Jesus further demonstrates his deviance
to the prevailing status quo and the conventional norms of the Judaic culture
through the company he kept in several instances. His deviance is present in
the narratives of the Gospels through the questioning of the Pharisees about
his practice of table fellowship. Jesus’ table fellowship is explicitly
narrated in the Gospel of Luke[1] and implicitly narrated in
the Gospels of Mark[2]
and Matthew.[3]
The explicit narration in the Gospel of Luke will be addressed later.
Luke 5:27-32
frames the narration of the calling of a tax collector named Levi. As a tax
collector Levi is viewed as a person excluded from normal religious activities.[4]
Levi would have been viewed with suspicion due to his occupation and his
association with the Romans or Herod. Jesus’ deviance is initially illustrated
in the calling of Levi to discipleship. The image of calling a tax collector
into discipleship creates a paradoxical issue for the Pharisees. What is the
nature of the kingdom Jesus is proclaiming where “sinners” and “tax collectors”
are invited to partake? It appears by means of the text that no self-respecting
rabbi would agree with such a practice, calling an unscrupulous tax collector
as a disciple, and then to engaging in table fellowship with Levi and his
friends.[5]
Keener writes, “The Pharisee (and the teachers belonging to their party) were
scrupulous about their special rules on eating and did not like to eat with less
scrupulous people, especially people like a tax gatherer and sinners.”[6] Jesus’ practice and
strategy of calling the unscrupulous is deviant in nature as witness by the
Pharisees reaction to Levi’s inclusion.
The reaction of the Pharisees to
Jesus’ deviance is due to accepted rules surrounding the traditions of table
fellowship in the ancient world. Luke Timothy Johnson notes “. . . that table
fellowship, like hospitality, symbolizes spiritual unity (cf. 2 John 11).”[7]
Jesus’ action creates a paradoxical situation that is irreconcilable in Judaic
theology of the kingdom. Table fellowship was perceived in view of the kingdom
and those who would possess it. Craig Blomberg notes that “. . . the Talmud
declares that the pure-minded in Jerusalem would not sit for a meal unless they
knew who their table companions would be.”[8]
The issue of Jewish piety, purity and kingdom are directly challenged by Jesus’
strategy and practice. Therefore, Jesus’ action is viewed as deviant by the
prevailing religious and cultural leaders. Blomberg, concerning this deviant
practice of Jesus, concludes,
In banqueting
with Levi, Jesus has shown himself unwilling to follow his culture’s traditions
about associating with the ritually impure and the morally wicked. But Jesus
does not simply transgress boundaries; he clearly calls Levi and his associates
to follow him in discipleship.[9]
The practice and strategy of the inclusion of those who are
marginalized is central to the message of the Gospel of Luke. Jesus is not only
preaching, but is demonstrating his radical inclusiveness of the Gospel in and
through table fellowship. This inclusive message, of those who did not practice
the normative Judaic traditions, was not popular amid the prevailing religious
elite. The view from within the Judaic religious culture perceives Jesus as a
deviant. The 21st century perspective is that Jesus is making a
divine correction, but the concern of this blog is the perspective from within
the culture of 1st century Judaism. Through the story of Levi’s
calling to discipleship and enjoining in table fellowship with Jesus, Jesus is
presented by the writer of the Gospel of Luke as a religious and cultural
deviant.
In another event recorded in the Gospel of Mark
14:1-9, the host of the dinner party given in the honor of Jesus’ is referred
to as Simon the leper. The Gospels of Mark and Matthew both give this
designation of leper to the host.[10]
This designation is troubling, especially for those who follow the purity laws,
because requirements for lepers were strictly observed,
In Christ’s day no leper
could live in a walled town, though he might in an open village. But wherever
he was he was required to have his outer garment rent as a sign of deep grief,
to go bareheaded, and to cover his beard with his mantle, as if in lamentation
at his own virtual death. He had further to warn passers-by to keep away from
him, by calling out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!,’ nor could he speak to any one, or
receive or return a salutation, since in the East this involves an embrace.[11]
The constraints placed upon lepers would have prevented
participation in a social gathering with those not afflicted with the disease
thereby maintaining the division between the pure and impure people.[12]
There are questions that surround Simon and his designation as “the leper.” Some
scholars speculate that the host, Simon the leper, was a person whom Jesus may
have previously healed of leprosy. There is no evidence presented in the
references or the Gospels to confirm that Simon was one of the lepers Jesus healed.
John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington, New Testament scholars, affirm, “In
the pre-Marken tradition it was most likely assumed that this ‘Simon’ had been
healed of his leprosy.”[13]
They conclude that Simon was possibly a leper recorded in an earlier encounter,
“Mark may have added this designation to recall the earlier meeting of Jesus
and the leper in Galilee.”[14]
Craig S. Keener writes concerning Simon the leper, “If Simon had
been a ‘leper,’ he was certainly not one by this point; no one would have
joined him for dinner if he had been. Jesus may have healed him.”[15]
The title elicits a cultural stigma and marginalization of the person of Simon.
The title of leper itself evokes a
certain perspective concerning Jesus’ host and reflects directly upon the
dining habits of Jesus as presented by the Gospel writers. This scriptural
reference, along with its parallel in Matthew, confirms the motif of Jesus
dining with marginalized people. Simon may have previously been a leper. This
previous condition may have engendered a lasting stigma and marginalization of
Simon in his greater community. But Jesus’ presence demonstrates his acceptance
of those whom society would seek to marginalize. Jesus’ associations with those
labeled with marginalized terms is evidence of his continued practices and
strategies of deviance to the cultural norms. Whether or not Simon was
previously a leper, Jesus’ presence indicates he understood Simon’s designation
and engaged in table fellowship with him thereby extending acceptance of Simon.
In summary Jesus positions himself as deviating from the Judaic cultural norms
accepting table fellowship with marginalized people.
[1] Johnson and Harrington, The
Gospel of Luke.Johnson
and Harrington, The Gospel of Luke.
[2] John
R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (Liturgical
Press, 2002).
[3] Daniel
J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Liturgical Press, 1991).
[4] Johnson
and Harrington, The Gospel of Luke, 99.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Craig
S. Keener and InterVarsity Press, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New
Testament (InterVarsity Press, 1993), Luke 5:30.
[7] Johnson and Harrington, The Gospel
of Luke, Luke 5:27–39.
[8] Craig
Blomberg, Contagious Holiness: Jesus’ Meals With Sinners (Leicester England; Downers Grove Ill.: Apollos; InterVarsity Press, 2005), 95.
[9] Ibid., 126.
[10]
Matthew 26:6-13.
[11] M.G. Easton, Easton's
Bible Dictionary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996),
Leprosy.
[12]
Leviticus 13:14; Numbers 5:1-4; 12:10-15
[13] Donahue and Harrington, The Gospel
of Mark, Mark 14:1–9.
[14] Donahue
and Harrington, The Gospel of Mark.
[15] Keener, Mk 14:3.
No comments:
Post a Comment