At first sight it may seem strange that Jesus should countenance the Jewish custom of Sabbath banqueting, which was carried to such excess that its character for luxury became proverbial. At the same time we must remember that the prin- ciple which lay at the root of this method of feast- ing was the honour of the Sabbath day (cf. three quotations from Shabbath illustrative of this in Lightfoot, op. cit. iii. 149). Nor was this practice out of harmony with Jesus' views and teaching on the Sabbath rest, so long as it was conducted in a spirit of humility, mutual toleration, and charity (cf. Lk 14'""). It is of interest, and in this respect not without significance, to notice that, on the last Sabbath spent bj- Jesus before His Passion, He was the chief guest at a festive meal (e-n-oirjcav of'j' ai'Tip deiTTvov cKei, Jn 12"). This was probably on the evening of the Sabbath day as it was drawing to a close and passing away, when festivities were of the most liberal and elaborate character {epulic lautiorcs) ; and it is evident from the three narra- tives (St. Luke's story of tlie anointing of Jesus by the ' woman who was a sinner ' [7^'] can scarcely be a record of the same event [see, however, Heng- stenberg. Com. on St. John, Eng. tr. pp. 1-33, etc.]) that it made a deep impression on the minds of Jesus' followers (cf. INIk W, Mt 26«-, Jn 12^). From the way in which St. John dispenses with the use of the nominative before the verb, it would seem that this meal was of a semi-public char- acter, designed to do honour to Jesns, and that the iionse of 'Simon the leper' was made the meeting-place for all who wished to meet Him (cf. "Westcott, ad lor., and Edersheim, op. cit. ii. 357 f.). It is impossible not to be struck with the way in
152
MEALS
MEASURES
•which Jesus makes use of the opportianity afforded liy His presence at tliese meals on the Sabbath, to inculcate lessons of large - hearted charity even when His host is inclined to be the discourteous critic (Lk 1^^ ii38.45ff. j^iff.^ ^f j^ i27f-). There is no appearance of disapproval in His attitude to- wards what was tending to, if it had not already become, an abuse, because there were latent possi- bilities for good in the joyous and festive Sabbath. It was to these possibilities that He directed His attention.
Acting on these principles, we can understand His words and deeds on the evening when He instituted 'the Lord's Supper' {KvpiaKov ddnvov, 1 Co 11-"). As we have seen, the JewLsh custom was to constitute the bread the representative food at their meals. In the same way wine was considered the representative drink. Many and elaborate rules were formulated as to the manner in which blessings were to be said over these, and the discussions arising out of the etiquette to be observed degenerated into meaningless verbalism (see Berakhoth, 3oa, 36a, 416, referred to by Eders- heim, ii. 206). In spite of this spiritual decadence and barren ritualism, Jesus did what was charac- teristic of His general teaching. He rescued the primitive act from its debased surroundings, and the wine blessed {to iroT-qpLov ttjs euXoylas) became the means of a participating of ' the blood of Christ' {KOLvwvia tov al'/taros), and tlie loaf blessed and broken (tov dprov Sv KXQfxev, apTOv evXoyrjcras) became the joyful (euxapiOTTjo-as) communion of ' the body of Christ ' (cf. 1 Co IQi"- 1 P^-^^ l^ 22i9f-, Mk 14"f.^ ^^l^ 26-"- )• In a spirit somewhat similar He dealt with the elaborate ceremonial washings which His Jewish contemporaries sought to elevate to the rank of a compulsory religious rite (Mt 152 = Mk 72ff-, Lk 1P» ; for a description of this Jewish practice during meals, see Edersheim, ii. 207). Not the least remarkable of the lessons, objective and spiritual, inculcated by Jesus was that in which He transformed what had become a tedious and worse than meaningless series of forms into a beautiful example of social service and personal humility (see Jn IS^"^-, cf. Lk 22-*^). By this single act He gathered up into one the various customs of His day, including the hospitable one of the guests' feet being washed by their host's servants before they sat down to eat, and taught His disciples the dignity of labour in the service of humanity (cf. Mt ISi-i-*, see Westcott on 13*, and Plummer, ' St. John ' in Camb. Gr. Test, ad loc). Nor must we omit to note here that the Church's Eucharistic meal constitutes tiie most emphatic object-lesson of tlie essential oneness of all Christian people in a brotherhood as extensive as her own borders, as intensive and real as any of the claims of Jesus to rule within the sphere of human thought (cf. irdvTe% be Ufxels ddeXcpoi ecrT€ Mt 238 . anci Philem ^%
Several different words are employed by the Evangelists to denote the bodily attitude of the Jews at their meals, all of which, however, imply that the custom was to recline with the body stretched out (cf. Edersheim, ii. 207). In this respect it is interesting to note the differences in usage, and the preferences tor one or more of these words which characterize each of the writers. St. Luke, for example, uses a Avord no fewer than 5 times which occurs nowhere else in the NT (Kara- K\idr,vai, 736 14s 2430 . Ka.TaK\lveiv, 9"- i'). Hobart states that in his use of the active voice St. Luke is employing ' the medical term for laying patients, or causing them to lie in bed, placing them in certain positions during operations— making them recline in a bath, etc' {The Medical Language of St. Luke, p. 69 ; cf., however, Luke 2^ 12^'^). As niight be expected, this Evangelist exhibits a richer and