Another aspect of Jesus’ ministry by which men were granted the renewal of heart which Jesus demanded was Jesus’ fellowship with sinners and His forgiveness of their sins. We have already noted that this action may properly be included in the miraculous or sign work of Jesus.
Jesus shared table fellowship with sinners, at home and abroad. Admittedly this led to resentment and scandal within the religious (Mark 2: 16, Matthew 11: 19) but met with the sheer delight of the irreligious (Luke 19: 9, Mark 2: 19). Common dining set up a special bond: it symbolised unity of mind, and demonstrated brotherhood. To be invited to a meal was indeed an honour, to participate in life together. Exclusion signified the repudiation of social ties with the excepted person. Shared meals had had a long tradition in sacral ceremonies (Exodus 18:12, 24:11 and I Kings 3: 15), and this sacred character was expressed in everyday life, with the opening blessing uniting the participants in intimate communion, and the concluding responsive ‘amen’.
Concern for cleanliness is noted in John 4: 9b, where Jews do not associate with Samaritans. Religious elitism grew up, as the ‘right sort of associates’ were invited to share meals. Obviously the unclean, or sinners were excluded from joining with the ‘righteous’. We see that the ritualistic and moral basis of community were closely linked. Hence publicans, prostitutes, the greedy, dishonest, and adulterers were ‘without the group’.
This social order or structure, Jesus deliberately challenged. This was no mere breach of religious etiquette. Jesus attacked both questions – of the unclean (Mark 7: 17–20) and sinners (Luke 19: 5). He flaunted the most elementary considerations of morality (the Law) as well as purity: contempt(?) for the Law as He breached the directive of Psalm 1: 1, and ritual purity as taught in Proverbs 28: 7, ‘He who keeps the law is a wise son, but a companion of gluttons shames his father’. Surely the God of the Old Testament would not tolerate such action, since ‘he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD’ (Prov. 17: 15). But Paul saw that God ‘justifies the ungodly’ (Romans 4: 5), and Jesus’ ministry is the concrete expression of this.
John the Baptist had already prepared for this novel activity by declaring the bankruptcy of Mosaic religion, as he called the nation to repentance. He used the classic formula of repentance – conversion, then communion (Luke 3: 10–14). Jesus’ novelty consisted in the reversal of this: communion then conversion. The reign of God had not reduced any of its demands, but now it appeared that contact triggered off deep, dynamic repentance, that conversion blossomed from fresh communion. Whereas the Pharisees chided ‘the sinners’ with the Law, Jesus appeared to place no conditions on these same people.
When pressed, Jesus explained that this activity was an essential and integral part of His ministry. He was convinced that since these needy folk were ‘sick’, they needed the ‘physician’, so He went to assist them. Jesus had no hesitation: perhaps some of His disciples were, and were relieved when Jesus defended them (Mark 2:15ff). In this simple activity Jesus saw that the forgiveness and conversion of sinners was at stake (Matthew 21:28–32 and Luke 7:41–43), and that men were reconciled to God, and restored to the family of Israel (so Luke 19: 9). And all this was effected without any real undermining of the moral order.
The problem Jesus faced was how to win over the good, the pious Jews. What He gave was no embattled defence, nor superior ‘put down’, but a genuine appeal, seeking to win these folk over. It was a persistent effort to win ‘the righteous’, not humiliate them. This was prophesied in Isaiah 49:6 and Malachi 4:6.
Jesus knew that forgiveness effected responsive love. When reproached for such ease of forgiveness and acceptance, He responded that forgiveness produced love, not a renewed hardening and guilt. The sinner found acceptance guaranteed, without any conditions, only by returning home. This is clearly seen in the Parable of the Prodigal in Luke 15:12ff (an opportunity for Pharisees to repent and so rejoin the festive family) where Jesus appeals in response to His condemned activities (Luke 15:1–2). Although Jesus had obvious success – Zacchaeus evidenced a character change in his spontaneous giving, the ‘justified sinful woman’ demonstrated her love with service, and Matthew followed as a disciple – His presence with these people did not guarantee automatic renewal. Jesus ate with Pharisees (Luke 7:30ff and 11:37ff), but since forgiveness is an act of grace, not all desired to accept it. In Luke 15:25ff it means giving up any boasting in self–achievement, any slavish attitude of wage earner before God. Neither of the sons in this parable had lived as sons; they had denied their sonship in Israel, and the elder son rejected (finally?!) the fellowship of the father, together with the forgiveness of his brother.
Jesus then, by eating at table with any men, welcomed all to fellowship with the Father, and His brothers.
Posts
