The Hungry Jesus
Asaraton mosaic, Chateau de Boudry |
Across the spectrum of theological and historical opinion,
one thing most pictures of the historical Jesus share is that he was a good
eater, participating in meals with diverse company and a lack of ascetic
restraint. But the same variety of portraits, from N. T. Wright to John Dominic
Crossan, tend to share a more specific and curious claim, namely that Jesus was
somehow a radical and inclusive host. One of the above-named authorities may
suffice as a representative, as well as confirmation of the consensus:
“The tradition of festive meals at which Jesus welcomed all
and sundry is one of the most securely established features of almost all
recent scholarly portraits.”[1]
There is really just one, quite large problem: such meals
are a fantasy, not (or not only) for those who are sceptical about the
historicity of much of the Gospel meal material, but even at the
canonical, literary level. Jesus is simply not depicted as welcoming
diverse guests to festive meals.
Since I may seem to have just uttered nonsense or
heresy or both, let me explain. Jesus is indeed depicted, at least in
reports attributed to his enemies, as an indiscriminate eater, both with regard
to company and to quantity, and perhaps also as playing fast and loose
regarding different kinds of foods. None of these however amounts to “Jesus
welcoming all and sundry to festive meals."
Jesus was accused of eating with tax collectors and sinners
(Mark 2:16 etc; Matt 10:3, 11:19/Luke 7:34, Matt 21:31-2, Luke 15:1-2). This
single repeated accusation of guilt by association has its simplest
narrative form in Mark 2, and its most elaborate in Luke 19 (the story of
Zacchaeus), although the identification of one of the twelve as a tax collector
may be a separate and solid tradition. Historical critics generally,
if not universally, acknowledge a core of likely fact
underneath these narratives, although
the stories (especially in Luke) are artful compositions that reflect
the literary genre of the symposium rather than mere historical reminiscence. Note however that Jesus is always the guest in these stories, not the host. He is welcomed, not welcomer.
Jesus is also accused of being a “glutton and a drunkard” in
a Q saying (11:19/Luke 7:34) linked there with the first
accusation, and which serves to contrast Jesus and John. This reads
like a stock piece of abuse, echoing Deut 21:20, but the slur is itself
unlikely to have been invented by later Christians, just because it is so
awkward. How much it tells us about Jesus’ real eating and drinking habits
practice is another question; but there is no reason to think Jesus emulated
John’s asceticism.
The question of just what he ate can also be difficult, with
Mark 7:23 as a sort of crux: “in saying this, he declared all foods clean.”
This is however an explicitly editorial interpretive comment, and does not
allow even the most conservative or credulous commentator to think Jesus
himself rejected Jewish dietary laws in his teaching, let alone that he
ate in disregard of them.
So we can still accept that Jesus was neither discriminating
about company nor ascetic about food choices. But all this material has to do
with his acceptance of invitations, not his welcoming anyone. This is a
hungry Jesus, not a hospitable one.
Whence the welcoming Jesus then? From at least four other sorts
of meal story or tradition, also interesting but more problematic as evidence
of a historical Jesus who could be agreed upon by the usual standards of
critical scholarship.
First, Jesus could be read into the role of host
in parabolic or eschatological banquets attributed to him as teacher
- not as literal eater. Is he the King and/or host of Matt 22 or Luke 14? If
so, he is not a very inclusive host – but in any case he is a literary or
imagined one.
More promising for the welcoming Jesus, but problematic for
historians, are the miraculous feeding stories found in all four Gospels (Mark
6:34-44 etc.). Here Jesus does take the role of a host, blessing and feeding
the multitudes. But these are not presented as typical or characteristic
events, whatever we make of them historically. They point to an eschatological
reality more than a present one; and while the size of the crowds suggests some sort of inclusiveness, bread and fish are not really festive (where's the wine?), and these stories
are not connected with Jesus’ problematic associations with sinners. They
depict Jesus as an impressive caterer, not as inclusive host.
Third there is the most famous meal story, the last supper.
Here again we can acknowledge Jesus as host. Is this an inclusive meal? While
assumptions about the exclusion of women from the meal can be
challenged, the makeup of the twelve - including the tax collector and the
zealot - is the clearest form of inclusivity here, but amounts to a
representative rather than an “all and sundry” selection. There are of course many
scholars who doubt the historicity of the supper at least in the familiar
terms, although some of us think that the existence of quite distinct versions
of the so-called “institution narrative” in Paul (and Luke) as well as Mark
(and Matthew) makes a case for its authenticity.
Last, there are resurrection meal scenes where Jesus is host
(and cook - John 21). Despite formal blessings in one case
(Luke 24:13-35), these are not really festive, and not at all inclusive. And it
must go without saying that whatever their force for readers with eyes to see,
they will not serve to establish the practice of the historical Jesus.
This sort of hospitable Jesus may well be a
common feature of many scholarly portraits, but is not, despite that, a
strongly-based historical one. Jesus
appears as host in quite different material from that where he is depicted as
keeping bad company and being a wine-bibber. The “host” material tends to be
the product of later reflection rather than the best-attested traditions that
scholars would attribute to the historical Jesus.
So the inclusive welcoming Jesus is the product of creative
theological reflection, some in the Gospels and the ancient Church to be sure, but
a remarkable amount of it simply modern fantasy. It is yet another instance of how
picturing Jesus, we seem to picture ourselves or our wishful thinking.
Theologizing is not, I hasten to add, a bad thing - but it is bad to confuse
history and theology precisely when one is supposedly in the act of
distinguishing them to assess their relative roles and functions.
Why so many scholars believe or assume this Jesus suggests a problem of the social
psychology of knowledge as much as of historical criticism, but there have
been other similar cases where the obvious has turned out to be false, in
NT studies and elsewhere. What was thought obvious about Paul’s attitude
to Judaism, or about Jesus and Jewish purity, have had to be deconstructed and
rebuilt in recent times; this may be another case.
What, if anything, does the historical Jesus really offer for
further reflection on food and meals? Jesus was apparently an itinerant without
direct means of support, and his willingness or even desire to be included
indiscriminately is not really so surprising in itself. He will have been
hungry from time to time, and hunger makes for interesting and diverse table
fellowship. So his willingness (or need) to be included, rather than
to include others, is the most striking and most overlooked aspect of Jesus’ life as an eater.
Perhaps the Christian rush to do good in Jesus’ name, taking
him as a supposed moral example, has fueled a stampede past this simple and I
think fairly solid historical reality. Perhaps it is too hard for
some Christians to think of a hungry Jesus making himself dependent on others,
when we would rather use him as a model for acts of “radical welcome” that
assume we are privileged host and not the needy guest. But this hungry Jesus
also has his more explicitly theological and eschatological place in the
tradition too: "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of
these my brothers and sisters, you did it to me” (Matt 25:40).
[1] Wright,
N. T. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was & Is. Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999. p. 45.
Thank you for the gentle and important provocations. Thinking of Jesus primarily as guest and not host is a helpful reframing that leads in many important directions. But I had two Biblically-related thoughts:
ReplyDeleteFirst, in Luke 4, Jesus proclaims that he has come to bring good news to the poor. In the next chapter (5.29-32), he accepts an invitation to a "great banquet" given by a tax collector. Whatever else the tax collector was, he wasn't "poor," at least not as the word is commonly understood. So how do Jesus' meal practices help change our understanding of what proclaiming good news to the poor means?
Second, I think Jesus did have support—from women. Luke 8.1-3 describes the women who followed Jesus, including the wife of Herod's steward "and many others, who provided for them out of their resources." I have this picture of this itinerant teacher supported by the wives of the rich and powerful.
Thanks again for the careful reading.