Letter To Laodicea (part 106)

Before taking up what comes next in Peter’s admonition to wives, it is worthwhile to visit this idea of “social benefaction” or “good deeds.”  We may be tempted to think that this is a new and novel concept, but upon further inspection, we would find that such practices are well rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures that codify the story of Israel and serve as the basis for the self-understanding of those that are called out as the people of God, be it Israel or the church.  This is not the place to make an exhaustive search of the Scriptures to find this practice of social benefaction concretized, as a minor example should serve admirably.  One could consider the detailed examples of the remission of debts that are to be found in the Torah (or Pentateuch), and the practice of the Jubilee, but these would be considered grand examples that might have gone unfulfilled by Israel, held up as unrealized ideals.  Jesus, of course, used the language of the Jubilee (the remission of all debts), taken up by Isaiah, as part of His personal introduction that is recorded in the fourth chapter of Luke.  If Jesus is informing the people that the Jubilee, at long last, is finally being fulfilled in Him, then it stands to reason that the Jubilee, long expected of His people by God, has gone unobserved for centuries, if ever. 

A more minor example, in which nearly all would be able to engage, and which would be instrumental in its application in an era and an area in which one’s daily food was a constant concern and in which debt and debt slavery were extraordinarily pressing and very real problems, would be something like the brother-directed insistence that “You must not lend money at interest and you must not sell him food for profit” (Leviticus 25:37).  The need to borrow is here wrapped up with the need to purchase food, so the directive takes aim at capitalizing on misfortune, and doing so in such a way that increases the likelihood that slavery will result.  This is not a blanket statement, insisting that it is wrong to sell food or anything else for profit or that it is even necessarily wrong to charge interest, as the prohibition against charging interest is linked to a brother’s ability to obtain the necessities of life.  Surely, we can differentiate between charging interest for that which is not wholly necessary, with ideas about that which is wholly necessary complicated by modern day cultures that are bent on acquisition and the portrayal of all things as needs.  However, we must note that in this section of Leviticus, the prohibition is provided context by “If your brother becomes impoverished and is indebted to you, you must support him… Do not take interest or profit from him, but you must fear your God and your brother must live with you” (25:35a,36).  This does not deny that some would be wealthier than others, nor does it offer up a value judgment on the mere fact or presence of wealth (defined as the excess of what is needed), but it does have an underlying message that God’s people are to be conscientious of the plight of their brothers and to be ready to have their hand out to make ready assistance, though this is a matter for another dissertation. 

It would be far easier, in a manner of speaking, for Christians of the first century (and for Christians of the twenty-first century who live outside of the remarkably affluent western world) to relate to these words from Leviticus, and to engage in such activity as part of their call to be benefactors for their communities.  Imagine what would be stirred by a person, in the marketplace during times of scarcity and need, who, seeing all as brothers and potential brothers within the always advancing kingdom of God, sold his food at no profit to himself.  What if that person, acting counter to the supply and demand equation in that time of scarcity, which would naturally see prices for scarce items rise, actually began selling sustenance items at below his own cost, so as to bring down the cost?  What if that person did so as an obvious sacrifice on his or her part, and did so as a conscientious actor for the kingdom of God?  Would that not be a monumental display of costly love?  Would that not be living out the cross?  Would that not be the power of the resurrection and the Gospel at work?  Again, this is not meant to be applied at all times, as it is unsustainable in practice, but it does inform the body of Christ of its need to engage with the world at multiple levels, as the kingdom of God invades every aspect of life, never saying “I go here and no further.” 

At the same time, all of these considerations serve to remind us just how important a role food and considerations about food played in the ancient world (and in many parts of the world today), in which gaining one’s sustenance is actually the primary, daily concern.  When work is engaged upon primarily to obtain food for self and family, and secondarily to meet the remainder of life’s basic needs, it is not difficult to assert that a divergent set of priorities will be in effect.  Little wonder then, that the church’s meal table, open to all and for all to share equally, with the wealthier and more well-to-do providing for all while sharing equally with all with no expectation of receiving honor for the provision (ideally), was a table that served to draw people in, while also being ripe for corruption and a new and more insidious form of oppression, whether wantonly or through neglect, by ingrained social forces and sensibilities.  Little wonder then, that the stories of Jesus’ miraculous feedings, with enough for all and to spare, with all sharing equally at the hand of the One that represents the church (and that the church represents), gained such prominence in the community that called Jesus Lord and for whom the meal table was a prominent feature.    

Letter To Laodicea (part 105)

It is at this setting, one of a social egalitarianism represented by the church as it functions together and witnesses to the world through its table fellowship, that we then hear Peter speaking to individuals and groups seated around the meal table.  After insisting that all present need to be “subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake” (2:13a), which the use of Lord heard in the context of the Gospel’s claim and against Caesar’s claim, Peter goes on to reaffirm, without necessarily sanctioning, that there is a prevailing social order, writing “Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are perverse” (2:18).  How does this fit with the leveling call of the Gospel and of the messianic banquet that communicates so much of the Gospel’s message?  If such lengths are gone to in order to show that there is neither slave nor free, why would Peter make statements that will serve to resurrect the very distinctions that the church, through the open commensality of its meal table, is tearing down? 

Naturally, the answer is to be found in love.  It is that self-sacrificial love to which Peter makes reference, as he goes on to write of enduring hardships in suffering unjustly (2:19).  Yes, Peter recognizes the injustice of the situation, but it is the call of the Christian, whether slave or free, to overcome injustice by acting in love towards the very master that may be the source of injustice.  He then draws what would be the very obvious parallel between the position of the slave and Jesus, as he writes about doing good, suffering, and enduring, which finds favor with God (2:20), “since Christ also suffered for you, leaving an example for you to follow in His steps” (2:21b).  Jesus provides the example of that which Peter is asking of those who find themselves as slaves, in that “When He was maligned, He did not answer back; when He suffered, He threatened no retaliation, but committed Himself to God who judges justly” (2:23).  This could only be accomplished through a love that is phenomenal in its self-emptying and in its sacrificial preference, and indeed, the meal table, in many ways, can provide a glimpse of such love, as those who would be afforded considerable honor willingly take the lowest position so that others might be exalted.  Indeed, is this not what is being said here, when Peter goes on to say “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we may cease from sinning and live for righteousness”? (2:24a) 

The tree, of course, calls our attention to the lowest and most accursed place, while the call to cease from sin and live for righteousness directs the hearer’s attention to the responsibilities of the people of God to become for the world the covenant faithfulness of God, as was the call of Adam, of Abraham, of Israel, and of the church through its Lord.  Lest we allow ourselves to be drawn back into a puerile individualism and subjective analysis of our shortcomings in word and deed that we flippantly refer to as our sin and that are only meager symptoms of a much greater malady, we remind ourselves that, in the context of the long-running plan of God’s covenant faithfulness and of human responsibility in and to that plan, that to cease from sinning will be to cease from our failure to rightly bear the divine image and the concordant responsibility to reflect the glory of God into the world.  Taking up the role of a slave, and reflecting God’s glory by loving through and in spite of that role, as did Jesus, is surely a glorious representation of that which God intends for the people that have now been called by His name and who are identified by their claim that Jesus is indeed the crucified and resurrected Lord of all. 

It is with all of these things in mind that we then hear Peter’s call to wives (though there is neither male nor female), to “be subject to your own husbands” (3:1a).  Again, the reason is not necessarily to exalt subservience for the sake of subservience, or to cause an undue pride amongst husbands, but that God might be glorified through a willful and conscientious act of love.  The purpose of the subjection of the wife was to advance the claims of the Gospel and to extend the reach of the kingdom of God on earth.  For this reason, Peter adds, “Then, even if some are disobedient to the word,” that being the word that there is a new imperial order and that Jesus stands at its head, demanding a new way of living that is contrary to all that the world holds dear (then and now, though we are not so shortsighted that we limit this critical demand merely to the pursuit of pleasure and what are often termed “carnal” sins), “they will be won over without a word by the way you live, when they see your pure and reverent conduct” (3:1b).  They might see the meal table at which their wife participates, and find themselves in a state of stunned disbelief.  They may hear the talk of a new and far more powerful and wide-ranging kingdom, but find that those who speak of such things do not take up arms or attempt direct subversion, but rather, are the model citizens that are the most concerned with the welfare of all, and demonstrate this concern without regard for honor, shame, or social status.    

Letter To Laodicea (part 104)

Peter continues, writing “For God wants you to silence the ignorance of foolish people by doing good” (2:15).  Taken together with the “those who do good” of the fourteenth verse, we can hear Peter reinforcing the need for public benefaction, as this is what such words implied when used in that day.  Most of us, with our experience of Christianity as intensely personal (and it is, but the only reason for it be intensely personal is so that it may be intensely social in demonstration that the kingdom of heaven has invaded this world and that Jesus is its Sovereign), are accustomed to reading “good deeds,” “good works,” and “doing good,” as either the avoidance of that which we consider to be bad deeds, or in the Reformation-oriented paradigm of doing good works in order to earn salvation.  Therefore, we have an over-compensating reaction, which attempts to smooth out this supposed wrinkle in the Scriptural witness, saying “No, we don’t do good works to earn salvation, we do good works as a response to God’s having saved us” (which is true), with all of this colored by a mis-guided notion about what is meant by the “works of the law” and the way that those “works of the law” functioned in the days of Jesus, Peter, and Paul. 

It takes a bit of work to discover that the language of good deeds, in this context, is truly about seeking to do what is best for the communities in which we live.  In general, we have no problem extending our helping hands “to those who belong to the family of faith” (Galatians 6:10b), but we often forget the attitude that was basic for those who understood themselves to be the harbingers and representatives of a real and present kingdom, which was that “whenever we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people” (6:10a), while finding that we are most naturally inclined to do good for those with whom we share our meals.  This is what truly allows the people of God to function as a light to all peoples, fomenting a desire to align oneself with this movement of cosmic reconciliation, and in so doing bring glory to the God of the universe. 

As Peter speaks through his letter to a group of people from all walks of life, consisting of slave and free, Jew and Gentile, male and female, and even those who might be attaching themselves to the Christian community because they have notions of revolution and are drawn to a community that talks about a new kingdom, a new king, and a new way of living, he goes on to say “Live as free people, not using your freedom as a pretext for evil, but as God’s slaves.  Honor all people, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the king”  (2:16-17).  Free people who are slaves?  Again, this represents a new way of living, and it is learned at the church’s meal table. 

It is relatively easy for us to hear the words “Honor all people” in our own day, especially in the western world in which we (in theory) embrace the notion that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and to miss out on the incredibly radical and earth-shattering nature of this concept.  With these words being spoken in a world that was attuned to the pursuit of honor as the pursuit of status in the world, with this pursuit of honor providing justification for all manner of selfish and self-centered activities, the idea of honoring all people equally, even to the point of living as slaves (the least honorable), was a foreign concept.  In a world in which lines were drawn between the civilized people of the Roman empire and the “barbarian” hordes of those that refused to accede to the divinely backed pretensions of Roman hegemony, the notion of honoring all people would have been dismissed out of hand. 

Additionally, any community that hailed a different king, let alone a King that was superior to all kings of the earth, would have been hard pressed to continue honoring the Roman emperor, especially considering the fact that the Christians were undergoing much persecution owing directly to their counter-imperial claims.  Therefore, the universal directive to honor the king would necessitate a preferring love that would be difficult to manage.  Achieving this lofty ideal would be yet another evidence of the transformative power of the Gospel, so how could the church bring about such an attainment?  The answer brings us back to the table.  That powerful social institution, which maintains some of its power even in this day (though we tend to miss it), can be the basis for societal transformation and the establishment of the kingdom of heaven, just as it was and can also be the basis for maintaining the societal status quo.  If the idea of the messianic banquet is embraced, and the church attempts to be the place (the overlap of heaven and earth) where “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” and “some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last” (Luke 12:29-30), then Peter’s directive, which is a component of the overall Scriptural missive, will not be impossible to achieve.       

Letter To Laodicea (part 103)

This behavior learned through the church’s meal table (which is representative of the messianic banquet that has been transformed into the Lord’s Supper) is what makes the love that is embraced and professed by the Christian community tangible and observable, as it is expressed in such ways in order to bring glory to God.  Conversely then, a church that is not operating with such a mindset, that is turned in on itself, seeking separation from the world so as to prepare themselves for their notion of heaven (a distant isle of blessedness, which is Greek thought, not Jewish), is actually modeling something that stands in fundamental opposition to what the confession of Jesus’ Lordship demands. 

A church that is turned in on itself is most likely not learning the principles of self-sacrificial love and the preference of one another for the benefit of the body, so that the body might benefit the community as it demonstrates Jesus’ universal Lordship over all things and all areas of life, is probably perverting the meal table, having turned the Lord’s Supper (messianic meal) into a source of personal benefit as well, replete with authoritarian structures based on subjective spiritual rankings.  If love is not being learned and encouraged at the meal table, so that it aspires to the vision of the messianic banquet, then it is highly unlikely that the church that is not learning these things is going to be engaging in public benefaction (good works/deeds). 

Ironically then, in Peter’s time, the church that is isolated essentially becomes that which the Christians were accused of being.  Since they were not seeking the good of the world by their public display of Jesus’ Lordship, then yes, widespread maladies and calamities must be laid at their feet.  If they are claiming that their King is the true King (in opposition to Caesar’s claims), but not putting that claim into practice by demonstrating that said Kingship extends to all things through their seeking of good for themselves and their neighbors, then the fundamental message of the Gospel is brought into disrepute.  Yes, they might as well be looked upon as atheists and cannibals, for all the benefits they bring to their world. 

Let us never forget that the hope of the Christian is to be resurrected just like Jesus.  Jesus was resurrected into this world, with a glorified physical body, with that resurrection power set to work in this world, and this is that for which we hope.  Christians living in isolation, concerned for nothing more than their personal eternal salvation rather than embracing a full engagement with the world to which God is reconciling Himself through their overt kingdom-conscious actions and behavior, have a wrong-headed notion about the kingdom of God, seeing it as something distant in both time and space, rather than viewing it as did Jesus and His apostles, in their (fully Jewish) claim that the kingdom of God was both present and coming. 

So when Peter speaks of good conduct and good deeds, he is speaking the language of self-sacrificial love.  For that reason, as does Paul, in dealing with the ramifications of their substantial claim on Jesus’ behalf and of what is going to be learned through their table fellowship, Peter instructs this church (who, according to the pattern that we believe has been established and which will be more explicitly drawn out in short order, are most likely hearing this letter read to them in the setting that would be most conducive to such things---the acted out messianic banquet of the church’s meal table) to “Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether to a king as supreme or to governors as those he commissions to punish wrongdoers and praise those who do good” (2:13-14).  This is language that is practically identical to what is to be found in the thirteenth chapter of Romans, which we have already seen. 

Whether Peter was influenced by Paul or Paul was influenced by Peter, the point is that both were influenced by the demands of the reality of the kingdom of God that was actualized at the Resurrection of Jesus.  In Romans, Christian love, along with concerns about the meal table, bracket Paul’s concern for interaction with governing authorities, as the church functions in its ambassadorial role, declaring “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!” (Psalm 2:10-12a).  We’ll see that it is no different for Peter, which continues to demonstrate how incredibly large looms the meal table for these early Christian communities.  

Letter To Laodicea (part 102)

Naturally, Paul was not the only writer of what we generally think of as New Testament letters to deal with the meal table.  As we depart from the letters of the Apostle Paul so as to progress further through the New Testament, we take up our cause again with the first letter of Peter.  As we skip to Peter, we’ll recall having dealt with the meal table imagery from the letter of James, as the second chapter of that letter begs to be understood from within that context. 

The point has been readily made that the message of the Gospel is inherently social.  Because it is the declaration of Jesus’ Lordship, with this Lordship being the Lordship not just of individual lives and souls, but over the whole of the cosmos, it has a social element.  This is a far cry from the Gospel being reduced to a “social gospel,” but rather, it is to say that the implications of the declaration demand to be worked out in a tangible, visible way, on display for a society to see.  Just as the worshipers or proponents of Caesar declared his Lordship, and in doing so, were not asking people to make a private confession of faith in Caesar or to cultivate a personal and private holiness that would somehow be pleasing to Caesar, neither were the proponents of Jesus.  The Gospel was and is public.  The reaction to the Gospel demanded a community context.  The presentation of Caesar’s gospel resulted in certain activities (the erecting of statues, sacrifices, festivals, submission to his earthly rule, etc…) that made it clear to all that this gospel was being accepted, so it would be expected that an alternative Gospel would demonstrate the same. 

When the Gospel was preached into a world that was accustomed to a regular hearing of a gospel message, it was preached into a world that was prepared to hear such a message, and it was preached into a world that would have expected public, community oriented demonstrations of what it was that was being trumpeted.  Yes, the Gospel was and is meant to be transformative, but that transformation was and is to be manifested in public behavior.  That public behavior is not, as we so commonly propose, merely that which takes place in our churches, where singing, praying, lifting up hands, and giving are taken as the evidences of the power of the Gospel and of transformed lives.  Public behavior is not that which is primarily concerned with a dramatic abstention from participation in life’s pleasures, accompanied by thinking that it is by a constant refraining that holiness is demonstrated.  Those things can certainly be evidentiary, but they are only the primary evidence if we exalt the individual, rather than the body, and if we place private spirituality in the context of a personal quest to achieve heaven upon death higher than offering tangible service as and for a community.  Such a focus seems to run counter to the movement of Scripture, in which God is constantly calling a people to Himself, beginning with Abraham, so that they might exemplify divine blessing.  Persons are called, and they are called to be a part of a people, for the primary purpose of being a blessing to the world so that the God that calls them into covenant might be glorified. 

Yes, the Gospel will effect transformation in the lives of its adherents, and those effects will be seen in interactive relationships, as Christians live out their ambassadorship on behalf of their Lord and their God with respect to their interaction with others and the world.  This is the love that we see in Romans twelve and in first Corinthians thirteen, which demonstrate the tangible working out of that love based on what is learned at the meal table of the body of the church.  It is this basic demonstration of love and of preferring of one another, and of the awesome transformative power of the Gospel that is then put on display by individuals (functioning as and for their communities), which is what we then see in the thirteenth chapter of Romans.  It is with these things in mind that we come to Peter, and hear him being so incredibly insistent on the social nature of the Gospel. 

It is worthwhile to first understand this aspect of Peter’s first letter before we move to what becomes the rather obvious dealings with the church’s meal table.  Peter insists that the church is “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (2:9a), declaring that God calls the church to be “a people of His own,” that they “may proclaim the virtues of the one who called… out of darkness into His marvelous light” (2:9b).  Though there is certainly a mysterious power to be found in the very proclamation of the message that Jesus is Lord, we’ll see that the proclamation that Peter has in mind is more deed-based than word-based (though the word is not to be neglected---deeds would lead to the opportunity for words to be heard).  To this end, Peter calls this church to “maintain good conduct among the non-Christians, so that though they now malign you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God when He appears” (2:12).  In that day, Christians were accused of being atheists because they did not worship Caesar or the Roman gods, cannibals because of their communion table, and usurpers of the social order because they refused to acknowledge the standard divisions of society in their public or private gatherings.  Eventually, Christians would become scapegoats, as blame for all manner of maladies and calamities would devolve upon them.  Peter understood that this was happening and would happen, and that much of this was owed to the fact of the radical nature of the lived-out Gospel.  For this reason, Peter, using the language of public benefaction, calls the church to be civic-minded, doing good deeds that will be recognized as beneficial for their community.  In this way, contrary to being singled out and maligned for being a negative force in society that would be specifically tied to claims about an alternative Lord, their good deeds would bring glory to the God to which their allegiance was sworn through Christ.  This would be learned at the meal table.            

Letter To Laodicea (part 101)

www.pisteosdaily.blogspot.com

Moving on to Colossians, we do not attempt to press the issue farther than the evidence warrants, but simply make note of the fact that Paul, who we must presume intends or expects his letter to be read at a communal gathering (most likely a meal), makes it a point to use meal-related terms in his communications concerning the Gospel of Jesus and the church’s manner of representing the kingdom of God on earth.  In the second chapter, words such as “Therefore do not let anyone judge you with respect to food or drink, or in the matter of a feast, new moon, or Sabbath days” (2:16) cannot pass by without mention, or without taking them into consideration with regard to all that we have learned about meal practice, both inside and outside of the church.  Also, this very brief listing of feast, new moon, and Sabbath is language that is evocative of the covenant markers of Judaism (works of the law), which we know was a constant source of tension and division in the churches of the day.  Paul’s insistence that these things are “shadows of the things to come” (2:17a), whereas the “reality is Christ!” (2:17b), reminds us, in the same breath, that the new covenant marker that will identify the people of God and which will be in evidence in their meal practice, is the confession that Jesus is Lord.  The new covenant marker serves the same purpose as the old covenant marker, which ultimately was to affirm that the Creator God---the God of Israel---is the sovereign ruler of all.  Because Jesus, as Messiah, was understood to be the physical embodiment of Israel’s God, the symmetry is quite obvious. 

In addition to the language of meals and of the Lordship of Jesus (the Gospel), Paul employs terms that are reminders of that which can be found in both Romans and the first Corinthian letter (as well as Ephesians though we did not detail its use there), with their focus on the unity of the body.  Because it has become a near impossibility for us to separate “unity language” from the meal table (with confidence that this letter would have been read at a meal table), we are once again able to discern traces of a reference to the practice of the symposium when Paul writes “Let no one who delights in humility and the worship of angels pass judgment on you.  That person goes on at great lengths about what he has supposedly seen, but he is puffed up with empty notions by his fleshly mind” (2:18).  Without getting in to the issues to which Paul makes reference here, the allusion to the boasting that is a common feature of the world’s meal tables, to which Paul makes semi-regular reference (thus bolstering our position that these letters from Paul are designed to be read in the context of a communal meal), is difficult to avoid.  Clearly, Paul is taking issue with the person that is trying to vault themselves to a more honored seat at the table and a more prominent place within the church community, as that person is still enamored with or attracted by the honor and shame system of the wider world. 

With this underscored, we are unsurprised to read “He has not held fast to the head from whom the whole body,” as we notice the emphasis on unity, “supported and knit together through its ligaments and sinews, grows with a growth that is from God” (2:19).  If we read “the body” appropriately, bearing in mind Paul’s use of “the body” to make reference to the unified church (signaled clearly in 1 Corinthians 11 and the need to eat and drink with careful regard for the body), then much sense is made of what comes next in Paul.  He writes that “Even though they have the appearance of wisdom” (2:23a), as the “they” are those that vaunt themselves above their brothers and sisters, we more fully understand the point that Paul is making, and its relation to the church and its ability to function in its role as a shining light to the world, as we go on to hear “with their self-imposed worship and false humility achieved by an unsparing treatment of the body---a wisdom with no true value---they in reality result in fleshly indulgence” (2:23b).  The “unsparing treatment of the body” is then rightly applied to the church body, thus escaping any unwarranted and unauthorized personal or individual applications, as Paul inherently warns the person that is engaging in such behavior, while they are reducing the message of the Gospel and the mission of the church to “Do not handle! Do not taste!  Do not touch!” (2:21), that they are most certainly missing the mark. 

Moving forward with this mindset to the third chapter, Paul’s description of Christ as being “seated at the right hand of God” (3:1b) is related to the meal table, the protoklisian, and the chief seat of honor, thus keeping our focus (along with the original hearers) at the meal table.  That meal table, which is so incredibly important in the early church that was to carry out the message of Jesus’ Lordship in word and deed, and which is to be representative of the messianic banquet and the rule of God, remains the setting, as Paul once again evokes the practices of the symposium when he writes “So put to death whatever in your nature belongs to the earth: sexual immorality, impurity, shameful passion, evil desire, and greed which is idolatry…  You also lived your lives in this way at one time, when you used to live among them.  But now, put off all such things as anger, rage, malice, slander, abusive language from your mouth.  Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man with his practices and have been clothed with the new man that is being renewed according to the image of the one who created it” (3:5,7-10).  Obviously, all of these things will cause division at the table, damage to the church body, and the diminishment of the church’s witness to the kingdom of God that was inaugurated with Christ’s Resurrection and the church’s hope for the resurrection to come, which was the preface to this portion of his discourse, as Paul wrote, “Therefore, if you have been raised with Christ” (3:1a).  It is with this said that Paul reminds this church of its covenant responsibilities in their representation of the rule of God through their meal practice (as so much would flow from proper meal practice), by telling them that “Here there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and in all” (3:11).  The mark of the church was the confession of Jesus as Lord of all---all peoples and all nations, and this would be primarily made visible to a watching world by their kingdom-oriented table fellowship.       

Letter To Laodicea (part 100)

What also remains inescapable, if we are paying attention to the movement of the two passages in both Philippians (2:5-11) and John (13:1-12), is the way that what follows, in both cases, parallel each other.  This serves to bolster the notion that what was being said about Jesus (among other things), as represented by the hymn that Paul includes in his letter to the Philippians, as well as what comes both before and after the hymn, helped to shape the way that Jesus is presented in the Gospels.  This is not to imply that the Gospel writers simply made up stories to suit what was being communicated about Jesus, but to imply that the oral traditions about Jesus shaped the theology of the early church, and that the developed and developing theology (and Christology, soteriology, Christology, sociology) of the early church helped to provide shape to the way that the Gospels, when they came to be written, presented the historical Jesus.  In turn then, the Gospels would have an impact on the later New Testament writings, such as Revelation, thus explaining why both the Gospels and the letters must receive adequate treatment in any attempt to determine what it is that is being communicated to the seven churches in the chapter two and three of that work. 

Re-narrowing our focus then, we read in Philippians (still positioning ourselves as hearers at a meal table), “So then, my dear friends, just as you have always obeyed, not only in My presence but even more in My absence, continue working out your salvation with awe and reverence, for the one bringing forth in you both the desire and the effort---for the sake of His good pleasure---is God.  Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may be blameless and pure, children of God without blemish though you live in a crooked and perverse society, in which you shine as lights in the world by holding on to the word of life so that on the day of Christ I will have a reason to boast that I did not run in vain nor labor in vain.  But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service of your faith, I am glad and rejoice together with all of you.  And in the same way you should also be glad and rejoice together with me” (2:12-18).  By now, the inclusion of words such as “boasting” and “drink offering,” and the connection of such words to a meal context (remember the symposium) should not escape our notice. 

When considering all that we have seen and said to this point, it takes very little creativity to notice the passive connection between this passage and the follow-up passage in John’s thirteenth chapter.  Turning there, and again, considering the more than obvious influence of the Philippian hymn, and remembering that the Gospels were meant to be delivered as performance pieces in a largely illiterate and orally attuned culture, it takes very little by way of creative imagination to hear the parallels.  Having re-taken His position at the table, Jesus says, “Do you understand what I have done for you?  You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and do so correctly, for that is what I am.  If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you too ought to wash one another’s feet.  For I have given you an example---you should do just as I have done for you.” (13:12b-15). 

With “salvation” linked to an acceptance of the Gospel proclamation of Jesus as Lord, we can certainly understand the need to work that out with awe and reverence, especially considering the implications in the Roman world for an active declaration of a Lord to rival Caesar.  The call to wash feet, though it may certainly be worthy of emulation, is less of a call to engage in similar action, and far more related to the need to follow the example of Jesus in taking up the lowest place and its associated shame.  This is yet another way that Jesus points to the cross and to His call for those that join in His kingdom movement (disciples) to take up their cross and follow Him.  Just as the position of foot-washer was the lowest position at the meal, so too was the cross the lowest position in the world of Jesus’ day. 

Knowing the type of thoughts that His example would provoke, Jesus continues on to say, “I tell you the solemn truth, the slave is not greater than his master, nor is the one who is sent as a messenger greater than the one who sent him” (13:16), which fits nicely with Paul’s insistence to “Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may be blameless and pure.”  Additionally, Paul’s declaration that “I am glad and rejoice together with all of you,” together with its close of “And in the same way you also should be glad and rejoice together with me,” finds its counterpart in “If you understand these things, you will be blessed if you do them” (13:17).  Interestingly, Paul moves from there to a mention of Timothy, writing that “there is no one here like him who will readily demonstrate his deep concern for  you…that like a son working with his father, he served with me in advancing the Gospel” (2:20,22b), whereas in John, continuing what appears to be a minor-emulation of the structure of Paul’s letter, Jesus goes on to speak of Judas, saying “The one who eats my bread has turned against me” (13:18b), and “I tell you the solemn truth, one of you will betray Me” (13:21b).  All of this, we must remember, owing to Paul’s implicit presentation, along with John’s explicit presentation, occurs in connection with meals.