Letter To Laodicea (part 120 of 120)

Jesus tells this church that “All those I love, I rebuke and discipline.  So be earnest and repent!” (3:19)  With what has already been said about their need to imitate the other churches in their area and the vomit-inducing and obviously displeasing nature of their practice, as well as the mocking words of “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked” (which are only mocking to those that are failing to adhere to Jesus’ insistence to provide food, water, clothing, and support to the least while actually considering themselves to be adequately representing their Lord and His kingdom) what follows, when heard within the contextual narrative (both the isolated narrative of this particular letter and the larger narrative of God’s redemptive plan) is obviously going to be quite severe. 

These dreadful words of “Listen! I am standing at the door and knocking,” combined with “If anyone hears My voice,” which may be difficult over the din and commotion of the convivium which probably has a place in their table fellowship, as we have surmised was the case in Corinth, “I will come into his home and share a meal with him, and he with Me,” would be quite telling.  This is where they are failing.  Like a number of other churches, their meal table is corrupted.  For a variety of reason, it is not a representation of the kingdom of God; rather, it is a representation of the world, its power, and its order.  The church’s meal table is designed to teach its participants how to live as the kingdom of God, while showing a watching world what the kingdom of the sovereign and Creator God looks like in action.  It must look different, and it must be part of a process that produces people that look different, as they willingly enter into suffering and shame as need be, in following the ideal of the cross.  This is learned by conscientiously seeking and taking the lowest place amongst those that comprise the people of God, so that such behavior becomes, as previously mentioned, the virtuous practice of those same people when they regularly and constantly encounter those that stand outside of that kingdom, in an exile from what God intends for the creation that is made in His image, and in need of being exodus-ed into the world of resurrection and new creation that is being modeled out by the confessors of Jesus’ Lordship and God’s kingdom.   

As appears to have been the case in Corinth, and probably in the church addressed by James, an unfortunate stratification has taken place in the Laodicean church.  In Corinth, the stratification, and its subsequent ordering of the church based on principles of honor and shame, appeared to be connected to “spiritual gifts.”  For the situation addressed by James, wealth seems to be a factor.  Without again going into the rest of the churches addressed in the New Testament, what we can see here in Laodicea, is that wealth is again the issue.  Clearly, it is behavior that is destructive and damaging to the kingdom and to the church’s witness of its Lord.  Consequently and understandably, it is looked upon as being abhorrent, and the most stern and damning words that are delivered to any of the seven churches of Revelation are directed to the church that is corrupting the meal table.  While other churches receive their criticisms, Laodicea seems to be in a unique position amongst the churches here addressed, and this appears to be the case because it is the church that, because of their corruption of the meal table, stands in the position that most flatly contradicts the ethos of the Gospel as presented by what is a focal point of Jesus’ ministry---the meal table. 

Their contravention of the demands of the Christian meal table (the Lord’s Supper in its fullest, messianic-banquet-themed sense), puts the Laodicean church in the most negative light of any of the other churches to which Jesus speaks in Revelation.  The others have their problems, no doubt, but it is Laodicea (lukewarm) that stands the most condemned and most in need of repentance, while also being instructed to consider the ready-at-hand examples of the meal tables of the churches at Hierapolis (hot) and Colossae (cold), who are apparently, owing to the fact that Jesus wishes that the church at Laodicea would be more like them, are getting the meal table right.  It is quite right that this particular letter has received so much attention, even though much of that attention has been lavished in ways that made no attempt at understanding the message of the letter in its proper context, as it is the one church that receives its rebuke in relation to that which so heavily defines the church, which is its table practice.  

There is social commentary taking place here, and in each case, it is directed first (and only?) to the churches.  This makes sense in light of the fact that Jesus is concerned with the advent of the kingdom of God.  Because His churches are the emissaries of that kingdom, they are charged to learn from Him the ways that they are be its representatives.  That way, of course, is love; and that love is properly learned at a properly modeled meal table.  The weight of the meal table, as a definer of life and relations in the world, simply cannot be over-stressed.  This extensive and necessary study concerning an oft-misunderstood letter from an oft-misunderstood and mis-represented book, while dispelling the popular mythology derived from this abused passage within this abused book, has been an effort to situate the meal table, and its indisputable importance, in its rightful place in the New Testament, while offering the requisite social applications that are demanded by our understanding of the social implications and applications (which gain their significance from the heavily Jewish theological, soteriological, Christological, and eschatological aspects of Jesus’ words and deeds)  of the record of Jesus’ ministry.  Theology, quite simply, must be done, it must be done constantly, and it must be converted to practice.  Jesus’ social commentary was thoroughly rooted in His theology, as the practice of that theology, so often seen at the meal table, was rooted in the His understanding of the kingdom of God.  That said, it is the cross that takes center-stage, especially in the world-shaping and ethic-forming area of meal practice. 

Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to filter all of our considerations as to what it means to live as denizens and citizens of God’s kingdom through the message of the cross, never forgetting the hope embodied by the Resurrection.  As Christians, we must keep the meal table and its importance, especially as we participate in communion, consistently in our minds as we attempt to engage this world that God so loves.  By embodying the cross and taking the lowest place, with that happening first and foremost as we gather together as church bodies and learn how to be the people of God for His world, we will avoid the judgment of being vomited out of God’s kingdom, and we will never hear Jesus telling us that He stands outside of our fellowship, as He is looked upon as unworthy as we jostle for positions of honor and trample upon the ones with whom Jesus identified through His ministry and when He went to the accursed cross.  He will, in contrast to what was told to the church at Laodicea, never have to stand and the door, begging to be present in our churches, and this will be redound to His glory.  How will Jesus be present?  He will be present when we are serving and suffering with the wretched, the pitiful, the poor, the blind, and the naked, for as we serve these, we serve Him.  May God give us ears to hear, always allowing us to hear what the Spirit says to the churches.    

Letter To Laodicea (part 119)

As it relates to those who are informed about their wretchedness, poverty, blindness, and lack of clothes, is this not the example of that early Christian hymn employed by Paul in the letter to the Philippians?  It is quite probable that the hymn would have been well known to the church at Laodicea, and it’s presentation of an exalted Jesus (in the form of God---the Jewish context providing the background for this, as the expected Messiah, and therefore Jesus, was thought to be the physical manifestation of Israel’s God) willfully emptying Himself to take on the form of a slave and going to the lowest of the world’s low places (the cross) before receiving His exaltation (His Resurrection and His rule).  If we rightly understand the use of “first as last” and “last as first” terminology within the world of Jesus and the early church, take into consideration how a banqueting table provided information about the community that participated at the banquet, and rightly apply the Jewish worldview that Jesus presented and by which the church developed, then we can see that mimicking this pattern is Jesus’ expectation. 

If Jesus, as the first, becomes last, ultimately becoming first again in relation to the kingdom of God, then so too should all that claim Him as Lord and thereby signal a participation in that kingdom, willfully become last, thereby becoming first (in a sense) because they represent the kingdom of the Creator God.  Though this will continue to have the appearance of being last to watching world, they also become first because of the kingdom that is not at work and because of the resurrection to come.  Here, in order to make a bit more sense of these thoughts, we can bring in a statement from the first chapter of Revelation, as the recipients of the writing are reminded that Jesus “has appointed us as a kingdom, as priests serving His God and Father” (1:6a).     

It is this issue of becoming last---a servant of all and a slave of all---that makes it so difficult for those who have wealth to enter into the kingdom of God, and it is this component of the Jesus tradition (probably being circulated in a standardized, written format at the time of the writing of the Revelation), that is providing context for Jesus’ chastisement of this church that is located in an extraordinarily wealthy city.  Based on what we know about Laodicea and its important position and its wealth, along with the words herein employed within a wider context of the church’s mission and the Jesus tradition, this is not a stretch in the least little bit.  Significantly, we’ve allowed ourselves to stay firmly rooted in the social context, hearing the words of the letter as would the recipients of other New Testament era letters---applying the words to the immediate situation within the church so as to grasp the immediate issues while extracting the wider truths and ethic therein revealed, doing so within the shared and developing Jesus tradition and church doctrine that were fundamentally shaped by Jewish expectations concerning the messianic banquet, the resurrection of the righteous dead, and the kingdom of God on earth.

Taking up the issue of imitating the practice of those that came before them, as did Israel when they entered in upon what was, for all practical purposes, their kingdom of God, and doing so within the context provided by the letter to Laodicea, leads us directly to the meal table.  The history of Israel presents a full engagement in the practices and customs of the previous occupants of their land.  Exile (vomiting out) was the result.  As we consider this, keeping the vomiting in mind along with its Levitical pretense, the context for the letter to Laodicea, together with the context of the honor and shame culture, and the context of the early church’s highly significant development of the Jesus-derived egalitarian meal table as fundamental for faith and practice, leads us by the hand to interpreting the crucial text in the blinding light of the messianic-banquet-infused ideals of the church’s meal table.   

It has been our position that, due to the centrality of the meal table as the tangible demonstration of the presence of the kingdom of God because of the importance of messianic banquet considerations along with the example of Jesus’ table fellowship, that important communications in relation to the faith and to their witness for that kingdom would have been heard at a table gathering.  Based on the record of the Gospels and the table-oriented language employed in the New Testament’s letters, this is not far-fetched in the least.  Therefore, this is the setting in which we presume the Laodiceans to have heard the letter addressed to them, and indeed, the setting from which they and the other churches would have heard the whole of the Revelation.  So we can only imagine the perking of the ears when Jesus chastises them in a way that has not really been heard in the previous six letters (though there are chastisements to be sure), and then goes on to say to a kingdom community that, like other churches, properly oriented themselves around the meal table as a primary confession of their adherence to the Gospel, “Listen!  I am standing at the door and knocking!  If anyone hears My voice and opens the door I will come into his home and share a meal with him, and he with Me” (3:20).  These words would be dreadful to hear, as the listeners would hear Jesus telling them that He is not presently a component of their table fellowship that is supposed to represent the messianic banquet.        

Letter To Laodicea (part 118)

So the vomiting takes on a duly important aspect in the letter to Laodicea.  It serves to inform this church that they are doing that which has been practiced by others before them.  By this, they are also informed, as we hearken back to that which we learned about the usage of “hot” and “cold” in the fifteenth verse of Revelation three (references to the cities of Hierapolis and Colossae, and by extension to the churches in those communities), that those church communities are performing in a way that is pleasing to Jesus.  By saying “I wish you were either cold or hot” (3:15b), the Laodicean church is being asked to emulate that which is taking place in the churches at Hierapolis and Colossae.  The use of “lukewarm” in the sixteenth verse, by way of reminder, is simply a roundabout way of identifying Laodicea.  Effectively, Jesus is telling them that their doing something the way that they are doing it, contrary to the ready examples that they have in two other nearby church communities, is unacceptable. 

Clearly, the church community at Laodicea believes themselves to be quite special.  It would appear that, in this case, there are some wealthy individuals in the church, which is not problematic in and of itself.  However, allowing cherished non-church-community ideals to infect the church and its fellowship is highly problematic.  The church, of course, while taking the full measure of its cultural context, attempts to shift their community’s culture in the direction of the cross, recognizing above all the sovereign claim of God’s kingdom and its consequent demand on those that confess allegiance to its King.  The church, which is identified within its community by its fellowship, is not to be overrun by a dominating social ethos in such a way that it begins to reflect society back on itself.  If the church is reflecting the values and ethics of the community in which it is to be found, then unless that community is one that is predominantly shaped by an abiding concern for the kingdom of God, then that church is going to be quite handicapped in its ability to reflect the glory of God into the world. 

The world, of course, is the new world that began taking shape at the Resurrection.  Just as a people of God was sent into a promised land to live in a certain way that God desired and to redeem that land as the firstfruits of a redeemed humanity and creation, so too are the people of God following the Resurrection, and in the transformative power of the Spirit and the Gospel confession, delivered into their promised land (now the entire creation), to live as their God desires, as the firstfruits of a redeemed humanity and a redeemed cosmos.  We see this concept at play with what comes next in the text, when Jesus, referencing His desire to vomit them out of His mouth because they are mimicking the inhabitants of the land, when they should be mimicking the churches of Hierapolis and Colossae.  When Jesus says, “Because you say, ‘I am rich and have acquired great wealth, and need nothing’” (3:17a), He lets them know that the grand claim and accompanying attitude of the city of Laodicea following the earthquake that leveled their city, that they needed no help or funds from Rome to rebuild, had infiltrated their church.  This is what lets us know that there were very likely some wealthy individuals to be found in the church (and perhaps they were preaching a very early version of the “prosperity gospel”?).  Again, this is not a problem unless the presence of the wealth leads to ungainly results, such as we can see in the letter of James, in which the wealthy are treated better simply within the church and afforded greater honor (in the honor and shame culture) simply because of the fact of their wealth. 

Lest they become too puffed up with their wealth, which would have been gained through their business of money exchange for the region (3:18a), their sale of high-end clothing made from the black wool for which Laodicea was famous (3:18b), or the sale of their eye salve (3:18c), Jesus lets them know that they are actually “wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked” (3:17b), and encourages them to “take My advice and buy gold from Me refined by fire so you can become rich!  Buy from Me white clothing so you can be clothes and your shameful nakedness will not be exposed, and buy eye salve to put on your eyes so you can see!” (3:18)  We must notice the use of “shameful.”  As we have learned, such language, given the cultural context, is quite specific and should not escape our attention. 

This is a bit of a double entendre, as it serves as both a rebuke against unwarranted puffery as it relates to what is of true value in the kingdom of God and amongst the people that represent that kingdom, while also reminding them that this is the attitude that those that have acquired wealth (regardless of the means by which it was acquired (whether that be skill, diligence, luck, inheritance, oppression, or fraud) should take when it comes to their position inside the church.  The wealthy, who are seated at the places of honor at the world’s banqueting tables, should be even more fervent in their efforts to take the lowest place (eschaton) when it comes to the gathering together of the church.  Yes, even making a strenuous and concerted effort to do so, while not trumpeting the fact that it is occurring.  Ultimately, the practice of serving in the church will spill over into their participation in the wider community (as should be the case for all, whether rich or poor), thus the gathering together as a church and exemplifying the power of the Gospel to turn the world upside down (the accusation leveled against the church community in Acts 17), allows the people of the kingdom of God to learn the way that God expects them to serve and prefer one another so that they may effectively represent His kingdom to a watching and waiting world, in an ongoing development of the virtue of serving and preferring, so that such things become a matter of habit.  

Letter To Laodicea (part 117)

As we assume the appropriate viewing posture for Revelation as a whole and for the letters in particular, what we find is that each church is being asked to respond to a present or looming situation, whether problematic or not.  This is obviously the case for each church, and naturally, it is no different for the church at Laodicea.  It was made clear near the beginning of our study that each church will be well aware of the situation that is being addressed in the letter that is addressed to them, and that they can take the steps to respond appropriately. 

The Ephesian church is going to know what is meant by their having fallen from their high state and the deeds that they used to do (2:5).  The Smyrnans are going to be acutely aware of that which is bringing suffering upon themselves, which may also include imprisonment (2:10).  The Pergamum church will know precisely what it means that some are following the teaching of Balaam, while some are following the teaching of the Nicolaitans (2:14-15).  The Thyatiran church does not have to guess at what is being communicated in regards to their toleration of Jezebel (2:20).  In Sardis, there will be no mystery surrounding their pretending to be alive when they are really dead, in connection with their incomplete works, along with their need to wake up and what it means that there are some who have not stained their clothes (3:1-4).  For the Philadelphians, there would have been no difficulty in deciphering talk about their deeds, doors, and an open door that no one can shut (3:7-8).  Lastly, and to the point that we have been making all along, the Laodiceans would have known exactly what is being implied by all of the language directed towards them. 

The language of cold, hot, lukewarm, vomit, rich, wealthy, in need of nothing, gold, clothing, eye salve, door knocking, and a meal would have been well understood.  A purely spiritual interpretation, though clearly an issue of the operation of the Spirit within this church body is being addressed, is unwarranted.  The specificity and direct applicability of the language indicates that they would not have been left to wonder what to do or how they were to respond.  We may wonder what it means and grasp at all types of straws as part of that wondering, but we do so only if we are too lazy to enter into the text and to hear the letter in the same way that an early church would have heard the letter, which would have been in the same way that other churches were asked to hear the letters of Paul.  As has been made as clear as it can possibly be, in the letters, specific churches with specific issues are addressed.  Sometimes they are praised, often they are rebuked, and the meal table is nearly universally a central concern.  To go along with that, hearing the letters in the same way that the churches would have heard the letters would not only include a presumption that there are concrete issues being addressed, but it would also include hearing the letter read during the church’s gathering, which would almost certainly include table fellowship.

Together with that, the history of Israel (reaching back to Adam), which would have been a major point of instruction for the Gentile churches (as apart from a knowledge of the story of Israel absolutely no sense can be made of Jesus, His suffering, or His Resurrection).  Also, it would be rather difficult for the participants in the church, as they considered themselves the renewed Israel, to correctly live out the responsibilities of being the people of the covenant, if they were not aware of what had befallen the covenant people that had come before them.  So that history, and the story of God’s movement through His specially chosen people to accomplish His covenant purposes, would be called to mind by the very powerful phrase used in the sixteenth verse of the third chapter, which was “I am going to vomit you out of My mouth!”  This was a highly charged statement that would most certainly call to mind a portion of the Levitical narrative. 

In the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, as “The Lord spoke to Moses” (18:1a), Israel is instructed that “You must not do as they do in the land of Egypt… and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan into which I am about to bring you; you must not walk in their statutes… So you must keep My statutes and My regulations; anyone who does so will live by keeping them” (18:3,5a).  We must observe the correlation between God bringing His people into their promised land (a microcosm of the kingdom of God on earth), and His bringing His people (such as the members of the church body at Laodicea), through their confession of Jesus as Lord, into the kingdom of God on earth (that encompasses the whole of the creation) that was inaugurated with the Resurrection of Jesus. 

What would happen if God’s people disregarded these words?  Picking up in the twenty-fourth verse of the same chapter, we read “Do not defile yourself with any of these things,” that being the customs of the peoples to whom you are supposed to demonstrate an entirely different way of being human as you represent your Creator, “for the nations which I am about to drive out before you have been defiled with all these things.  Therefore the land has become unclean and I have brought the punishment for its iniquity upon it, so that the land has vomited out its inhabitants” (18:24-25).  Vomited out?  Really?  So, doing that which runs against the witness and serves to defeat the purposes of the redeeming, Creator God would result in an occurrence of vomiting.  This would seem to connect the vomiting of Revelation with the long-running narrative of the people and purposes of God.  With that in our thoughts, as it would have been for an early church that was not so unfortunately disconnected from its Jewish roots, we go on to hear God say, “So do not make the land vomit you out because you defile it just as it has vomited out the nations that were before you” (18:28).            

Letter To Laodicea (part 116)

Our journey nearly complete, we finally circle back to the place from whence we began, and we are finally able to reach a satisfactory conclusion in regards to what it is that is being communicated to this church of Laodicea.  It is more than abundantly clear that we can in no way be satisfied with spiritual interpretations that forget that this was a real church full of real people, dealing with real issues that were of grave importance to the church in the decades following the life and ministry of Jesus.  Understanding this will also allow us to come to the conclusion that Revelation is not to be taken as a guidebook to events of the future, but as a writing of the apocalyptic genre that was designed to provide a critique to the present, which also provides it with its universal and unquestioned value to the people of God. 

It is as we understand the letters to the churches of Revelation as specifically applicable to those churches that we find those same letters, and Revelation as a whole, applicable to the church for all time, and highly useful when it comes to matters of faith and practice.  For too long, Revelation has been distorted and pulled out of shape through fantastic interpretations that look at it as prophecy of what is to come at some time in the distant future.  This has, to our detriment, diminished its value for the people of God.  It is as we put Revelation back in its right context, seeing it in a critique of the church and an unmasking of the nature of worldly power, that we find an eminently useful book that allows us to better serve our God and His kingdom-oriented purposes.  That effort might very well begin with a right understanding of the powerful communication to Laodicea.    

The language that is used, which we will again examine in light of all that has been put forward in the effort to create an appropriate context for interpretation, will allow us to cast off any notions that the churches of Revelation somehow represent seven “church ages.”  However, it is not the case that, simply because we are able to identify the issues at hand for the Laodicean church, that Jesus’ words to this church, as reported by the author, have no bearing on or relevance for the church today.  As we have seen, the issues that we see being dealt with in the New Testament letters, and which influenced the construction of the Gospels as they related the facts of the ministry of Jesus, once properly situated, can be seen as more than relevant for the church then, the church now, and indeed, the church for all time.  A greater purpose is served, in that the centrality of the meal table, which comes undeniably to the forefront of concern and practice for the Christian community, along with call to a sacrificial love in the midst of a world shaped by matters of honor and shame, serves to sweep away so much of the clutter of thoroughly subjective and anachronistic interpretations of the Gospel that are completely lacking in social, historical, political, geographical, and cultural context. 

Once we have taken the step of recognizing the preponderance of what can almost be taken as the controlling meal table motif in the New Testament letters, doing so in conjunction with the observation that the meal table takes up a significant amount of space in the multiple tellings of the story of Jesus that we see in the Gospel accounts, what seems difficult is simplified.  Indeed, it is the meal table, that which would eventually be transmitted in Christian tradition as the communion (though its fullness would be better comprehended if it was a banquet rather than simply the two elements), with its heavily and inescapably Jewish underpinnings of the messianic banquet, that also shows us so much of the foolish and strained interpretations that have been attached to Jesus’ words to the church at Laodicea. 

Never let us forget that the Christian meal table, in following the example of Jesus, was and is designed to be a witness that Jesus rules as Lord of all (the Gospel), that the kingdom of God is in existence (inaugurated with the Resurrection), that it is present in the here and now whenever two or three are gathered and confessing that Jesus is Lord (thus creating a Temple---the place where heaven and earth come together), that it is a kingdom established and marked and extended by willful and loving suffering and sacrifice (thus the natural references to the body and blood of Jesus and His crucifixion), and it is a kingdom to which all are ultimately accountable.  This is where the church at Laodicea was falling short.    

Letter To Laodicea (part 115)

As we traverse the pages of the New Testament, we make one final stop before returning to Revelation so as to round out our study.  To this end, we land in the first letter of John.  Once we began trekking through the New Testament letters, one things that has become glaringly obvious is the focus on community first and the individual second.  Though we understand that a community is comprised of individuals, when it comes to the kingdom of God, the individual first operates in accord with the community.  It is this communal involvement, which consists in the subsuming of individual desires and pursuits (primarily in relation to gaining honor and avoiding shame), that then translates into individual service.  This individual service, in an aspiration towards holiness (a concept which cannot be removed from the concept of sacrifice, especially self-sacrifice), is only valid as it relates to God’s end of the establishment of His kingdom on earth, and if it is performed with an eye towards the service of the community.  As soon as one’s service becomes something performed with an eye towards a personal salvation that is connected with attaining heaven as the perceived final goal of the Christian, which this service regularly taking the form of abstention from sin (as defined by oneself or a spiritual authority figure), then service quickly converts from self-sacrifice to self-idolatry.  Thus, the covenant end of reflecting the glory of God into the world in representation of what it means to be truly human, as God intended when He created a being in His image, is left unaccomplished---usurped by mis-directed worship. 

This notion of individual concerns being subsumed to the concerns of the community is part and parcel of recognizing that the kingdom of heaven is meant to come to earth.  Additionally, it is a component of the resurrection of the body being a point of focus for the people of God.  If we are to take seriously the idea that Jesus was physically resurrected into this world, and that we are ultimately to be resurrected as He was, into this world, then concerns for this world as the place in which God will eventually consummate His kingdom will play an increasingly important role in the life that is lived as a continual confession of the Lordship of Jesus and the fact of His reign.  Consequently, the cultivation of an isolated, personal holiness with thoughts of the kingdom of heaven as removed and distant from this world, falls off the page. 

Ironically though, and as a testament to the transformative power of the Gospel message, the more a person lives and serves with thoughts of the community and the presence and coming of the kingdom of heaven at the forefront of every day concern, the more “holy” and “sanctified” that person will become.  Without a personal striving, a personal transformation is undergone, as the person that demonstrates a constant communal concern, in the mode of our Lord, is continuously and steadily transformed into the image and likeness of Christ.  All of this, which also reinforces the oft-stated importance of the meal table of the earliest Christians (in imitation of Jesus) as they sought to embody the kingdom through their messianic banquet, allowing themselves to be a transformed and witnessing community before they presented themselves as transformed and witnessing individuals, is said as an introduction to what appears to be an affirmation of this idea in the fourth chapter of first John. 

This notion of community taking precedence over individual, as we contemplate the importance of the people of God (emphasis on people---God directed Adam and Noah to multiply, Abraham received the promise that he would be a nation, God made a covenant with Israel), appears to ring true when we read “Dear friends, if God so loved us, then we also ought to love one another” (4:11).  Here, we notice the emphasis on the community of believers with the use of “us,” and we cannot help but consider the mutual love that was encouraged at the meal table when we hear about the love for one another, with this said within a culture that meted out love in a highly discriminatory fashion based on honor and shame, patronage and benefaction, and patriarchal constructs.  In contrast to this, the Christian is called to love in a radical way, with none of these considerations in play. 

The author goes on to write “No one has seen God at any time.  If we love one another, God resides in us, and His love is perfected in us” (4:12).  In that time, there would be no better and no more radical and visible way to express the love of God than the egalitarian meal table of the church.  Continuing with communal emphasis then, we hear “By this we know that we reside in God and He in us: in that He has given us of His Spirit” (4:13).  Having presented this community oriented dissertation about the evidence of the love of God and of the presence of His Spirit, the author then goes on to discuss the individual, writing “If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides in him and he in God.  And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has in us.  God is love, and the one who resides in love resides in God, and God resides in Him” (4:15-16).  Still, the use of love, contexted by the need to “love one another,” informs us that individualistic concerns are connected with the community, as we have recently made clear. 

Going further, we find words that are evocative of both Paul and Peter’s use of words regarding judgment that are connected with the proper approach to the meal table of the church communities as they sought to adequately represent the Jesus-inspired ideal of the messianic banquet that signaled that God’s rule had begun in the Resurrection of Jesus, as we read “By this love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, because just as Jesus (doing and teaching, crucified and resurrected---crucially important points), so also are we in this world” (4:17).  We notice, as outlined above, the quick shift back to the concern for the community as the author continues on to write “There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment” (4:18a).  Indeed, if the community demonstrated the love for one another in their table fellowship that is demanded by the witness and the Gospel message of Jesus, they would have no fear of God’s judgment falling upon them.  To that point, “The one who fears punishment has not been perfected in love” (4:18b), in that they have not yet properly approached the meal table in the spirit of humility and service, seeking first the kingdom of God (His rule on earth) as opposed to personal concerns of honor and shame.    

Letter To Laodicea (part 114)

Though it is offered in a context of suffering on behalf of Christ, and doing so because of a life lived in declaration of a different and superior king while also living as a model citizen that assists human authorities in rightly fulfilling their God-given and clearly defined roles, it is possible to hear echoes of the concern for Christian table fellowship and the Lord’s Supper when we hear “For it is time for judgment to begin, starting with the house of God” (4:17a).  To that Peter adds “And if it starts with us, what will be the fate of those who are disobedient to the Gospel of God?” (4:17b) 

Because Peter returns to the theme of suffering, with the suffering not that of a withdrawn and self-denying asceticism (though there is nothing wrong with self-denial as long as it is ultimately others-focused)  but of suffering at the hands of one’s fellow man, when he writes “So then let those who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to a faithful Creator as they do good” (4:19), we may be thought to be attempting to press the matter too far.  However, since it is apparent that the meal table, and the understanding of the nature of the kingdom life received at and through the fellowship of that table (which is what will produce the suffering in spite of the doing of good works for the community), we are not completely off the mark in making such a connection. 

Since we are relatively confident that Peter has the meal table in mind (hospitality, speaking, service, stewardship), it is possible to again make a comparison to the Lord’s Supper (messianic banquet) dissertation offered by the Apostle Paul.  In this context, which includes obvious talk of the need for humility in light of spiritual gifts, talk of judgment beginning with the house of God stirs us to consider “For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself” (1 Corinthians 11:29).  Words such as “And if it starts with us, what will be the fate of those who are disobedient to the Gospel of God,” which is the Lordship of Christ, seems to lead us to words such as “That is why many of you are weak and sick, and quite a few are dead.  But if we examined ourselves,” meaning, if we took into consideration the body of the church as a unified body, considering others as more important than ourselves and being sure that needs are met (without concern for honor or position or anything else) so that members of the body do not become weak or sick, “we would not be judged” (11:30-31).  This seems to fit quite nicely with the judgments of conquering and exile at the hands of both Assyria and Babylon that fell upon ancient Israel (along with the ongoing subjugation by Persia, Greece, and Rome), which, if we read both the histories and prophets carefully, partially came because of the failure to care for the least in their communities.  Naturally, this was connected with their idolatrous worship of the gods of the surrounding nations, as it was only the Creator God of Israel that instructed His people to care for the orphans and widows as part of their covenant and their worship.  Naturally, both Peter and Paul are writing with the history of Israel and God’s dealings with Israel in mind.

Returning to the notion of right speaking and right service, in accord with a Spirit-led, cross-induced, and Gospel oriented humility that Peter introduced earlier in the fourth chapter, which reminds us that the first shall be last and the last shall be first, Peter, like Paul, brings up the subject of church order.  He writes, “I urge the elders among you; Give a shepherd’s care to God’s flock among you” (5:1b-2a).  This does not mean that the elders are to view themselves as lordly shepherds while the congregation is to be viewed as mindless sheep, as Peter goes on to write about “exercising oversight not merely as a duty but willingly under God’s direction, not for shameful profit but eagerly” (5:2b-3).  Remembering that we are at the meal table, and that the church is defined by what goes on at the meal table based on the conception of the messianic banquet and the example of Jesus, we hear Peter say “And do not lord it over those entrusted to you, but be examples to the flock” (5:3). 

Not only is the example here mentioned that of self-sacrificial service and the taking of the lowest place, but this is also a reflection of the then oral Jesus tradition that we find in the twentieth chapter of Matthew.  There, after the “mother of the sons of Zebedee” (20:20a), in reference to the messianic banquet and in the context of the protoklisian and the chief seats to the left and to the right of the seat of honor, asked Jesus to “Permit these two sons of mine to sit, one at Your right hand and one at Your left in Your kingdom” (20:21b), Jesus ultimately responds by saying “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions use their authority over them.  It must not be this way among you!  Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave---just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve” (20:25b-28a).  Jesus, of course, would model this out, as recorded in the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of John.  Do we not hear the echo of this encounter and these words in what comes from Peter?