台灣神學論刊

2012ๅนด

Taiwan Journal of Theology

No. 35

台灣神學論刊

Taiwan Journal of Theology 發行人 陳尚仁博士

主編 曾宗盛博士

執行編輯 徐萬麟博士

編輯委員 蔡慈倫博士 蔡約拿博士 陳淑芬博士 賴信道博士

宗旨 促進神學研究

聲明 專文作者之見解未必代表本院的神學立場

出版者 台灣神學院 11149 台北市士林區仰德大道二段二巷二十號 (02) 28822370

印刷公司 正恒有限公司 (02)22450345

台灣一期台幣 300 元／兩期 600 元 ( 含郵資 ) 國外航空一期美金 20 元／海運一期美金 15 元 國家圖書館出版品預行編目資料 台灣神學論刊 =Taiwan Journal of Theology -No.1 ( 民 68，3 月 ) 台北 : 台灣神學院， 民 68- 期 1. 神學 - 期刊 2. 基督教 - 期刊 242

Taiwan Journal of Theology Publisher

Shang-jen Chen, Ph.D.

Editor

Tsong-sheng Tsan, Dr. theol.

Associate Editor Wan-lin Hsu, Ph.D.

Editorial Board

Tzu-lun Tsai, Ph.D. Jonathan A. Seitz, Ph.D. Viola Shu-fen Chen, D.M.A. Stephen Lakkis, Dr. des. theol.

Purpose

Promoting Theological Scholarship

Statement

The articles in this journal are the opinions of the respective authors and do not necessarily represent the theological position of the Seminary.

Sponsor

Taiwan Theological College & Seminary Address: 20, Lane 2, Sec. 2, Yangde Blvd., Shilin, Taipei, Taiwan 11149 Tel: (02) 2882-2370

each copy US$20.00 by air mail; US$15.00 by sea mail

國家圖書館出版品預行編目資料 台灣神學論刊 =Taiwan Journal of Theology. -No.1 ( Mar.1979 ) Taipei : Taiwan Theological College and Seminary, 1979- .v.; 24cm.

Chinese and English 1. Theology-Periodical. Theology-Taiwan-Periodicals.

BR118.T35 230.05-dc19

台灣神學論刊

Taiwan Journal of Theology 二〇一二年 第三十五期

No. 35, 2012

目錄 Contents 編者的話 Editorial ／曾宗盛 Tsong-sheng Tsan

i

論文 Articles Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I: Jesus as Guest of Tax Collectors and Pharisees 同桌團契與路加福音中的基督論（上）： 耶穌作為稅吏和法利賽人的賓客 ／ Michaelis C. Dippenaar 鄧開福

1

The Ransom of the Martyrs: The Atonement Theology of 4 Maccabees 6:27–29 and 17:21–22 殉道者的贖價：瑪喀比四書 6:27–29 與 17:21–22 的贖罪神學 ／ Ming-wei Tsai 蔡銘偉

45

羅馬書中保羅的敵對者和情況 The Opponents and Oppositions to Paul in Romans ／邱啟榮 Chi-jung Chiu

65

保羅的外邦宣教所造成的猶太人身分危機 Jewish Identity Crisis Posed by Paul’s Gentile Mission ／林榮華 Rong-hua (Jefferson) Lin

91

從祁克果的「同時性」、「瞬間」概念論詮釋與神學 The Concepts of Simultaneity and Moment in Kierkegaard and Their Relationship to Hermeneutics and Theology ／李麗娟 Li-chuan (Christine) Lee

113

卡爾 • 巴特論揀選 Karl Barth on Election 137

／陸紅堅 Hongjian Lu

書評 Reviews 卡維里。《教會論：全球導論》。 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, An introduction to Ecclesialogy: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives. ／莊信德 Hsin-te Chuang

159

賴建國。《五經導論》。 ／徐萬麟 Wan-lin Hsu

161

邀稿啟事 Call for Submissions

165

撰稿體例 Footnote Format

168

編者的話

編者的話 本期《台灣神學論刊》收錄六篇論文和兩篇書評，其中有三篇 為新約相關主題，一篇為次經神學主題，另兩篇為基督教神學相關 的論文。 第一篇是鄧開福教授的〈同桌團契與路加福音中的基督論 （上）：耶穌作為稅吏和法利賽人的賓客〉。路加福音的基督論描 述耶穌代表上帝進入人間，而人類需做好預備，歡迎接納他或拒絕 他，最明顯的例子表現在耶穌做為餐桌上的客人。耶穌幾次受到不 同階層人物的邀請，進入主人家中成為客人，與人同桌共餐。餐桌 是共餐與對話的場合，許多事就在這場合中發生。有時耶穌這位客 人呼召人悔改，尋找失喪的人；有時他傳達赦免和給予醫治；有時 他表達譴責，給在場的人帶來困擾。不論如何，耶穌的出現讓餐 桌的主人和在場客人不再一樣。透過這樣共餐的場合他向人啟示 上帝的恩典，期待人做出回應，改變舊有的行為模式。鄧教授特 別分析幾處經文來說明，耶穌在稅吏家作客（利未，路 5:27–32； 撒該，路 19:1–10），也在法利賽人家作客（西門，路 7:36–50; 11:37–54; 14:1–24），歡樂和緊張氣氛交織，而在場的主人與客 人對耶穌各有不同的反應，顯示這位客人的臨在帶來的既是恩典也 是挑戰。 第二篇為蔡銘偉博士之〈殉道者的贖價：瑪喀比四書 6:27–29 與 17:21–22 的贖罪神學〉。本論文分析瑪喀比四書 6:27–29 與 17:21–22 中的思想，探討殉道者的死如何被瞭解為贖罪的神學。 6:27–29 敘述年老的猶太祭司以利亞撒在敘利亞王的酷刑之下仍然 堅守信仰，甚至臨死前他向上帝禱告，願以自己的血潔淨猶太同 胞，並以自己的生命作為他們的贖價。其次，17:21–22 敘述一位 猶太母親親眼看見自己的七個兒子，為了堅守信仰的緣故相繼殉

No. 35 2012 i

Taiwan Journal of Theology

道，她自己也不離棄信仰。在臨死前，這位母親相信自己的死將成 為贖罪，除去猶太民族的罪過。蔡博士認為，瑪喀比四書的作者透 過死亡與流血的意象，強調殉道者對上帝忠心至死的精神。這種完 全順服上帝的精神成為一種有效的獻祭，上帝接納為贖罪功能，並 且拯救他的百姓。這正是贖罪神學的核心思想，影響後續的猶太教 與早期基督教思想。 第三篇是邱啟榮教授的〈羅馬書中保羅的敵對者和情況〉，本 文目的在探討羅馬書信中是否出現一些反對保羅的情況，或是保羅 的敵對者。首先，邱教授運用歷史批判、文本中心與修辭批判法探 討羅馬書寫作的目的。接著，他以修辭批判和寫信學的方法，分析 羅馬書的信首（1:9–13）與信尾（15:22–29），探討經文內是否 隱含反對保羅的不同因素。經過經文分析之後，邱教授得到以下的 結論：羅馬書雖然暗示羅馬教會對保羅個人的立場和主張可能存在 某些疑慮與張力，然而這卷書的核心並非處理保羅個人與教會某些 人之間的敵對關係，因此無法有充分的證據證實保羅有明確的敵對 者。 第四篇是林榮華博士的〈保羅的外邦宣教所造成的猶太人身分 危機〉，本文探討散居外邦的猶太人反對保羅的宣教及其信息，其 原因來自保羅在外邦宣教的成功，造成當地猶太人的身分危機感。 首先，作者以「先是猶太人、後是希利尼人」（羅 1:16; 2:9–10） 為架構，說明猶太人由被揀選意識與一神論而產生特殊的身分認 同，生活在外邦世界的散居猶太人對於非猶太的歸信者採取有條件 的接納。其次，在保羅歸信基督之後，努力說服散居的猶太人相信 基督是猶太人與外邦人的拯救，並以亞伯拉罕為猶太教與基督教 的共同的典範。保羅的宣教成功引起猶太人的不安與反對。代表 性例子出現在使徒行傳中，分別於哥林多（18:12–17）和以弗所 （19:23–41）兩地發生衝突的事件，直接或間接說明猶太人與保羅

ii 二〇一二年 第三十五期

編者的話

之間的張力。進一步而言，猶太人強調遵行律法，以此為身份認同 的標誌，免於遭受外族的同化。由於猶太社群感受到身分遭受侵蝕 的危機感，因此強烈反對保羅的宣教與其信息。 第五篇為李麗娟博士的〈祁克果的「同時性」、「瞬間」概念 論詮釋與神學〉，本文探討祁克果論述「同時性」的概念。李博士 認為，祁克果以存在詮釋學的觀點闡述同時性的概念，並且連結於 基督論的相關論述。不同於他時代新興的歷史批判法，祁克果承續 萊幸（G. E. Lessing, 1729–1781）的觀點，聖經的真理與權威並 非歷史批判法可以賦予或剝奪，而在於歷世代的教會和信徒相信其 真理與流傳其權威。祁克果進一步主張，藉由相信才能認識真理。 然而，認識上帝真理的能力，不在人身上，而是在上帝那裏。唯有 藉由上帝賞賜給人的信心，上帝和人之間存在的鴻溝才能跨越。上 帝成為人即是道成肉身，永恆進入時間。在時間中與永恆交會，這 是個悖論。而祁克果強調，「時候滿足」（加 4:4）就是基督信仰 的「瞬間」。當人抉擇相信時，在這瞬間，基督道成肉身帶給人生 命與完全。不論是與耶穌同時代的門徒，或是後來的世代，透過上 帝賞賜的信，相信的人成為與耶穌真正同時的人。相信的人在每一 個瞬間獲得他與基督的同時性，成為真實生存的生命，經驗到從永 恆而來的實在。基督信仰是「那絕對的」，證實上帝的主權與愛。 任何時代的人在每一個「現在」—與基督的同時性，透過時時不斷 地抉擇相信和這絕對者連結關係。在闡述祁克果的觀念之後，李博 士結語認為，祁克果如此的思想對神學教育有重要的啟發。 第六篇是陸紅堅博士的〈卡爾．巴特論揀選〉。陸博士從巴特 《教會教義學》第二卷第二冊入手，闡述巴特的揀選論，並且指出 它是一個以基督論為詮釋進路的揀選論。耶穌基督同時作為揀選的 上帝、被揀選的人，以及被棄絕的人。這個揀選論構成巴特的上帝 本體論的主要內容。巴特如此的論述對傳統神學研究是一個革新與

No. 35 2012 iii

貢獻，他闡述預定和揀選的教義更加強調聖經中立約的上帝，突顯 出恩典的上帝，並且指明這位上帝揀選自身和人進入立約的關係。 巴特的揀選論一方面持守改革宗神學「惟獨恩典」與「惟獨基督」 的精神，另一方面繼承加爾文高舉上帝的恩典和主權，同時也修正 了加爾文主義的抽象思辨，強調揀選是真正的福音，對後續的神學 研究有深遠的影響。巴特在揀選論教義上的偉大貢獻，值得華人教 會的正視與探討。 在上述六篇論文以外，本期論刊還收錄兩篇書評。一篇是莊信 德博士評介卡維里（V.-M. Kärkkäinen）的《教會論：全球導論》 （2010）中譯本，另一篇是徐萬麟教授評介賴建國的《五經導論》 （2011），向讀者引介近期教會論與舊約聖經學的著作，值得參考。 此外，本論刊在論文匿名審查的過程中，得到各領域先進學者的熱 心參與及給予寶貴的建議，在此致上深深謝意。還有，本期論刊得 以如期出版，要特別感謝徐萬麟教授擔任重要的執行編輯事務，以 及周秀雲女士負責細心的文字編輯工作。期盼讀者們能從閱讀《台 灣神學論刊》的內容中得到一些啟發與樂趣，繼續在聖經與神學的 研究上一起前進，並且歡迎各界先進提出批評與指教，讓本論刊可 以呈現更豐富與充實內容給讀者們。

曾宗盛

謹致

論文 Articles

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I: Jesus as Guest of Tax Collectors and Pharisees

同桌團契與路加福音中 的基督論（上）： 耶穌作為稅吏和法利賽人的賓客

Michaelis C. Dippenaar 鄧開福 Th.D. Stellenbosch University; Associate Professor of New Testament, Taiwan Theological College and Seminary 南非斯坦陵布什大學神學博士 台灣神學院新約學副教授

E-mail: dippenaar@gmx.net

No. 35 2012 1

Taiwan Journal of Theology

摘要 本文所持的主張為路加呈現的敘事基督論－聚焦於把耶穌描繪為 一位客人、做為以色列唯一真神的特使，同時代表著天父來行動。 在路加福音，耶穌透過同桌團契來啟示他自己、他的使命和上帝 的恩典。因著耶穌，上帝拜訪祂的子民，不是審判而是帶來救贖。藉 由進入人們的房子與他們同坐用餐，耶穌使上帝恩典的同在具體化在 人們最平凡、日常的生活之中。在用餐時耶穌展現出幾種不同的角色： 儘管有時耶穌是以主人或僕人的角色出現，最典型的一種則是以客人 的角色出現。耶穌作稅吏和罪人的客人，透過與他們同桌團契呼召他 們悔改（5:32; 7:34; 15:1–2; 19:1–10）；他也成為法利賽人的客人，把 他們的宴會轉為教導上帝全然恩典的時機，鼓勵他們放棄敵對上帝終 末之筵席的公開邀請（路 7, 11, 14）。 路加的敘事基督論著重於耶穌與上帝之關係，和他在服事期間與 所遇到的人之關係。他把餐桌場景當成一種不張揚的方式，作為福音 敘事的地點來介紹有關基督論的詞語。福音書裡遍及耶穌以一位餐桌 的客人呈現，來傳達上帝臨在人們當中。他按自己的意思接受每個邀 請。他是一位難以取悅和帶來麻煩的客人：直言不諱的、引起混亂的、 違反常規的。他常在用餐時帶來意想不到的事：醫治、赦免和譴責。 他的拜訪使得主人或客人不再一如既往。 耶穌被描繪成一位神聖的客人、一位代表上帝的拜訪者，並且透 過他的臨在與人們一起在他們的房子裡施行拯救。上帝的恩典和救贖 透過與耶穌的一頓飯來傳達、上演和歡慶。藉著接納耶穌為客人時， 一個人等同被帶領進入上帝的熱情款待裡面。像那些沒有認出「眷顧 你的時候」（19:44），那些不接受耶穌為客人及抱怨客人名單的人， 等同把他們自己從耶穌在上帝國的筵席裡排除在外。 根據路加福音記載，當耶穌在餐桌加入我們時，他給予我們一個 救贖的具體經驗的機會。因為死裡復活後的耶穌繼續與他的跟隨者同 桌團契－作為他們用餐時看不見的客人，他繼續透過此種方式臨在我

2 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

們當中引介救贖。

關鍵詞：同桌團契、敘事基督論、客人、餐桌場景、熱情款待

No. 35 2012 3

Taiwan Journal of Theology

Abstract It is the contention of this article that Luke presents us with a narrative Christology focusing on the depiction of Jesus as guest, as envoy of the one and only God of Israel, acting in place of and for his Father.

In the Gospel of Luke, it is through table fellowship that Jesus reveals himself, his mission and the grace of God. In Jesus, God visits his people, not in judgement, but bringing salvation. By entering people’s houses and sitting down to eat with them, Jesus concretizes the gracious presence of God in the most mundane, daily existence of people. At table Jesus performs different roles: though he sometimes appears as host or as servant, he is most typically presented as guest at meals. Jesus acts as the guest of tax collectors and sinners, calling them to repentance through his table fellowship with them (5:32; 7:34; 15:1–2; 19:1–10). He also becomes the guest of Pharisees, turning their symposia into occasions for teaching the all-inclusive grace of God, encouraging them to give up their opposition to God’s open invitation to the eschatological banquet (Lk 7, 11, 14).

Luke’s narrative Christology focuses on Jesus in relationship with God and with the people he encounters during his ministry. He introduces Christological terms in an unobtrusive way in the context of the meal scenes in the Gospel narrative. Throughout the Gospel Jesus appears as the table guest who mediates the presence of God in the midst of people. He will accept any invitation, but he visits on his own terms.

He can be a difficult and inconvenient guest: outspoken, disruptive and transgressing conventions. He often brings the unexpected to the table: healing, forgiveness or condemnation. His visit does not leave the host or other guests unchanged!

4 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

Jesus is depicted as the divine guest, the visitor who represents God and saves through his presence with people in their houses. God’s grace and salvation is mediated, enacted and celebrated through a meal with Jesus. By accepting Jesus as guest, one is taken up into God’s hospitality.

Those who do not recognize the “time of your visitation” (19:44), those who do not receive Jesus as guest, and those who complain about the others on the guest list, exclude themselves from Jesus’ table in the Kingdom of God. According to Luke, when Jesus joins us at table he gives us the opportunity to concretely experience his salvation. Because the risen Jesus continues his table fellowship with his followers, as invisible guest at their meals, he continues to mediate salvation through his presence with us.

Keywords: table fellowship, narrative christology, guest, meal scenes, hospitality

No. 35 2012 5

Taiwan Journal of Theology

I﹒ Introduction The Christology of the Lukan works has long been a fruitful field of study.1 Since the 1970s, there has been a growing interest in literary approaches to interpreting the Gospels. This trend has also seen the rise of a new emphasis on the narrative nature of the Gospels: the Gospel of Luke offers in the first place a story about Jesus, not a systematic presentation of his person or work. The readers get to know Jesus along with the characters in the story, by observing his deeds, listening to his words, and evaluating the variety of reactions to him. The narrative approach has led to the discovery of previously neglected aspects of Luke’s depiction of Jesus. It opens the way for a new assessment of one of the puzzling aspects of Lukan Christology: that Jesus is understood as the Saviour not primarily in terms of his death on the cross (as in the Gospel of Mark and in Paul’s letters), but in terms of the sharing of his life, both during his time on earth and in his new position as resurrected Lord of the Church.2 Luke’s Gospel shows how Jesus shares his life with others in a very concrete way: by visiting people, entering their houses, sitting down to enjoy table fellowship with them as a guest at meals.3 1 For an overview of studies on Lukan Christology, see Francois Bovon, Luke the Theologian: Fifty Years of Research (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 123–223, 532–36.

2 See especially Robert Karris, Luke, Artist and Theologian: Luke’s Passion Account as Literature (New York: Paulist Press, 1985); Jerome Neyrey, The Passion according to Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke’s Soteriology (New York: Paulist Press, 1985); Gerhard Voss, Die Christologie der Lukanischen Schriften in Grundzügen, Studia Neotestamentica (Brügge: Desclée de Brouwer, 1965), already pointed out that Luke does not conceive the death of Jesus as a sacrifice, but rather as the death of the Righteous One for the sake of his followers.

In addition, the Christ who offers himself for his own is also a model for the life and faith of believers. According to Bovon, “the whole life of Jesus is a great movement, an ajnavlhmyi" that takes us up to Jerusalem, up to the cross, out of the tomb, and to the right hand of God” (op. cit. 222).

3 According to J. Bolyki, Jesu Tischgemeinschaften, WUNT 2, 96 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1998), a

6 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

It is the contention of this article that Luke presents us with a narrative Christology focusing on the depiction of Jesus as guest, as envoy of the one and only God of Israel, acting in place of and for his Father. We find the theme of Jesus as guest being acted out in a variety of situations (Jesus is welcomed4, he is invited5 or he invites himself6, or he is rejected7), with a variety of hosts (tax collectors8, Pharisees9, disciples and followers10), in a variety of roles (Jesus acting as guest11, servant 12or host 13), and in a variety of literary contexts (narrative, parable, controversy accounts). It is clear even after a superficial perusal of Luke’s account of Jesus that this is a major element in his understanding of who Jesus is and what he came to do. As Robert Karris has said (only slightly exaggerating): “In Luke’s Gospel Jesus is either going to a meal, at a meal, or coming from a meal.”14 Of course, fifth of the Gospel of Luke is occupied with the meals of Jesus or his parables about meals (1).

4 devcomai (Simon in the Temple, 2:28), ajpodevcomai (The crowds welcoming Jesus as he returns to Galilee, 8:40), uJpodevcomai (Martha and Zacchaeus welcoming Jesus into their homes, 10:38; 19:6).

5 kalevw (Simon the Pharisee, 7:39; a leader of the Pharisees, 14:8), ejrwtavw (Simon the Pharisee, 7:35; a Pharisee, 11:37).

6 Jesus invites himself to the house of Zacchaeus (19:5)!

7 A Samaritan village refused to receive Jesus (oujk ejdevxanto aujton, 9:53).

8 Levi, 5:27–32; Zacchaeus, 19:1–10.

9 Simon the Pharisee, 7:36–50; a Pharisee, 11:37–54; a leader of the Pharisees, 14:1–24.

10 Martha and Mary, 10:38–42; Passover meal with his disciples, 22:7–28; the disciples on the way to Emmaus, 24:28–32.

11 He is the honoured guest at meals with tax collectors, with Pharisees, with disciples; he visits private homes, the Temple and synagogues.

12 Jesus is among his disciples as one who serves (22:27). See also the parable of the master serving his servants (12:35–38).

13 Jesus breaks bread and gives it to his disciples at the miraculous feeding (9:10–17), at the Passover meal (22:14–20) and at Emmaus (24:30). In addition, there are several references, both direct and indirect, to Jesus’ future role as host of the Messianic banquet.

14 Robert Karris, Eating your Way through Luke’s Gospel (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2006), 97.

No. 35 2012 7

Taiwan Journal of Theology

Jesus’ role as “divine visitor” is not restricted to that of guest at a table – he is also depicted as visiting the Temple15 and the synagogues in his home town of Nazareth, in Capernaum and in two other undisclosed locations.16 In addition, the entire central section of the Gospel, the socalled Travel Narrative (9:51–19:44) is overshadowed by the repeated indications that Jesus is on his way to visit Jerusalem. 17 But Luke portrays Jesus as most typically visiting individuals in their homes18 as a guest at their table. Therefore this article will concentrate on the role of Jesus as guest at meals.19

II﹒ God visits his people Luke offers us a framework for understanding the theological meaning of Jesus’ many visits as guest in the Gospel of Luke by using the word pair ejpiskevptomai (to visit, care for, be concerned about) and

ejpiskophv (visitation) at strategic places in the Gospel and Acts (Lk

15 As a baby, welcomed by Simeon and Anna (2:25–38); as a child of twelve years old, listening to and questioning the teachers (2:41–51); as an adult, cleansing the Temple and thereafter using it as a place for teaching (19:45–48).

16 Nazareth (4:16–30), Capernaum (4:31–36), two Sabbath healings in a synagogue (6:6–11; 13:10–17).

17 See 9:51, 53; 13:22, 33; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28, 41.

18 The word pair [k/o"/oijkiva appears 94 times in Luke-Acts, making it one of Luke’s favourite words. In the cases where it refers to the house as a concrete building (home), 19 out of 22 references in the Gospel and 16 out of 21 in Acts appear in the context of the theme visit/ guest. In comparison, Mark offers only one example of the guest-in-a-home topic: the meal with Levi and his tax collector friends in Mk 2:15–17. For a thorough discussion of the house as Luke’s preferred locality for the theme of Jesus as guest/visitor, see Gerhard Hotze, Jesus als Gast. Studien zu einem Christologischen Leitmotiv im Lukasevangelium (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2007), 23–27.

19 A separate follow-up article will be dedicated to the transformation of his role as guest into that of servant and host at meals.

8 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

1:68, 78; 7:16; 19:44; Acts 15:14) to refer to God visiting his people.20 The concept of divine visitors appearing among human beings would be well-known among Luke’s Hellenistic readers, and Luke himself shows an awareness of this mythological background: in Acts 14:11–12 the Lycaonians mistake Barnabas and Paul for such divine visitors, shouting, “The gods have come down to us in human form,” and in Acts 28:3–7 the inhabitants of Malta consider Paul to be a god visiting them incognito. The Old Testament also knows the theme of the visit of a divine guest: three guests visit Abraham in Mamre (Gen 18:1–18), two angels visit Lot in Sodom (Gen 19:1–11), the angel of the Lord appears to Gideon (Jdg 6:11–24) and to Manoah (Jdg 13:1–25). More important for the Lukan concept is the use of ejpiskevptomai in the Septuagint, where it is used to translate the Hebrew root

dqp. There it depicts “the

action of God through which he intervenes in the life of an individual or a people, mostly his own people Israel, in anger or in grace, to reveal his will.”21 God’s visits can mean either punishment or salvation, it may herald the arrival of God’s judgement on his people or an individual, or bringing salvation or blessing to his people or an individual.22 In Luke’s use the meaning of the word ejpiskevptomai is restricted in two ways: the visit of God is now limited to bringing salvation, and it is the people as a whole who are the beneficiaries of God’s visit.23 On 20 The theological use of ejpiskevptomai (God as subject) is peculiar to Luke. The word never appears in Mark or John and only twice in Matthew (25:36, 43), where it is used to describe people visiting or not visiting those in prison.

21 H.W. Beyer, article ejpiskevptomai, ejpiskopevw, ejpiskophv ktl. in ThWNT II (1935): 595–619, esp. 597.

22 Examples of the punishment of the people: ejpiskevptwmai, LXX Ex 32:34; punishment of an individual (Shemaiah): ejpiskevywmai, LXX Jer 36:32 (MT Jer 29:32); salvation for the people: ejpevskeptai, LXX Ruth 1:6; blessing for an individual (Sara becomes pregnant):

ejpevskeyato, LXX Gen 21:1.

23 In Lk 1:48 where Mary, an individual, is the recipient of a gracious and electing visit, Luke uses the word ejpiblevpw in the same sense of “looking favourably upon, visiting to help.”

No. 35 2012 9

Taiwan Journal of Theology

the one hand the theological use of ejpiskevptomai fits Luke’s salvationhistorical agenda very well; on the other hand the concept of a “divine visit” or “divine care” gives clear expression to the heart of Jesus’ mission in the Third Gospel: he came to seek and to save the lost (Lk 19:10).

The aspect of personal visits and expressions of care are especially clear in the scenes of Jesus at table with people. “The divine visitation motif and the visits of Jesus as guest are different expressions of the salvationhistorical turning of God to his people in Jesus Christ. … The scenes of Jesus as guest at meals should be read against the background of Luke the theologian’s concept of the mission of Jesus, understood as a visitation by God.”24 The song of Zechariah refers twice to God visiting his people, the two references forming an inclusio or framework around the song as a whole. In 1:68 Zechariah praises God “because he has visited (ejpeskevyato) and made redemption for his people.” In the context of the Gospel the past tense here could refer either to the visit of Mary to Elizabeth (1:39–45, Elizabeth understood it as a visit by the “mother of my Lord” and the unborn John reacted vigorously to this divine visit) or to the previous history of salvation of God’s people. When the context of the song as a whole is taken into account, it seems likely that Zechariah refers not only to the dawning messianic time, but to all of God’s history with his people: the raising of a horn of salvation from the house of his servant David (1:69) is the high point of the previous visits

by God, his mercy shown to the fathers (1:72) and his oath to Abraham (1:73). At the end of the song, Zechariah repeats that “by the tender mercy of our God the rising sun from on high will visit us (ejpiskevyetai)”, 24 Hotze, Jesus als Gast, 20 (Unless stated otherwise, all translations from the German are by the author); see also Denis McBride, Emmaus: The Gracious Visit of God According to Luke (Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1991), 30–56.

10 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

a clear reference to the impending (future tense!)25 visit of God in Jesus Christ, the one for whom his son John is to prepare the way (1:76–77).

The third occurrence of the verb ejpiskevptomai is in Luke 7:16.

After Jesus has raised the son of the widow from Nain and given him back to his mother, the crowd reacts with fear and wonder. They glorify God because he has raised up (  = divine passive) a prophet in their midst, adding: “God has visited (ejpeskevyato) his people.”

Someone who can raise a person from the dead is not only the Lord (oJ kuvrio", 7:13) and a great prophet (profhvth" mevga", 7:16) but also represents God himself graciously visiting his people. Here we find a clear convergence of theology and Christology in the context of Luke’s concept of divine visitation.

As Jesus approaches Jerusalem and sees the city, he weeps for it, because he clearly foresees its future destruction (cf. already Lk 13:34–35). The fate of Jerusalem was not inevitable: “if only the city had recognized the things that make for peace” (19:42), but it did not do so (19:44). It is “the time of your visitation” (kairo;n th'" ejpiskoph'") which is identified as “that which makes for peace” (ta; pro;" eijrhvnhn) … and which had not been recognized. Who is the visitor? The text uses the noun “visitation”, thereby avoiding the need to specify. But in the total context of Luke’s use of the verb ejpiskevptomai it must refer to God’s visit to Jerusalem, a visit intended to bring salvation and peace, but which went unrecognized (the favourable time, kairov", was missed).

At the same time, the immediate context refers to Jesus’ mission to Jerusalem, his visit to the city for which the reader has been prepared ever since he “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (9:51). “The Lukan Jesus 25 The future reading is supported by a variety of strong early witnesses. The past tense reading ejpeskevyato offered by the majority of manuscripts is obviously a later alteration to bring the verb here in conformity with the past tense in 1:68.

No. 35 2012 11

Taiwan Journal of Theology

connects the catastrophe of the year 70 AD with the rejection of the

ejpiskophv … In retrospect Jerusalem serves as classic example for the catastrophic consequences of the refusal of the ejpiskophv [divine visit] present in Jesus.”26 The theological perspective on Jesus’ ministry, in which his mighty acts are seen as manifestations of God visiting his people, continues in Acts. Looking back to the ministry of Jesus from the post-Easter perspective, his actions are seen as what God did through him and with him: “God did these deeds among you through him (di! aujtou')” (2:22); “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him (met! aujtou')” (10:38). The final appearance of the verb ejpiskevptomai in Luke-Acts is in Acts 15, in the context of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem. James takes the word and refers to Peter’s experience in Caesarea: “Simeon has related how God first looked favourably (ejpeskevyato) on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name” (15:14). Here again, it is God himself who “pays a visit,” who takes the initiative to extend salvation to the Gentiles and thus to enlarge his people.

The gracious visit of God to his people has taken place all through the long history of Israel, starting with Abraham and the fathers (Lk 1:68). The visit reaches a high point with the divine visit in Jesus, announced through Zechariah (1:78), powerfully experienced (7:16) and incomprehensibly rejected by Jerusalem (19:44). The visit culminates in the new people consisting of Jews and Gentiles (Acts 15:14). The central visit of God in Jesus is framed by a retrospection of the past (his visit to 26 Reinhard von Bendemann, Zwischen DOXA und STAUROS : Eine exegetische Untersuchung der Texte des sogenannten Reiseberichts im Lukasevangelium. BZNW 101 (Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 2001), 174–75.

12 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

Israel) and an anticipation of the future (his visit to the Church), and the whole is a vision of God’s continuous graceful visitation to his people as the real meaning of salvation history. God’s visit to his people, stated in a general way through the ejpiskevptomai concept, is concretized in the visits Jesus pays to individual people right through the Gospel, the guest scenes with Jesus thus becoming visual and dramatic enactments of God visiting his people.27

III. Preparing for the visit The Gospel of Luke starts with a preparatory narrative, comprising on the one hand the infancy narrative (Lk 1–2), and on the other hand John the Baptist’s ministry of preparation together with the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (baptism, temptation and the appearances in the synagogues of Nazareth and Capernaum, Lk 3–4). At the story level the events in these chapters serve as a preparation for the impending visit of God, announcing the imminent fulfilment of God’s salvific promises to pious members of Israel (Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon and Anna) who have long awaited this moment. At the discourse level,28 the narrator

27 See Walther Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Lukas. 9 Auflage, ThHKNT (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1981): “Jesus is God’s representative; through him God himself visits people, hidden in the shape of a traveller who enters their door as a guest … the day of his visit becomes the ‘today’ of salvation, an opportunity that must be seized and cannot be missed” (27–28).

28 For the distinction between story and discourse, see Seymour Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, 1978). The story of a narrative refers to the what of the story, the discourse to the how. The story level comprises the events and existents (the characters and settings), while the discourse level comprises the communication taking place between the author and reader via the story.

No. 35 2012 13

Taiwan Journal of Theology

prepares the audience and shapes their response to the depiction of Jesus as guest in the main narrative.

The topic of meals appears in several places in these initial chapters, alerting the audience to the important role meals will play in the narrative. John the Baptist “must never drink wine or strong drink” (1:15), setting up a contrast to Jesus and his followers, who do eat and drink (cf. 5:33; 7:33–34). In the Magnificat, Mary announces the reversal that God is working in history, which includes that “he has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty” (1:53). At the birth of Jesus, Luke particularly emphasizes the manger by mentioning it three times (2:7, 12, 16): the newborn divine guest is placed in a feeding trough for animals – and this is declared to be the “sign” that he is indeed the Saviour, Christ the Lord (2:11), that is: the one through whom God will feed his hungry people. When Jesus is taken to the temple for his first visit there, he is welcomed by the prophetess Anna, who “never left the temple but worshiped there with fasting and prayer day and night” (2:37), making her one of the hungry, whom God now fills with good things through the coming of Jesus (1:53). As John starts his ministry, he advises the crowds coming to him to share their food with those who have none (3:11). Jesus, when tempted by the devil, refuses to feed himself, even though he was hungry (4:1–2): as the Son of God he came to feed the hungry, not himself. And finally, Jesus enters Peter’s home (the first scene of Jesus entering a house as guest), heals his mother-in-law and “immediately she got up and began to serve them” (4:39). The verb 29 dihkovnei implies service at table, that is preparing a meal for them, the

first example in the Gospel of someone welcoming Jesus as a guest and 29 See Kathleen Corley, Private Women, Public Meals: Social Conflict in the Synoptic Tradition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), 119–21; Retha Finger, Of Widows and Meals: Communal Meals in the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).

14 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

extending hospitality to him out of gratitude for salvation.

In addition to introducing the topics of God’s visit and of meals and eating, the first few chapters also introduce John the Baptist, who is sent ahead of Jesus to make preparation for the coming of the Lord.

In what sense does he prepare for the visit of Jesus? On the one hand he prepares the way30, but according to Luke he also prepares a people who are ready for the Lord: “to make ready (eJtoimavsai) a people prepared (kateskeuasmevnon) for the Lord” (1:17). As the narrative unfolds, we find that those who have been responsive to John’s message (the tax collectors and the sinners) are ready to receive Jesus as guest and enjoy his visit, whereas those who rejected his message (the Pharisees and the lawyers) have unhappy experiences at table with Jesus (7:29–30, cf. the contrast in reception given Jesus by Levi, Zacchaeus and the sinful woman, on the one hand, and the three meals with Pharisees, on the other).31 According to Luke, John the Baptist thus fulfils the role of preparing people to receive Jesus as guest!32 The theme of preparation for the visit of Jesus continues in the Travel Narrative (9:51–19:48). At the beginning of the journey to Jerusalem, Jesus sends his disciples ahead to prepare (eJtoimavsai) for his visit to a Samaritan village (9:52). In the next chapter he appoints seventy others and “sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he intended to go” (10:1). They prepare the way for him

30 This is a concept he took over from Mark: “you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways” (eJtoimavsai oJdou;" aujtou', Lk 1:76); “Prepare (@Etoimavsate) the way of the Lord” (Lk 3:4, quoted from Isaiah 40:3); “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare (kataskeuavsei) your way before you” (Lk 7:27, quoted from Mal 3:1, Ex 23:20).

31 Corley, Private Women, 126–27.

32 A retrospection of his ministry in Acts points in the same direction: “John proclaimed a baptism of repentance before the face of his entering (ei[sodo")” (Acts 13:24).

No. 35 2012 15

Taiwan Journal of Theology

by themselves acting out the role of guests (10:5–12).33 At the end of the journey, as Jesus approaches Jerusalem, he sends out two disciples to prepare for his arrival as guest to that city (19:29–35).

Finally, as the day of Unleavened Bread arrives, Jesus sends two disciples (this time named: Peter and John) and commands them to prepare ( eJ t oimav s ate ) the Passover meal (22:8). In answer to their question, “Where do you want us to prepare (eJtoimavswmen)?” (22:9) Jesus explains that they have to follow a man into his house (oijkiva)34 and ask for the guest room (to; katavluma),35 where they can prepare and then eat the meal with Jesus (eJtoimavsate, 22:12). Finding everything as predicted by Jesus, they go ahead and prepare (hJtoivmasan) the meal (22:13). The strong emphasis on careful preparation (eJtoimavzw appears four times in six verses!) prepares the audience, by now already used to seeing Jesus at table with a variety of people, for the extraordinary significance of this particular meal. It is as if all the previous “preparing” in the Gospel finally finds its focus and culmination in the Passover meal with the disciples, where Jesus will reveal the true significance of his divine visit.36

33 Note that Jesus gives them more directions about their behaviour as guests (10:5–8) than about the content of their message and ministry (10:9)!

34 Luke emphasizes that the all-important Passover meal with the disciples, to which Jesus looked forward with great longing (22:15), will be the culmination of the long series of meals which took place in private houses throughout Jesus’ ministry.

35 A reminder of the birth of Jesus, when there was no place for him in the guest house (to; katauma), the only other occurrence of this word in the Gospel (2:7). Note the increasingly clear spatial focus: from “house” to “guest room” to “large upper room, furnished (with couches)” (22:10–12).

36 John Paul Heil, The Meal Scenes in Luke-Acts: An Audience-oriented Approach (Atlanta: SBL Publications, 1999), 167–71.

16 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

IV. The guest arrives! Acceptance and rejection Having seen the importance that Luke attaches to careful preparation for receiving Jesus as a guest, we now turn to the various ways in which people in fact responded to his arrival.

Right from his birth, Jesus had to face rejection and closed doors.

He himself would later characterize the condition of the Son of Man as that of homelessness (“The Son of Man has nowhere to lay down his head,” 9:58). The first thing that Luke tells us about the arrival of the divine guest in Bethlehem is that there was no place for him and his family in the inn, so that he ends up in a manger (2:7). A clear contrast is set between the potential welcome in a guest house (to; katavluma) and the lack of hospitality represented by the favtnh (manger or stable).

After his baptism, he visits his home town of Nazareth and appears as guest speaker in the local synagogue. He announces his coming in fulfilment of prophecy: God has sent me, and here I am (4:18–21)! What seems like a welcome (“all spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth,” 4:22) very quickly turns into total rejection: “They got up, drove him out of town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff ” (4:29). At the beginning of the Travel Narrative, as Jesus sets his face to go to Jerusalem (9:51), a Samaritan town refuses him hospitality (oujk ejdevxanto aujtovn, 9:52). At the story level this is just another expression of the animosity between Jews and Samaritans, but at the discourse level this rejection is connected to the aim of his journey: fulfilling his destiny in Jerusalem (“because his face was set to Jerusalem”, 9:53). Finally, at the end of the journey, as Jesus looks at the city (19:41), he weeps over Jerusalem, “because you did not recognize the time of your visitation from God” (19:44). At each new stage of his

No. 35 2012 17

Taiwan Journal of Theology

life, Jesus, the divine guest, faces not a welcome, but rejection from the people he came to visit: at his birth, at the beginning of his ministry, at the decisive turning point where he goes up to Jerusalem, and at the gates of Jerusalem, facing his imminent death. What is amazing is the humility and lack of vindictiveness with which Jesus reacts to this continuous rejection: if there is no welcome in the inn, a manger will do (2:7); in answer to the effort to kill him in his home town, he walks through the crowd and goes on his way (4:30); his answer to the rejection of a Samaritan village is not destruction (the option of the disciples!), but going on to the next village (9:56); he faces the rejection of Jerusalem by shedding tears for the city (19:41). At the end of a lifetime of accepting rejection by the people he came to visit and to save, stands his trusting surrender of himself into the hands of his Father at the moment of his death (23:46).37 But there is another side to the story. From the beginning of the Gospel there is also the expression of great joy at the coming of the divine guest. Even earlier than the negative reception at Bethlehem, in his very first visit, we see Elizabeth welcoming the unborn Jesus with a blessing, referring to him as “my Lord” (“Why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?” 1:42–43). During the night of his birth, the shepherds accept the message of the heavenly messenger, visit the baby and return praising God (2:15–20). Soon after his birth, Jesus is welcomed in the Temple – not by the religious authorities, but by two old people, Simeon (aujto;" ejdevxato aujto;, 2:28) and Anna (2:38).

A Roman centurion refuses to receive Jesus into his house – not because of rejecting Jesus, but because he considers himself to be unworthy (“I am not worthy to have you come under my roof ”, 7:6–7). In contrast

37 Hotze, Jesus als Gast, 269.

18 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

to the Samaritan village who did not want to receive Jesus, Martha “welcomed Jesus into her house” (uJpedevxato aujtovn, 10:38). At the end of his journey to Jerusalem, in Jericho, the tax collector Zacchaeus likewise “welcomed Jesus into his house with joy” (uJpedevxato aujto;n

caivrwn, 19:6). Finally, upon Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, “the multitude of the disciples began to praise God joyfully with a loud voice for all the deeds of power they had seen” (19:37), an implicit recognition that in welcoming Jesus, they are welcoming the God who is visiting them in Jesus.

In addition to reporting the positive or negative welcome Jesus received, Luke uses the meal scenes, which are generously scattered throughout his Gospel, to enact the different reactions to Jesus’ visit as a guest. On the discourse level this technique powerfully draws in the audience, allowing them to personally join in the experience of being at table with Jesus.38 Luke depicts three basic types of meal scenes: Jesus as guest at table with tax collectors (Levi and Zacchaeus), with Pharisees (Simon, an unnamed Pharisee and a leading Pharisee), and with followers (Martha and Mary, the two disciples at Emmaus).

V. Jesus as guest of tax collectors V. 1 Introduction: Meals as Symposia As we turn to an analysis of the individual meal scenes depicted by 38 Plato’s distinction between mimesis and diegesis has been revived in modern literary theory as the distinction between telling and showing. Direct mediation of an event to the audience (showing, or mimesis) is more effective than indirect presentation through an overt narrator (telling, or diegesis), because it gives the audience the impression of being personally present, able to see and hear what happens in the narrative. See Wayne Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 3–20; Chatman, Story and Discourse, chaps. 4 and 5.

No. 35 2012 19

Taiwan Journal of Theology

Luke, it is important to take note of his literary method. Dennis Smith has shown convincingly that Luke makes use of the well-known Greek literary convention of the “symposium” to depict the meal scenes in his Gospel.39 Greco-Roman banquets were lavish events at which guests would recline (lie down on couches arranged around the table) for a twopart meal: the meal proper (dei'pnon) and the drinking, entertainment and conversation that followed (sumpovsion).40 Luke not only extensively uses the vocabulary41 related to such public meals in private homes, he also employs many of the stock themes associated with the literary topos of the symposium.42 Formally, the classical symposium presents a distinctive pattern: the typical persons at such a meal are the host, the main guest and other guests; often the various participants at the meal are only gradually introduced into the narrative; an important structural element of this genre is the fait divers, the event triggering the debate.

39 Dennis Smith, “Table fellowship as a literary motif in the Gospel of Luke.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 613–28; for a thorough discussion of the theme in the New Testament as a whole, see Dennis E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: the Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).

40 See Corley, Private Women, 24–79, for a convenient overview of the main aspects of GrecoRoman meals and of the role of women in public meals.

41 Words for invitation to a meal: kalev w, aj n tikalev w, fwnev w; words for meals: dochv,

dei'pnon, a[riston and the related verbs ajristavw and deipnevw; words for reclining at the table: ajnapivptw, ajnaklivnomai, kataklivnomai, ajnakei'mai, katakei'mai; words for serving at the table: diakonevw, parativqhmi, perizwvnnumi.

42 Dennis Smith provides an exhaustive list of examples in “Table fellowship”, 616–38: 1. Ranking at the table as symbol of status (14:7–11; 22:24) 2. Table talk as a mode of teaching (5:31–32; 7:40–47; 10:39; 11:39–52; 14:1–24; 22:14–38) 3. Eating and drinking as a symbol of luxury (negative: 6:25; 12:19, 45; 16:19, 21; 17:27–28; 21:34; positive: 13:29; 14:15; 16:22–25; 22:15–19, 30; 24:30, 35) 4. Table service as a symbol for community service (1:53; 4:39; 6:21; 7:37–38; 10:40; 12:42– 46; 17:7–10; 22:24–27) 5. Table fellowship as a symbol for community fellowship (5:29–32; 7:34, 47–48; 14:12–14, 21–23; 15:2, 23–24, 32; 19:5–9)

20 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

Although the clearest examples of a symposium structure are to be found in the description of Jesus’ three meals with Pharisees,43 elements of the symposium genre already appear in the paradigmatic first meal scene: that of Jesus with the tax collector Levi.44 In the following analysis of Jesus’ meals we will have to keep in mind Luke’s literary method if we want to understand the dynamics of his depiction.

V. 2 Levi’s Banquet (5:27–32) The first meal scene in the Gospel shows Luke’s literary technique.

Luke takes the original call story and the series of following controversy stories he found in Mark45 transforming them into a meal scene with symposium-like debates connected to the meal. In doing so, he presents us with a type-scene46 he will develop throughout the rest of his Gospel:

43 See E. S. Steele, “Luke 11:37–54: A Modified Hellenistic Symposium?” JBL 103 (1984): 379–94.

44 Reinhard von Bendemann, “Liebe und Sündenvergebung: Eine narrativ-traditionsgeschichtliche Analyse von Lk 7,36–50”, Biblische Zeitschrift 44 (2000): 161–82, has analyzed the main elements of symposium scenes and compared the meal scenes in the Gospel with them, clearly showing the recurring structural elements: 1. Meal setting (5:29; 7:36; 11:37; 14:1) 2. Fait divers (5:29; 7:37–38; 11:38; 14:2–6) 3. Reaction to the fait divers (5:30; 7:39; 11:38; 14:4, 6) 4. Answer (5:31–32; 7:40–48; 11:39–44; 14:7–14) 5. Further objection (5:33; 7:49; 11:45; 14:15) 6. Final answer (5:34–39; 7:50; 11:46–52; 14:16–24) 45 The story of Levi’s call and the following meal with him and other tax collectors and sinners is one of just a few meal scenes in the Gospel of Mark. In Mark, the point of the story is the call of Levi, the meal is just shortly mentioned. It is not even clear whether Jesus or Levi is the host of the meal (kai; givnetai katakei'sqai aujto;n ejn th'/ oijkiva/ aujtou'... as he reclined in his house…, Mk 2:15).

46 For the concept of “type scene” see Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 47–62. A type scene is a set of motifs which can be repeated with variations to emphasize and enrich the narrative portrait of a character.

No. 35 2012 21

Taiwan Journal of Theology

Jesus, the guest, at table with people.47 Jesus walks past Levi, notices him sitting at his toll booth and calls him: “Follow me” (5:27). Levi leaves everything, stands up and follows Jesus (5:27–28).48 He then prepares a great banquet (dochv) in honour of Jesus in his house, to which he invites a “large crowd of tax collectors and of others” (o[clo" polu;" 49 telwvnwn kai; a[llwn, 5:29). The picture of joyous table fellowship, with

everybody reclining together for a meal (katakeivmenoi) is interrupted by the fait divers, the grumbling (ejgovgguzon)50 question of the Pharisees and their scribes (here playing the classical role of the “uninvited guest”): “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners (aJmartwlw'n) (5:30)?”51 Their complaint serves as the event that triggers the symposium debate – during which Jesus does practically all the talking.52 Although

47 See Craig McMahan, “Meals as Type-Scenes in the Gospel of Luke.” (PhD Dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, 1987).

48 Tax collectors also came to John to be baptized, and were told to stop collecting more than their due (3:12–13); Jesus here takes the initiative (it is he who approaches Levi) and makes a much more radical demand: discipleship. Levi understood that demand to include a total rejection of his possessions (to Mark’s version of the story Luke adds: “he left everything!”).

49 In Mark, the fellow guests are tax collectors and sinners (repeated three times! Mk 2:15–16).

By changing Mark’s wording to “a large crowd” which includes “others”, Luke emphasizes that Jesus comes as guest for all people, not just for the sinners.

50 This becomes the standard response to Jesus’ habit of eating with tax collectors and sinners, cf. 15:2; 19:7. The motif of grumbling (govgguzw, diagovgguzw) has its background in the LXX (Exodus, Numbers), where it is used to describe the grumbling of the Israelites in the wilderness.

51 Note the change from “others” to “sinners”; revealing the negative attitude of the Pharisees and scribes.

52 This is an important distinction between classical symposium debates and the symposia in the Gospels: in all the meal scenes Jesus, the guest of honour, totally takes over the conversation. The lack of real debate, with an interplay between different points of view on a topic, is a measure of his authority. He acts more like a teacher.

22 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

they do not confront Jesus, but rather his disciples, it is Jesus, the real target of their question, who answers their objection. He first uses metaphorical language to refer to the sick being the ones in need of a doctor;53 then he applies it to himself: “I have come to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (5:32). Luke uses the perfect tense 54 ejlhvluqa (I have come) to emphasize the concrete present result of his

coming: I have come and am now here! In addition, he adds the words “to repentance,” giving a new orientation to the pronouncement: Jesus did not come to extend a blanket invitation to tax collectors and sinners (cf. Mark), but rather to call sinners to repentance (eij" metavnoian). For Luke, the meal with Levi and his friends is a meal with already converted sinners; conversion is the condition for forgiveness of sins and for table fellowship with Jesus.55 The use of the word kalevw (call, invite) in the context of a meal, can have the further connotation of Jesus in turn extending an invitation to a banquet.56 As Levi’s guest, Jesus shares table fellowship with repentant sinners, but he also anticipates his future 53 By using the metaphor of sickness/health, Jesus establishes a connection between his ministry of healing and his meals with sinners: both aim to bring release (a[fesi") to those in bondage, in fulfilment of his mission as stated in the synagogue of Nazareth (4:18).

54 Different from Mark, who uses the aorist h\lqon (I came, Mk 2:17).

55 Gerhard Hotze (Jesus als Gast, 43–44) points out that, in the Gospel of Luke, the concept of Jesus eating with (practicing) sinners is to be found either in the mouths of Jesus’ detractors (5:30 and 15:2, the Pharisees and scribes; 19:7, all of whom grumbled about his meal with Zacchaeus; 7:34, those complaining about Jesus’ eating and drinking habits, “a friend of tax collectors and sinners”), or it is the result of sinners taking the initiative to approach Jesus (7:37–38, a sinful woman; 15:2 “all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him”; 19:1–10, Zacchaeus was seeking to see Jesus). When sinners approach Jesus, it can already be reckoned as an act of “turning” (metavnoia). For Luke the human element in salvation (repentance, turning to God) is not to be neglected; see also Craig Blomberg, Contagious Holiness: Jesus’ Meals with Sinners (Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press, 2005); Robert Tannehill, “Repentance in the Context of Lukan Soteriology,” in The Shape of Luke's Story: Essays on Luke-Acts (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2005), 84–101.

56 The verb kalevw often carries this meaning in Luke, cf. 7:39; 14:7–10, 12–13, 16–17, 24.

No. 35 2012 23

Taiwan Journal of Theology

role as host of the great Messianic banquet to which he here extends an invitation.57 The Pharisees and scribes immediately follow up with a further objection, this time directly aimed at Jesus (but again involving his disciples): “John’s disciples, like the disciples of the Pharisees, frequently fast and pray, but your disciples eat and drink” (5:33). Jesus answers their complaint with a rhetorical question: “Can the wedding guests fast during a wedding celebration?” (5:34). The implication is that his disciples are eating and drinking, because the bridegroom is in their midst. Jesus invokes the image of the messianic banquet, sometimes portrayed as a wedding banquet, as explanation for his and his disciples’ eating and drinking habits. Their present lack of fasting is the result of their anticipation of the eschatological banquet, feasting and enjoying fellowship now with the bridegroom, Jesus. At the same time, Jesus indicates that he is here for a limited time, as a guest; a time will come when he will be taken away (divine passive? 5:35). Jesus also tells a parable to affirm the need for a new perspective: the completely new situation caused by Jesus’ presence as guest calls for new behaviour patterns. New and old, whether clothes or wine, do not go well together (5:36–39). The new time inaugurated by Jesus’ visit calls for feasting, not fasting – of which his and his disciples’ participation in meals is a clear expression. Those who are used to the old ways, however, find it hard to rejoice with the new situation: “No one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says: ‘The old is good’” (5:39).

V. 3 Staying with Zacchaeus (19:1–10) As Jesus started his ministry of visitation by sharing a meal with 57 Heil, Meal Scenes, 26, refers to the prophecy of Isaiah (55:1–7), extending the invitation to eat and drink to evildoers who have turned to the Lord and received his mercy.

24 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

the tax collector Levi, so he now brings his time of active ministry to a climax by having table fellowship with another tax collector, Zacchaeus. The Zacchaeus story appears at the end of the Travel Narrative, shortly before Jesus enters Jerusalem. The hospitality offered to Jesus in Zacchaeus’ house offers a stark contrast to the start of the Travel Narrative, where Jesus was confronted with the inhospitality of a Samaritan village (9:51–56) and was forced to admit to his homeless status: “The Son of Man has nowhere to lay down his head” (9:58).

Zacchaeus seems to embody the repentant tax collector in Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (18:9–14); at the same time he also offers a contrast to the rich ruler (18:18–30) – he gives away half his possessions and repays fourfold what he has wrongfully taken from others, whereas the young ruler refused to part from his possessions.

Going back further, we find many echoes from the series of parables in Luke 15: the complaint that Jesus welcomes sinners and eats with them (15:1–2, cf. 19:7); the seeking of the lost (15:4, 8, 24, 32, cf. 19:10); the joyful celebration (including inviting friends and family, and a big meal!) after the lost has been found (15:5–7, 9–10, 23–27, 32, cf. 19:6, caivrwn); there is even a similarity in the initiative taken by the sinner to repent (the prodigal son stood up, ajnasta;" and went home, 15:20; Zacchaeus stood up, staqei;" and announced his renunciation of his possessions, 19:8). In fact, the story of Zacchaeus offers a vivid illustration of the process of seeking and finding the lost, taught by Jesus in his three parables of the lost (Lk 15) and stated as the purpose of his mission (19:10).58 There are several parallels between the banquet scene in Levi’s house and the visit to Zacchaeus. By the repetition of central motifs of this type scene, Luke emphasizes and enriches the characterization of 58 See R. C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, Vol 1: The Gospel according to Luke (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986), 107–8.

No. 35 2012 25

Taiwan Journal of Theology

Jesus as saviour of the lost in the context of his appearance as guest at a meal: 59 Levi’s guest (5:27–32)

Zacchaeus’ guest (19:1–10)

Jesus went out (v. 27)

Jesus passed through (v. 1)

A tax collector named Levi (v. 27)

A rich chief tax collector named Zacchaeus, curious to see Jesus (v. 2)

Jesus sees him at the toll booth (v. 27)

Jesus looks up (in the tree) (v. 5)

Call to follow Jesus (v. 27)

Jesus invites himself to his home (v. 5)

Levi leaves everything (v. 28)

Zacchaeus gives away half and compensates his victims fourfold (v. 8)

Levi gives a banquet (v. 29)

Zacchaeus welcomes Jesus with joy (v. 6)

Complaint of Pharisees and scribes (v. 30)

Complaint of all who saw it (v. 7)

The sick need a doctor (v. 31)

Salvation for a son of Abraham (v. 9)

Mission: to call sinners to repentance (v. 32)

Mission: to seek and save the lost (v. 10)

Here we clearly have not only a confirmation of Jesus’ mission to save the lost, but in several details, and through changes in sequence (a meal after repentance, a meal leading to repentance) an intensified form of it, with even stronger emphasis on his initiative in granting salvation by his presence as guest. Because of the important closing words about Jesus’ mission in both episodes (to call sinners to repentance, 59 Hotze, Jesus als Gast, 64.

26 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

5:32; to seek and to save the lost, 19:10) these two meals, one at the beginning of his work, one at the end, form a framework and provide a characterization for his entire ministry.

In terms of the rhetoric of the story, Tannehill has described Jesus’ encounter with Zacchaeus as a special type of “quest story” with two quests taking place simultaneously: Zacchaeus was seeking ( ejzhvtei, 19:3) to see Jesus, and Jesus came to seek (zhth'sai, 19:10) the lost.60 “Zacchaeus’ successful quest is placed within the context of Jesus’ quest for the lost.”61 It is Jesus who opens the action of the story by entering into Jericho. Zacchaeus starts out from an unfavourable position: he is not only a tax collector, but a chief tax collector, and rich as well (19:2).

His initial curiosity (he just wants to observe Jesus, 19:3) gradually develops into ever stronger reactions to Jesus: running ahead and climbing a tree (19:4), receiving Jesus into his house (19:6)62 and finally giving up his possessions (19:8), in spite of the blocking efforts of the crowd (preventing Zacchaeus from seeing Jesus, 19:3; grumbling about Jesus’ visit to Zacchaeus’ home, 19:7). But as the story progresses we find that it is in fact Jesus who is seeking out Zacchaeus: he looks up into the tree, he addresses Zacchaeus, he invites himself to his home and he pronounces salvation for him and his house. Jesus must (dei') stay with Zacchaeus – staying with this tax collector is as much a divine necessity as the passion he is facing in Jerusalem,63 as this is the purpose of his coming to visit (19:10); and this must happen “today,” now, while 60 Robert Tannehill, “The Story of Zacchaeus as Rhetoric,” in The Shape of Luke's Story: Essays on Luke-Acts (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2005), 73–83.

61 Tannehill, “The Story of Zacchaeus as Rhetoric,” 78.

62 The verb uJpodevxato implies hospitality of an even broader nature than that of Levi: not only a meal, but also staying overnight. Cf. also the verbs mei'nai (stay, 19:5) and katalu'sai (be a guest, find lodging, 19:7). See Bolyki, Tischgemeinschaften, 112.

63 Compare the use of dei' in the Passion predictions, 9:22 and 17:25; cf. also 24:7, 26.

No. 35 2012 27

Taiwan Journal of Theology

Jesus is present as guest, embodying God’s gracious visit.64 Zacchaeus’ response to the grumbling of the community (“all”) shows a dawning realization of his guest’s identity: he addresses Jesus as Lord (kuvrie) and proceeds to do what the rich ruler in chapter 18 refused to do: renounce possessions. Jesus has the last word: once again he uses the word “today” as he affirms that salvation has come to Zacchaeus’ house – but this is not primarily described as the result of Zacchaeus’ concrete repentance but “because he too is a son of Abraham” (19:9). The decisive factor in salvation is not human repentance (however much Luke emphasizes this aspect), but God’s initiative in the past and present. Zacchaeus and his house are saved because God sent Jesus to seek and to save the lost, an activity concretized in his meals of salvation with sinners.

VI. Jesus as guest of Pharisees Luke is the only Evangelist who depicts Jesus at table with Pharisees. In spite of describing the purpose of his coming as “to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (at Levi’s banquet, 5:32), Jesus does make a strong effort to reach out to the “righteous” – the three most extended meal scenes with Jesus, in full symposium style, are all with Pharisees (7:36–50; 11:37–54; 14:1–24).65 Whereas Jesus’ meals with tax collectors are characterized by joyous celebration, his meals 64 The word shvmeron has eschatological overtones in Luke, and appears twice in the story of Zacchaeus (19:5, 9). Cf. its appearance at other decisive locations in the story, always emphasizing the presence of God’s salvation in Jesus: 2:11; 4:21; 5:26; 23:43.

65 It is interesting to compare the threefold repetition of Paul’s “final” turning away from the Jews to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:28). In spite of accepting the reality of the reversal he depicts, Luke obviously finds it difficult to truly turn away from those who “naturally” should be best attuned to the Gospel. The failure of the righteous in the Gospel, and of the Jews in Acts, to respond positively to the Gospel is as much an unfathomable mystery to Luke as it is to Paul (cf. Rom 9–11)!

28 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

with Pharisees are filled with tension which, in each case, leads to strong admonishments from Jesus.

VI. 1 A Symposium with Simon the Pharisee (7:36–50) The first invitation to a meal with a Pharisee comes as a surprise, since we have just heard that the Pharisees and lawyers have rejected God’s purpose for them by refusing to be baptized by John (7:30). In addition, in the verses immediately preceding this episode, we heard the popular evaluation of Jesus as being at home in very different circles: “Look, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (7:34). But here a Pharisee invites Jesus, who responds by entering his house and reclining at the table. The scene is set as a symposium with three main actors: the host (Simon, the Pharisee), Jesus and an “uninvited guest,” a woman. The presence of other guests (oiJ sunanakeivmenoi) is only revealed at the end of the story where they finally react to the events they have witnessed (7:49).

Luke tells the story very skilfully by first describing the actions of the woman, then Jesus’ parable, and finally Simon the Pharisee’s lack of hospitality.66 The woman suddenly appears (kai; iJdou;, see!), providing the fait divers for the symposium. She says nothing, but lets her actions speak – treating Jesus as an honoured guest, she offers an excessive form of the customary practice of hospitality: washing and drying his feet, kissing his feet and anointing them with a perfumed ointment (7:37–38).67 66 Karris, Eating your Way through Luke’s Gospel, 43.

67 Gerhard Hotze points out that no less than seven verbs are used to depict the intensity of her actions: she brought the ointment (she came with a purpose!), she takes up position behind Jesus, she weeps (all the time, present continuous), she starts to bathe his feet with her tears, she dries his feet with her loosened hair, she keeps on kissing his feet (katafilevw, intensified form of filevw), and she anoints his feet (Jesus als Gast, 147–49). See also Blomberg, Contagious Holiness, 134: “Luke’s use of verb forms stresses the repeated, ongoing nature of each stage of the woman’s actions.”

No. 35 2012 29

Taiwan Journal of Theology

Her gestures are evaluated differently by Jesus and the Pharisee. For the Pharisee, who sees his banquet disrupted by a disreputable woman (“a sinner in the city”),68 the scene is proof that Jesus cannot be a prophet.

For Jesus, her actions are related to her love, her faith and the fact that God has forgiven her (7:47–50).

Jesus is not shamed by her behaviour, but honoured; and through his words to Simon the Pharisee, it is the host who ends up as the one who stands ashamed because of his lack of hospitality!69 Jesus offers an unfavourable comparison of his treatment by Simon and by the anonymous woman: 70 “You gave me no water for my feet – she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair; You gave me no kiss – she has not stopped kissing my feet; You did not anoint my head with olive oil – she has anointed my feet with

68 As Luke calls the woman a aJ m artwlov " and not a pov r nh , some interpreters have questioned the traditional view that she is a prostitute. But the way the woman and her actions are described speaks strongly for her identification as a publicly known (“in the city”) prostitute. For a Hellenistic audience, most elements of the woman’s behaviour would have clear erotic connotations (cf. Bendemann, “Liebe,” 167–70). Corley provides an overview of Greek, Roman and Jewish meal ideology showing that the women present at banquets or public meals were commonly associated with promiscuous behaviour (Private Women, 34–66).

69 The scene can also be read as an honour/shame contest. Cf. D. B. Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy and Friend. Portraits of the Pharisees in Luke and Acts (New York: Lang, 1991), 219–26. Jesus’ feet are mentioned seven times (!) in this passage, and the way a known prostitute is having such provocative contact with him is a potential source of shame for him. But by turning the episode into a discussion of the law of hospitality, the one who behaved shamefully now turns out to be Simon!

70 Note that Jesus honours the woman by turning to her even as he speaks to Simon (7:44: “turning toward the woman, he said to Simon”). He pointedly demands that Simon take another look at her: “Do you see this woman?” – even though he saw (ijdw;n) her actions (7:39), he has not really seen her yet!

30 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

(costly) ointment.” (7:44–46)71

In conclusion, Jesus points to her love: in terms of the parable to which Simon himself has given the correct interpretation, her many sins have been forgiven, as shown by her great love. By implication, Simon’s lack of hospitality shows that his sins have not been forgiven (“But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little”, 7:47). “Simon got more than he bargained for when he invited Jesus, for Jesus not only taught him a lesson about hospitality, but also about forgiveness of those sinners whom Simon had put outside the ranks of the righteous.”72 Though there are three main characters in this meal scene, the question posed by the fellow guests at the end of the symposium firmly turns the focus on Jesus: “Who is this who even forgives sins?” (7:49) On the story level, it is probably meant to be a rhetorical question expressing indignation (cf. 5:21), but on the discourse level it invites the audience to consider the Christological import of the episode. In the first place, the action of the woman offers an indirect reference to his identity as the Christ (the Anointed One): she anoints Jesus’ feet, an act which can be seen as the human counterpart to the anointing of the Spirit in Lk 4:18.73 Secondly, Simon’s doubts about his prophetic credentials (7:39) help the 71 “Jesus draws a stark contrast between ‘this woman,’ an uninvited intruder who welcomes Jesus with extraordinary acts of hospitality, and Simon, the host who failed to acknowledge Jesus with even the most ordinary acts of hospitality” (Heil, Meal Scenes, 49).

72 Karris, Eating your Way through Luke’s Gospel, 44.

73 Different verbs are used to describe the anointing: in Lk 4:18 it is the verb crivw, which is semantically related to the title Cristov" (Christ), whereas here Luke uses ajleivfw. But these are the only two references to the anointing of Jesus in the Gospel (cf. also Acts 10:38) and its position as the seventh and final act of the woman makes it the climax of her service and thus highlights its special significance. According to D. A. S. Ravens, in “The Setting of Luke’s Account of the Anointing: Luke 7:2–8:3”, NTS 34 (1988): 282–92, “the anointing is the equipping of the prophet Jesus for his mission to Jerusalem” (286).

No. 35 2012 31

Taiwan Journal of Theology

audience to focus on the fact that Jesus is a prophet (as intimated earlier in the same chapter, where God’s visit to his people is recognized in the work of Jesus as prophet, 7:16). Jesus not only knows the thoughts of Simon, he also knows the true nature and the motivation behind the woman’s actions. In the third place, Jesus reveals himself to be the Saviour: he offers forgiveness of sins and thus salvation in the context of a meal.74 Finally, Jesus here fulfils the role of authoritative teacher (didavskalo"), a role acknowledged by Simon (7:40) and repeated in both other meal scenes with Pharisees.

VI. 2 A Symposium with a Pharisee (11:37–54) The second meal as guest of a Pharisee is no happy event. In the course of this meal, Jesus violates the norms of hospitality through direct verbal attacks, first on his host and then on the other guests present. 75 The context is important for an understanding of the dynamics of this meal, as the Pharisee seems to interrupt Jesus’ address to the crowds76 to invite him to an “early meal” (ajristavw, 11:37).77 The 74 There is a well known crux interpretum in 7:47: does forgiveness lead to love (the point of the parable, 41–43), or does love lead to forgiveness (the implication of Jesus’ words and actions in 48–50)? Gerhard Hotze presents five different logical chains which could lie behind 7:47! (Jesus als Gast, 167–68). Whatever our interpretation of the relationship between the woman’s actions and the forgiveness of God (divine passive) proclaimed by Jesus, the focus of the passage is on the fact that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins.

75 Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy, Friend, 233; see also Karris, Eating your Way through Luke’s Gospel, 45.

76 “While he was speaking…” (ejn de; tw'/ lalh'sai, 11:37).

77 In contemporary Israel it was customary to have only two meals a day, breakfast (ajkratismov") and the main meal (dei'pnon). Only on the Sabbath would there be three meals. In Greco-Roman culture a third meal ( ajrivston , from ajristavw ) would occur between the other two, in the late morning or around midday. See H. L. Strack & P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, II Band (München: C. H. Beck, 1924), 204–6.

32 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

following symposium is in fact a continuation of the discourse starting in 11:29, on the topic of wisdom (a wisdom transcending that of Solomon, 11:31) and the blindness of “this generation” to both the wisdom and the prophetic call to repentance (more than Jonah, 11:32) that Jesus represents.78 The fait divers triggering the symposium discussion is the surprise of the Pharisee at Jesus’ lack of ritual washing before the meal. Jesus’ response may seem overly harsh: the mere astonishment (ejqauvmasen) of the Pharisee calls forth a series of woes on the heads of the host and his other guests, in the style of the Old Testament prophets.79 But in terms of the context it becomes understandable: the Pharisees and the scribes, who did not submit to John’s baptism (mh; baptisqevnte", 7:29–30) which would have prepared them for God’s visit in Jesus, are now concerned that Jesus has not washed (baptivsqh) to prepare for the meal!80 Their inability to see correctly (cf. 11:33–37) and their lack of recognition of who Jesus is (greater than Solomon, 11:31; greater than Jonah, 11:32) require a drastic response: the series of woe pronouncements intends to call them to repentance.81 Behind the astonishment of his host lies an attitude which Jesus mercilessly lays bare in the general criticism and the three woes addressed to the Pharisees: criticism for their failure to distinguish between inside and outside (11:39–41), woes for their failure to distinguish between major and minor (11:42), between real and false honour (11:43), between surface and deeper reality (11:44).

78 Cf. the repetition of the key words sofiva (11:31, 49) and hJ genea; a{uth (11:29–31, 50–51).

79 “The vehemence of Jesus’ attack is surprising,” Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy, Friend, 228.

80 Heil, Meal Scenes, 84.

81 Even though Jesus stated before, at Levi’s banquet, that he did not come to call the righteous to repentance (5:32), he does in fact make a great effort (through his meals with Pharisees, through parables as in Lk 15, through controversies) to open their eyes to the need for repentance.

No. 35 2012 33

Taiwan Journal of Theology

Reminding us that the controversy takes place in the context of a meal, another guest, one of the lawyers/scribes,82 complains that such talk is insulting to them too (11:45). At this, Jesus promptly launches forth on another set of woe oracles, this time directed at the lawyers: they burden others with loads they do not intend to carry themselves (v. 46); they refuse to enter (the Kingdom?) and then remove the keys in order to also prevent others from entering (v. 52). Between these two complaints a third one appears: their attitude to the prophets that God sent in the past and the present (47–51). This complicated and extended woe oracle, the longest of the six, obviously contains the main accusation of Jesus.

Although he is invited to a meal with Pharisees and scribes, which he willingly accepts, he is fully aware that they do not accept his credentials as prophet sent by God (cf. also Simon the Pharisee’s doubts about Jesus’ prophetic ability in 7:39). The host and his other guests do not welcome Jesus unconditionally: they want to set rules for his visit. They put the law above the divine visit that is concretized in Jesus’ appearance as a guest in the house.83 Being unprepared to welcome him, they cannot benefit from his presence with them at the table, which turns out to be not a salvation-bringing visit, but rather an announcement of God’s vengeance on “this generation.”84 The second meal with a Pharisee ends on an ominous note: Jesus “went outside,” the only time Luke expressly states that Jesus leaves a house where he has been for a meal. Luke seems to emphasize the failure of hospitality in this case: Jesus came as a guest, but was not received 82 Luke seems to use the words nomikov" (lawyer) and grammatevu" (scribe) interchangeably, with no special emphasis on differences in meaning.

83 Hotze, Jesus als Gast, 208–9.

84 “It will be avenged on this generation” (11:51). See Jesus’ words in 13:25–30, esp. vv. 26–27: “You will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets’. But he will say, I do not know where you come from; go away from me, you evildoers.”

34 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

as such, and so he left again – leaving behind not salvation, but six pronouncements of woe. A visit that failed!85 The result is open hostility of the scribes and the Pharisees, who now look for an opportunity to catch Jesus out at something he might say, lying in wait for him (11:53– 54)! This sets the scene for the third meal with a Pharisee in Lk 14, where the meal starts with them “watching him closely” (14:1).

This episode makes an important contribution to Luke’s narrative Christology. Jesus’ visit under such acrimonious circumstances proves that Jesus, the divine guest, is willing to visit everybody and to enter the house and recline at the table of anyone who will invite him – even a hostile audience of Pharisees and scribes. When Jesus responds to his host’s wonderment, he does so as the Lord (oJ kuvrio", 11:39): with his full authority as the one sent by God to enter into the homes of his people.86 In spite of the acrimony of the exchange, the authority of Jesus as teacher is acknowledged: the lawyer addresses Jesus as didavskale (11:45).87 But is that enough? Jesus has to be welcomed not only as teacher, but as guest bringing God’s salvation home to his people.

Finally, this whole passage once again emphasizes Jesus’ prophetic identity. He speaks as a prophet greater than Jonah or Solomon (11:31– 32), calling God’s people to repentance by pronouncing woes like the prophets of old (11:42–52). And he implies his own violent death as a continuation of the fate of God’s prophets in the Scriptures (11:49–51).

The hostile reaction to the failed meal recorded here is a clear pointer in 85 Bovon gives this passage the heading “Ein Gastmahl mit schlechtem Ausgang” – A meal with a negative outcome. See F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas, Bd II, EKK III/2 (Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1996), 216.

86 The title functions here on the discourse level; it is part of the narrator’s direct communication with the reader, of which the participants in the story itself are unaware. He thereby shapes the response of the readers/audience, not of the others at table with Jesus.

87 Cf. Simon the Pharisee’s respectful address of Jesus as “teacher” (didavskale, 7:40).

No. 35 2012 35

Taiwan Journal of Theology

this direction.

VI. 3 A Symposium with a leading Pharisee (14:1–24) After the serious confrontation at the previous meal (11:37–54), it comes as a surprise that Jesus would be invited by a Pharisee again.

Compared to the previous meals with Pharisees, there is an increase in tension: the Pharisees are watching Jesus carefully;88 there is no mention of an invitation,89 just the fact that Jesus enters the house to eat a meal (fagei'n a[rton); the stakes are higher, as it is the house of a leading Pharisee (tino" tw'n ajrcovntwn tw'n Farisaivwn); and to crown it all, it happens on a Sabbath90, a day that has figured before as a flashpoint for conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees.91 The scene is set for a repeat of the disastrous second meal with a Pharisee. Contrary to our expectations, after the initial confrontation over the sick man, the atmosphere seems to be better than at the previous meal. But careful attention to the implication of Jesus’ words reveals that a major turning point is reached in the course of this meal and symposium: a turning from the Jewish leaders to the marginalized and even to the Gentiles.

The sudden appearance of a man suffering from dropsy (a[nqrwpo" 92 uJdrwpiko;") serves as the fait divers for the symposium. Jesus anticipates

88 parethrouv m enoi , cf. 6:11 where the scribes and Pharisees watched Jesus carefully (parethrou'nto) to find something with which to accuse him. This is very inhospitable behaviour!

89 For earlier meals, Luke explicitly states that Jesus was invited (7:36; 11:37). Here only in 14:12 is an invitation implied (“the one who invited him”).

90 Emphasized by being mentioned three times (vv. 1, 3, 5).

91 This pericope forms the culmination of a series of four Sabbath healings (4:31–37; 6:6–11; 13:10–17; 14:1–6), of which all but the first evoked strongly negative reactions from the Pharisees.

92 The abrupt appearance of the sick man on the scene is similar to that of the sinful woman in Lk 7: kai; ijdou; gunhv (7:37)/ kai; ijdou; a[nqrwpo" (14:2). This would speak against

36 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

their question by asking it himself: “Is it allowed to heal on the Sabbath?” (14:3) Their sullen silence is followed by Jesus’ own response: by healing the man and releasing him, he indicates the priority of human need over Sabbath observance. He justifies his action by adding a rhetorical question about their own behaviour when a child or ox would fall into a well on the Sabbath (14:5, cf. 13:15). To this they were not able to answer (14:6).

Jesus then launches into a series of pronouncements on aspects of banquet behaviour: first he addresses the guests at the meal ( tou;"

keklhmevnou", 14:7–11), then the host (tw'/ keklhkovti, 14:12–14) and finally he responds to the exclamation of one of the dinner guests (ti"

tw'n sunanakeimevnwn) by telling a story about a great banquet (14:15– 24).93 How should we understand the connection between the healing and the ensuing symposium discussion? Is the nature of the disease symbolic?94 In this case, Jesus first cures a man with physical dropsy, and then attempts to cure his host and the other guests from their spiritual dropsy (craving for honour and status).95 This is an attractive proposition, but probably an over-interpretation. The disease is only mentioned once, while the fact that the healing takes place on a Sabbath Darrel Bock’s suggestion that the man was deliberately placed there as a trap for Jesus (Luke, vol. 2, 1256–57).

93 This third meal with a Pharisee comes closest to the traditional depiction of a symposium in Greek literature, as even the topics raised are typical for such an after-dinner discussion: the questions of ranking at the table and of whom to invite to a meal.

94 Dropsy is a disease causing people who have drunk too much, to the point of becoming bloated, to still feel parched with thirst. “Among the people of Luke’s time, a person with dropsy was a symbol of the avaricious person, for the greedy individual had abundant wealth but always thirsted for more” (Karris, Eating, 47); for a review of the evidence of dropsy as metaphor in contemporary literature, see Willi Braun, Feasting and Social Rhetoric in Luke 14 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 22–42.

95 Both Willi Braun (Feasting, passim) and J. P. Heil (Meal Scenes, 95–113) let this understanding control their interpretation of the whole meal scene in Luke 14.

No. 35 2012 37

Taiwan Journal of Theology

receives all the emphasis. Perhaps the link between the episodes rather lies in the question of what is appropriate behaviour: faced with a critical attitude to his behaviour on the Sabbath, Jesus in turn criticizes their behaviour as guests and host, pointing to the wisdom of a different type of behaviour in light of the final reversal worked by God.96 Jesus starts off with a common motif in symposium literature: squabbling over the best places at a banquet (14:7–11). He seems simply to give prudent practical advice, helping the guests to avoid losing face in their quest for honour. But Luke refers to his words as a parable (parabolhv), indicating that more is at stake than maintaining one’s honour at a meal. Only as we come to the last section (14:15–24, the parable of the great banquet) do we realize that Jesus has not been speaking about meals in general, but about the potential humiliation or exaltation at God’s great end-time banquet.97 Similarly, in his advice to the host Jesus seems to advocate generosity toward those who cannot repay,98 instead of inviting friends and family as customary. The blessing and recompense in future (“at the resurrection of the righteous” – clearly referring to the end of time) is to sit at table in the Kingdom of God (14:14–15)!

One of the guests apparently understood what Jesus was getting at, as he interrupts the conversation with a beatitude: “Blessed is whoever 96 Note the recurring motif of future recompense: tapeinwqhvsetai, uJywqhvsetai (v. 11),

ajntapodoqhvsetai (v. 14), geuvsetaiv (v. 24). The passive verb forms in fact refer to divine agency (divine passive).

97 Only in v. 15 is the connection made between the meal motif (favgetai a[rton, cf. also v. 1) and the Kingdom of God (basileia tou' qeou'), but through the parable it becomes clear that the real topic of conversation is in fact the eschatological meal as consummation of God’s Kingdom.

98 In sociological terms, the host is expected to move from balanced reciprocity to vertical generalized reciprocity: a strong challenge to prevailing social expectations (See Neyrey, The Social World of Luke-Acts, 371–72 and Gowler, Host, Guest, Enemy, Friend, 249–50).

38 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

will eat bread in the Kingdom of God!” (14:15) In answer, Jesus tells a parable to show that only those who accept the invitation to that banquet will actually take part in it, as many who were originally invited refused the invitation.99 Though the meal lies in the future, the invitations have gone out, and the audience is warned that a negative response now may lead to a loss of place at the banquet, a place that will be given to unexpected guests (the poor, the crippled, the blind, the lame – and even those living on the streets and in the hedges). In the context of the meal at the Pharisee’s house, Jesus is in fact making a final appeal to those around the table to accept his role as God’s slave (dou'lo"), sent to invite them to his banquet: “Come, for everything is ready now!” (14:17) At the end of the parable Jesus changes role again, speaking openly as the host and Lord of the banquet: “I tell you, none of those invited will taste of my dinner!”100 Through his final comment in 14:24 Jesus shifts the emphasis of the parable from the remarkable invitation of those who could least expect to be part of such an occasion, to the fact that those originally invited will not share in the blessing of a meal in the Kingdom.

All are invited, but only those who accept the invitation or let themselves be compelled to go in will actually be guests at God’s eschatological banquet.

There is a close connection between this meal and Jesus’ teaching 99 The excuses cited come from elementary human relationships: to possessions, work and family. “Conventional attachments are holding them back, while those who have nothing to which they can be attached are receiving places in the Kingdom.” Byrne, Hospitality of God, 124.

100 The change from second-person singular (e[xelqe, ajnavgkason) to second-person plural (uJmi'n) indicates a change of conversation partners: in v. 23 it is still the world of the parable, the master/Lord (oJ kuvrio") speaking to the slave (singular), whereas in the next verse it is Jesus addressing the audience at table with his interpretation of the parable: “None of you, Pharisees and leaders of Israel, will take part in my meal (mou tou'

deivpnou) in the Kingdom of God” (14:24).

No. 35 2012 39

Taiwan Journal of Theology

just previously (13:22–35), where he emphasized the importance of getting into the house before the house owner (oijkodespovth", cf. 14:21!) shuts the door, leaving late arrivals outside knocking. Even though “we ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets” (13:26), the master does not acknowledge them. They will be thrown out, and “people will come from east an west, from north and south, and will eat in the Kingdom of God” (13:28–29, cf. 14:15). Because Jerusalem did not respond to his offer of hospitality (“I desired to gather your children as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing”, 13:24), they will be left outside. Through his parabolic speech at the table (14:7– 24) Jesus once more emphasizes the impending eschatological reversal, and the importance of responding to his message without delay, to avoid being left out in the cold. In spite of the hospitality of the house owner, who wants his house to be full at all costs,101 there are human barriers which can prevent partaking of God’s eschatological meal. By rejecting the values of the Kingdom of God taught by Jesus through the healing of the man with dropsy and his parables, the Pharisees themselves refuse to “taste my dinner” – they will not respond (hJsuvcasan 14:4) or can not respond (oujk i[scusan ajntapokriqh'nai 14:6) to him as a guest in a way that will enable them to hear and accept God’s invitation to them through his actions and words.102 This symposium with a leader of the Pharisees provides further insights into Jesus’ self-understanding and Luke’s guest Christology.

Once again, Jesus appears as a guest at the table, a guest who dominates 101 The slave has to “compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled” (14:23).

102 Jesus’ final words (14:24) do not express a punishment for their behaviour, but merely states the fact that the invited will not be at the feast. Yet it happens by their own choice!

“It is they themselves who are not willing to join his meal, or those who – out of a dark necessity – are unable to want it” (Hotze, Jesus als Gast, 255). Cf. Lk 15:28 where the older son refuses to enter his father’s house.

40 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

the conversation and acts more like a teacher. Once again, he proves to be a difficult guest, challenging his host and the other guests through his behaviour and his words. Once again, he acts as a prophet, calling his audience to repentance.103 A new aspect of his identity appears indirectly through the parable: Jesus presents himself as the slave/servant (dou'lo") sent out by the master (oijkodespovth", kuvrio") to invite people to his banquet (dei'pnon mevga). On the discourse level, the reader is offered a fresh vantage point from which to review Jesus’ ministry up to this point.

He is not only the guest through whom God visits his people, he is also God’s servant being sent out time and again to invite everybody to the great meal: the leaders of the people (“those who had been invited”) as well as “the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame” (the same lowly groups of people he has just suggested his host should invite! 14:13).

And finally, Jesus reveals himself to be the host of that great banquet, where only those who had responded to his summons will be able to take their places (14:24).

VII. Conclusion In the Gospel of Luke, it is through table fellowship that Jesus reveals himself, his mission and the grace of God.104 In Jesus, God visits 103 Gerhard Hotze points out that the aim of the three parables Jesus tells at this symposium is not to judge, but to change behaviour, i.e. to lead to a new perspective and thus to repentance. Jesus preaches and embodies the message of love: the priority of healing over against strict law observance (14:2–4); the humble acceptance of the lowest place (14:10); the gracious invitation of those from whom no benefit is to be gained (14:21, 23); the vision of a great banquet, a full house where even the lowliest may find a welcome (14:22– 23). Cf. Jesus als Gast, 255, 258.

104 “The meal imagery is so pervasive that it appears to make a significant contribution not only to the literary organization of Luke’s Gospel but also to its central theological themes” (Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 272).

No. 35 2012 41

Taiwan Journal of Theology

his people, not in judgement, but bringing salvation. By entering people’s houses and sitting down to eat with them, Jesus concretizes the gracious presence of God in the most mundane, daily existence of people.

Some of the most important Christological statements in the Gospel of Luke appear in the context of a meal. Jesus reveals the purpose of his coming during his life-transforming visit to Zacchaeus: “The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (19:10). Earlier in the Gospel, he has already contrasted the way of his coming with that of John the Baptist: John came fasting, but “the Son of Man has come eating and drinking” (7:34). Though Jesus performs different roles at table, he is most typically presented as a guest at meals. Jesus is the guest of tax collectors and sinners, calling them to repentance through his table fellowship with them (5:32; 7:34; 15:1–2; 19:1–10). He is also the guest of Pharisees, turning their symposia into occasions for teaching the all-inclusive grace of God, encouraging them to give up their opposition to God’s open invitation to the eschatological banquet (Lk 7, 11, 14).

Throughout the Gospel Jesus appears as the table guest who mediates the presence of God in the midst of people. He will accept any invitation, but he visits on his own terms. He can be a difficult and inconvenient guest: outspoken, disruptive and transgressing conventions. He often brings the unexpected to the table: healing, forgiveness or condemnation.

His visit does not leave the host or other guests unchanged! Through his presence he extends God’s hospitality, an invitation to God’s table.

Luke avoids sacrificial language – the death of Jesus is not depicted as a ransom, as a sacrifice for sins, but as the fulfilment of the Scriptures.

How then does Luke see Jesus bringing salvation? Jesus is depicted as the divine guest, the visitor who represents God and saves through his presence with people in their houses. God’s grace and salvation is mediated, enacted and celebrated through a meal with Jesus. Does his

42 二〇一二年 第三十五期

Dippenaar: Table Fellowship and Lukan Christology I

inclusive table fellowship then translate into universal salvation? Meals with Jesus are indeed meals of salvation – but Luke emphasizes the equal importance of divine initiative and human response. Levi, the sinful woman and Zacchaeus give a whole-hearted response to Jesus’ visit and are renewed through table fellowship with him, whereas the meals with Pharisees have a largely negative outcome. By accepting Jesus as a guest, one is taken up into God’s hospitality.105 Those who, like Jerusalem, do not recognize the “time of your visitation” (19:44), those who do not receive Jesus as a guest, and those who complain about the others on the guest list, exclude themselves from Jesus’ table in the Kingdom of God. According to Luke, when Jesus joins us at table he gives us the opportunity to concretely experience his salvation: Every meal his disciples had with Jesus was a usual eating and drinking, and yet it was more: a meal of salvation, a messianic meal, image and anticipation of the meal at the consummation, because he was the master of the house.106

Because the risen Jesus continues his table fellowship with his followers, as invisible guest at our meals, he continues to mediate salvation through his presence with us.

105 “The crucial point is that those who do receive him [Jesus] find that he brings them into a much wider sphere of hospitality: the hospitality of God” (Byrne, Hospitality of God, 4).

106 Joachim Jeremias, The Lord’s Prayer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), 26–27.

No. 35 2012 43