“‘Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way before you.’
I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” (When all the people heard this, and the tax collectors too, they declared God just,[b] having been baptized with the baptism of John, but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)
“To what then shall I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another,
“‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’
For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.” (Luke 7:24-35, ESV).
Glutton and drunkard! Both Matthew (chapter 11) and Luke include this pericope, which began with Jesus paying that tribute to imprisoned John. I doubt the powerful of Judea were making any representations on John's behalf! (Not so long after that he was arbitrarily executed by order of the ruler.)
Jesus hardly meant the whole population (generation) was now disaffected with him? Perhaps a highly significant segment were so. Certainly men who "counted" were antagonistic. They are the ones who would be making allegations against Jesus (and John). They needed to justify their refusal to hear John, and then, Jesus.
However, surely those who respected John would have been likely to respect Jesus. Luke (above) tells us that those who listened to John's message, "the people", were willing to hear Jesus. They "agreed that God's way was right" (Luke 7:29, NLT); all the people, even the tax collectors. But there were others not counted amongst "the people"!
John was an unacceptable embarrassment to the supposedly upright; to those who knew they were virtuous; to those who strictly and diligently implemented their religion. Of John's diet we read: His clothes were woven from coarse camel hair, and he wore a leather belt around his waist. For food he ate locusts and wild honey. (Mark 1:6, NLT) Perhaps food from the environment was unusual enough to allow suspicion to be raised, suspicion of evil influence at work. Difference is dangerous - to some. (The Jordan Valley certainly had water; a lot more then, than in these days of extraction.)
Jesus was definitely eating and drinking! He drank wine (though clearly also good water - see below). Bread was also clearly part of his diet (see below). Drinking wine was a commonplace. Grape processing and wine fermentation had been under way for centuries. The production from crushed grapes came as: grape juice, new wine, half-fermented must, fully fermented wine, vinegar. Jars remain which were used to store wine.
Water is essential for life. In the situation where clean water is unavailable, it is likely wine would be the healthier option anyway. Years ago I could hike in the National Park, and if a trickling stream was encountered, especially if the water was running through moss, could drink directly from it. (Though, the wise hiker checked upstream for anything undesirable!) The creek bed did not make it, but running water might be expected to be fresh. Jesus used the illustration. There likely were people feeling thirsty in that crowded festival that day: On the last day, the climax of the festival, Jesus stood and shouted to the crowds, “Anyone who is thirsty may come to me! Anyone who believes in me may come and drink! For the Scriptures declare, ‘Rivers of living water will flow from his heart.’”[e] (When he said “living water,” he was speaking of the Spirit, who would be given to everyone believing in him. But the Spirit had not yet been given,[f] because Jesus had not yet entered into his glory.)
Jesus made an earlier reference to living water: But he had to go through Samaria. So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well. It was about noon.
A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.” (His disciples had gone to the city to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.)[a] Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well, and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?” Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.” (John 4:4-14, NRSV). The woman did grasp what Jesus was saying and did accept his invitation. His invitation still stands.
Towards the Passover and arrest, water played a strategic part in Jesus' arrangements. So he sent two of his disciples and told them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. (Mark 4:13, CSB). Water being carried around Jerusalem in jars. The sight of the man doing it may have been unusual. Was it drinking water , or water for purification purposes, or washing, or cooking? None of that was important to the disciples' job. (I am very fortunate to be able to simply turn on a tap and have as much water as I want. Today 89% of people in the world do not enjoy any such privilege. https://www.tearfund.org.au/what-we-do/water-and-sanitation )
Jesus made an ultimate use of wine, as well as bread, as a symbol portraying just what he was doing in the world and for the world. This took place at their Passover in Jerusalem that last time. During their meal, which included bread and wine, as well as a slaughtered lamb, Jesus took a cup of wine in his hands and gave thanks to God. Then he told the apostles, “Take this wine and share it with each other. I tell you that I will not drink any more wine until God’s kingdom comes.”
Jesus took some bread in his hands and gave thanks for it. He broke the bread and handed it to his apostles. Then he said, “This is my body, which is given for you. Eat this as a way of remembering me!”
After the meal he took another cup of wine in his hands. Then he said, “This is my blood. It is poured out for you, and with it God makes his new agreement. (Luke 22:17-20, CEV) Today, sins are forgiven under the new agreement. No ritual or intermediary is required. None. It is the gift of God to be accepted and trusted. (See also John 6). The story of the Passover is found in Exodus, chapter 12, etc.
Jesus was a person of his time and his culture. It is not credible that he was a drunkard and glutton. (I am not aware of any information bearing on the allegation Jesus was a glutton.) However, unless the phrase had become simply part of the language, those who said that may have in fact been referring to the extremely severe words of the Old Testament: If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid. (Deut 21:18-21, NRSV). I do not know how or if those provisions of the Jewish Law were implemented. It is clear, however, that (some) critics did see Jesus as a troublesome upstart who would never "fit", as truly rebellious and deserving the extreme penalty.
That allegation against Jesus again: you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ The criticism appears to have been repeated, to be familiar ("you say"). Jesus' association with the disreputable was obvious enough and very easily seen. Jesus welcomes (welcomed) all. It was also clear he did not just accept the status quo. Those holding power knew he questioned accepted things. It would be easier to ignore and despise him as a drunk glutton, if you could convince yourself it was so. Clearly not all were prepared to take Jesus at his word; to trust and obey him. The rejecters wanted him ignored, treated with contempt and disdain. Maybe in their conscience they needed a reason to silence those words of his. What do you think?
PS: Re the alcohol question today: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/health-advice/alcohol
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated. Allen Hampton