A Cook's Confessions
by Simon Holt
Zadok Perspectives Issue No. 62
Spring/Summer 1998/1999

Eating with whom?

Now, before you dismiss this as the theological ramblings of a culinary obsessive, consider this: Jesus ministered in two cultures which took the rituals of eating very seriously. In Greco-Roman culture you were defined socially by who you ate with. Meal table etiquette was one of the most important expressions of social order and stability. Everyday meals were highly complex events through which social values, boundaries, statuses and hierarchies were reinforced. Therefore, one ate exclusively with one's own social or professional class-no negotiations; no exceptions. Further, within one's class, strict seating regulations clearly demonstrated who fitted where in the social pecking order. Anyone who challenged these customs in Greco-Roman society was judged to be acting dishonourably; at worst, they were labeled an enemy of social and political stability.

Similarly, in Jewish society, where and with whom one ate was matter of great importance. Following the destruction of the temple in 586 BC, there was a need to consecrate a new holy place for the presence of God. As one response, a group of devout people took it upon themselves to organise and keep their own homes as pure as the temple had been. By the time Jesus entered the picture, it was the Pharisees who were promoting this concept of the home as holy place. With a passion for national and personal righteousness, the Pharisees adhered to and promoted a complex and detailed set of dinner-time regulations through which racial and religious purity could be assured. In Jewish culture, the ritual purity of your dinner guests was as important as your own.

So, for the Gentiles an exclusive dinner table was the marker of social stability and for the Jews a marker of religious purity. Into this context walks Jesus, who proceeds to break every rule in the proverbial book. As you read through the gospels you find him eating anywhere and with anyone. With no regard for status, profession, moral standing, family background, religious affiliation, race or gender, Jesus shares a meal with anyone who will have him, and invites still others along with him.

Was Jesus just a rebel? An insensitive, ill-mannered bohemian? An awkward, ignorant social misfit, blissfully unaware of his numerous social gaffes? On all counts, no! Jesus knew exactly what he was doing. He not only offended; he made his many critics, Jew and Gentile, furious. "He's a glutton and drunkard," they said. "Look who he's eating with: tax collectors and sinners!" they fumed. "Don't you know what you are doing? Don't you know who they are?" they demanded of him. Time and again his critics would leave exasperated, angry, perhaps fearful of his influence.

Why did Jesus' actions illicit such a strong reaction? Because by the simple act of eating, Jesus was challenging the most fundamental principles of exclusion in both Greco-Roman and Jewish societies. For Jesus, the dinner table was a metaphor for the kingdom of God. By eating anywhere and with anyone, Jesus was formally signalling the radical inclusivity of this kingdom he had come to establish. Let it be known, he was saying, from this point on the invitation to God's table is open to anyone who will respond. All are welcome, regardless of race, social position, bank balance, religious background, colour, gender or lifestyle. Jesus described the kingdom of God as a great banquet, to which God as host invites the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame-the very ones excluded from most Jewish and Roman dinner tables.

The implications of Jesus' action are, of course, far-reaching. But what intrigues me at this point is what all this means for the way I eat! What are the implications of Jesus' actions for dinner time at my house? Let me offer a number of suggestions.

To: Sacred supper

Simon Holt Simon Holt is a regular contributor to Zadok Perspectives.