort to understand the world in which the church was birthed, shaped as it was by Greek culture and Roman power, we will be lost.  If we do not, or if we are unwilling to make the effort to understand the world of Israel and Judaism into which Jesus spoke, which demands our utmost attention and concern so as to avoid a lazy and misguided retrojection of our own culturally-shaped worldviews (whatever that culture may be), then we will merely find a Jesus of our own making, constructing power-exerting truth claims that are designed to benefit ourselves, our cultures, our countries, and our bank accounts, that exist primarily to justify the ability to go about our merry way, with little to no modification of the ways in which we interact with this world.  

If we allow ourselves to form spiritual opinions that do not take into account of, through the hard-won knowledge of broad-ranging and far-reaching study, the social, historical, political, economic, and cultural norms of Jesus’ day (and Abraham’s day, Moses’ day, David’s day, Daniel’s day), and instead, retreat into the weak and indefensible position of being led into all knowledge by the Spirit (Jesus is reported to have spoken of being led into all knowledge by the Spirit, and He spoke such words to a group that was well aware of and ensconced within the story of Israel, past and present), then our opinions will be nearly worthless.  They will be nothing more than a personal mythology of God that causes us to hear the words of Scripture from within the echo-chamber of our own mind, reinforcing, without challenge, subjective definitions and notions of spirituality and of that which is pleasing to God and demanded by Him.  Too often, this leads to attempts to control the actions, behaviors, social interactions (and probably money) of members of a church community, which is far less complicated then instructing so as to inspire the members of a church community to figure out how they can go into this world as effective ambassadors of the kingdom of God, serving others as Jesus demanded to be served (providing water, food, and clothing, while visiting the sick and those in prison). 

A complacent and ironically dogmatic ignorance of the world into which Jesus spoke, and of that world which also shaped the words that Jesus used and the way that His words would be understood, often leads to an unwarranted separation from society---a retreat, waving the white flag of surrender, when the responsibility is to be bold ambassadors for God’s kingdom through the spoken and lived-out proclamation that Jesus is Lord---and an ungrounded and unfounded insistence on personal holiness (defined by a series of “do’s” and “don’t’s”) constructed at the whims of an authoritarian figure.  Rarely, will self-sacrifice be the model of the church community that is asked to prize ignorance.  In such a community, the only self-sacrifice demanded will be that of the community sacrificing its goods (time and money) for the enrichment of its head, as an “us against the world” mentality is fostered and new covenant boundary markers are raised (in defiance of Jesus) as an impenetrable wall that does little more than impede the advance of God’s kingdom.  The banner of such a community becomes their own perceived spiritual superiority, which flies in the face of what we find in Paul’s letter to the Philippians, while also inducing a nausea on the part of our Lord.    

Letter To Laodicea (part 95)

As we consider all that we have learned about meal practice (social delineations, the symposium portion of the meal, positioning around the table, etc…), continue to position ourselves as first century hearers of the letters of the New Testament in the context of the orally-transmitted Jesus tradition, and remain open to the possibility that the meal tables of the church were of such significance that they were the setting for the reception of important communications such as Paul’s letters, we must be profoundly struck by what comes next from Paul. 

Having insisted on the necessity of preferential love and service to one another (remembering the over-arching meta-narrative related to meal practice that stretches across Paul’s letters), Paul writes “However, if you continually bite and devour one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another” (5:15).  This use of “bite,” “devour,” and “consume” are clearly meal-table-based metaphors.  “But I say, live by the Spirit and you will not carry out the desires of the flesh” (5:16), as the flesh wants to divide and stratify, succumbing to the tremendous separating pressures that demand adherence to the ways of man’s kingdom principles. 

“For the flesh,” Paul continues, “has desires that are opposed to the Spirit, and the Spirit has desires that are opposed to the flesh” (5:17a), as the Spirit seeks to make manifest God’s kingdom in self-sacrificial love, while the flesh seeks to preserve self-satisfaction and self-interest, especially in the all-important pursuit of honor and avoidance of shame.  Indeed, “these are in opposition to each other, so that you cannot do what you what” (5:17b).  With a quick rejoinder that “if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (5:18), Paul reminds his hearers about the barrier-destroying confession of Jesus as Lord, as opposed to the barrier-erecting insistence on holding to old and outdated covenant markers that will have nothing more than a deleterious effect on the practices of the meal table that should create unity amongst the body of believers, so that the members of that body (think of Romans and Corinthians) can then carry that spirit of unity, and its love and service, into the world as an ongoing announcement that the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Jesus is Lord). 

Once again, the meal must weigh heavily on our thoughts, and especially the symposium, as we then go on to hear “Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, depravity, idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing, and similar things” (5:19-21a).  When we consider that weight that is carried by the meal table, as it is indeed intended to replicate the “Last Supper,” as a Passover theme-contexted messianic banquet that announces the Lordship of Christ and the kingdom, it is no wonder that we then hear Paul saying “I am warning you, as I had warned you before: Those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God!” (5:21b). 

Following this, Paul goes into his famous list that is commonly referred to as the “fruit of the Spirit.”  Often, this is taken out of its wider context, and is given little more than the context of Paul’s distinction between “Spirit” and “law,” with this semi-contextual de-contextualization supported by the statement that “Against such things there is no law” (5:23b).  Happily, based on the knowledge that has been gained by the path that we have been walking, we are able to hear him speaking from within that a much wider context.  The idea that Paul has the meal table in mind here in Galatians takes deeper root, as we now hear that “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control” (5:22-23a), as a statement upon which Paul expands and elaborates in the thirteenth chapter of first Corinthians (the “love chapter”), which, as has been well-demonstrated, is rooted in Paul’s critique of Corinthian meal practice. 

With this line of thinking as our frame of reference, it becomes possible, and even probable, that “against such things there is no law” (remembering the boundaries and barriers and divisions of the “works of the law” as covenant markers) receives its elaboration as “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.  For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face.  Now I know in part, but I will know fully, just as I have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:11-12).  It is as this is understood that we then hear “If we live by the Spirit, let us also behave in accordance with the Spirit” (Galatians 5:25).  Yes, “these three remain: faith, hope, and love.  But the greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13).  Because of that love, which we first put into practice around our society defining table, “Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, being jealous of one another” (Galatians 5:26).        

Letter To Laodicea (part 94)

Not surprisingly then, if he is indeed calling attention to the nature of the messianic feast (as the culmination of the movement of God that began with the Abrahamic covenant), Paul goes on to make reference to Abraham, writing “so then, understand that those who believe are the sons of Abraham… So then those who believe are blessed along with Abraham the believer” (Galatians 3:7,9).  Just in case we may find ourselves inclined to disconnect this reference to Abraham here in Galatians from messianic-banquet-related considerations, there is a rather clear allusion to the Jesus tradition that will eventually come to be recorded in Luke’s Gospel, in which Jesus, as He makes reference to the kingdom of God and the rejection of the narrow door of loyalty to Him and His ways by which that kingdom is to be entered, says “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves thrown out.  Then people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and take their places at the banquet table in the  kingdom of God” (13:28-29).  As these words resound in our hearing, Paul adds that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us… in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles,” as people come from east, west, north, and south to take their places at the table of the messianic banquet, “so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit by faith” (3:13a,14). 

With that said, Paul enters into a discourse concerning the covenants (Abrahamic and Mosaic), ending up with his famous declaration that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female---for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (3:28).  The demonstration of whether or not the members of this body of believers truly believed this would be witnessed by the arrangements of their meal table.  Having insisted that all that “belong to Christ” (3:29), that is, that all that confess Jesus as Lord and so order their lives according to the precepts of His kingdom, are “heir according to the promise” (3:29b), Paul then equates being an heir with being a slave (4:1).  As this letter is communicated to the assembly, which would have consisted of Jew and Greek, male and female, slave and free, and in which there would always be the ongoing temptation to succumb to the social forces by which they were surrounded and to retreat into their closed communities, making use of reference to slaves and slavery would have had a particularly useful effect.  In fact, as part and parcel of this, Paul makes explicit reference to Jewish Christians attempting to uphold and return to the boundary markers of the covenant---the “works of the law” of circumcision, Sabbath-keeping, purity laws---that had previously served to identify the people of the Creator God, who would be participants in His kingdom. 

As we reach the fifth chapter of Galatians, we are in the enviable position of being reminded of the thirteenth and fourteenth chapters of Romans, along with the thirteenth and fourteenth chapter of Paul’s first letter to Corinth, and we remember what we were able to glean from our look at those chapters in their social and theological context as we read, “For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity to indulge your flesh, but through love serve one another.  For the whole law can be summed up in a single commandment, namely, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’” (5:13-14)  The insistence to “serve” takes even greater meaning upon itself when placed in a social, table-based context.  Christian love is given wonderful expression when the people of God, though they may stem from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds, come together and, with no thought given to their social status outside of the community of believers, serve each other without distinction as they seek to demonstrate the messianic banquet and the kingdom of God.  It starts at the table (the table of the Lord)---that powerful symbol of society---and radiates outward.  Clearly, if there are issues and problems at the church’s meal table, then there will be problems with the church’s witness to the world, and the church will become ineffective and powerless, thus handicapping the spreading of the kingdom of heaven.  Historically then, it is no wonder that the Lord’s Supper has been such a source of contention.  

Letter To Laodicea (part 93)

Spending a bit more time in Ephesians, and thinking about Ephesians in this way, as we hear the words of the letter from the position of participation in the community meal, thus providing an adequate context for the letter’s concern with the relationship between Jews and Gentiles and the unity between the two that is to be espoused by the church, we have an entirely new world opened to us as we consider “So then you are no longer foreigners and noncitizens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, because you have been built on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone” (2:19-20).  Not only is temple language put to use, which was very important for the early church as it understood and presented itself as the new temple in its representation of Christ, but when we hear “In Him the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (2:21-22), echoes of the “body” language found in Paul’s treatment of spiritual gifts from the first Corinthian letter, along with everything else implied by Paul’s treatment of “the body,” should be ringing in our ears. 

Approaching Ephesians with this mindset---social practice and the messianic banquet---should go a long way in crystallizing our thinking about what we see in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.  As would have been the case with the letter to the Romans and the letters to the Corinthians, the letter to the Galatians would have been read out loud to a congregation, with a possible expectation by Paul that said congregation would be gathered at a meal table as a fundamental aspect of their fellowship (always keeping in mind the meal-table-heavy Jesus tradition and its intrinsic tie to the messianic banquet).  How much deeper goes the reading from Galatians as we place ourselves with this church at their table and hear “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.  Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentile.  But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision.  And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy” (2:11-13). 

Of all things with which he could deal, Paul makes it a point to bring up issues surrounding the church’s meal practice.  Of course, having already seen this with the churches at Rome and Corinth, as well as with what seems to be implied by the letter to the church at Ephesus (though this may have been an encyclical letter), this should no longer be a surprise to us.  Indeed, at this point, we should be find ourselves surprised by a failure to on Paul’s part to cultivate thoughts in line with the messianic banquet in his communications to the churches.  Most certainly, this illuminates a portion of the controversy to be found in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, and the decision to be delivered to the Gentile churches “that you abstain from meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality.  If you keep yourselves from doing these things, you will do well” (15:29).  Now, we will not be dogmatic in the least little bit at this point, as this does take some stretching, but does such language not evoke images of the symposium?

Returning to the Galatian letter, it is this mentioning of the meal table of the church that is the grounds for Paul’s immediate movement to “We are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” (2:15-16a).  As we saw with the Ephesian letter, with the mention of boasting that puts us in mind of the symposium and therefore a component of first century meal practice, which then leads into talk of justification, so we see the same thing here.  A clear pattern appears to be at work.  Along with Romans then, the Galatian letter, and therefore the two letters of Paul that are held up as containing the pinnacle of the message of justification (and therefore the pinnacle of what is thought to be Paul’s message, though like Jesus, Paul is most concerned with the kingdom of God), inextricably entwine justification, with all of its requisite associations with the kingdom of heaven (God’s rule), with a demonstrable concern with Christian meal practice that should be reflective of the messianic banquet.