The Meal of a New Kingdom (Luke 5:27-38)

We start today with some historical background, most of which I learned or was reminded of by reading a book by Alan Streett called Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord’s Supper Under Roman Domination during the First Century, although you may be more familiar with this history thanks to William Shakespeare, or a Ben Stiller movie.

When Julius Caesar was assassinated, he was declared a god by the Roman senate. In ancient Rome, leaders were sometimes given that honor after they died.

Then there began a struggle for power: who would be the new leader of Rome?  Would it be Antony, Julius Caesar’s military commander; or would it be Octavius, Julius Caesar’s adopted son?

This struggle for power intensified. The entire Roman Empire was on the verge of civil war. Whose side would you take? Antony, or Octavius? The military commander, or the son?

Eventually, Octavius defeated Antony, and Octavius became the new ruler of Rome. He got a new name: Octavius became known Caesar Augustus. Because Octavius (now Caesar Augustus) successfully defeated Antony and stopped the civil war, he was proclaimed the bringer of peace, the savior of Rome; and word of his victory was called the “Good News.”

And because his father, Julius Caesar, had been declared a god, Caesar Augustus was declared the son of God… and in some parts of Rome, he was even considered divine himself.

Caesar Augustus was celebrated and honored throughout the empire. Everyone in Rome gathered often with friends and acquaintances for a banquet in Caesar’s honor. It was what people did. Everyone, from those in Caesar’s palace to the poorest peasants, gathered often for these banquets.

The Lord’s Supper that we celebrate today has its origins in these Roman banquets.

The way these banquets took place is like this: Invitations would be sent out by a host or by a person designated by the host. The location would be a room that the host secured, either in his own home, the home of a friend, or in a building owned by an association he belonged to. Obviously, the wealthier the host, the fancier the location. But even poor people would save their money and work hard to secure a decent room, as well as the services of one or two slaves to serve the meal.

You may recall that when Jesus wanted to celebrate the Passover with his disciples, the meal that would be his last supper, he sent two of them out to find and reserve such a room.

The room itself was called… the triclinium. It would have three tables set up in a U-shape, so that the attendees could dine and see each other, with an opening in the tables for the slaves to serve the food and keep the wine glasses full.

Attendees at these banquets didn’t sit up straight; they reclined, leaning on their left elbow, and eating with their right hand. That seems strange to us, so strange that Bible translators often talk about people “attending banquets” or “sitting at the table,” even though the original languages speak of reclining.

At these banquets, people would be seated according to importance. Seats of greater importance were given as a way to thank someone who had perhaps hosted his own banquet recently, or who was known for his insightful or witty contributions to the table conversation, or who the host wanted to honor in some way. 

Everyone at the table, however, was free to participate in the conversation; and they all came from the same class of people. In fact, it was kind of a rule of Rome that you only reclined with your own kind. Nobles didn’t dine with peasants, for example.  And Jews, who (like everyone else) participated in these banquets, didn’t dine with non-Jews, or with people they considered “unclean.”

I keep using male pronouns; generally speaking, only men were present at these banquets. Perhaps if it was a wedding banquet, a few women might be present, but otherwise, it was only men.

The banquet was divided into two parts. First, the meal itself, which was called the deipnon.

After the meal, there would be a ceremonial drinking of wine, kind of like a toast; this marked the transition from the deipnon to the second part of the banquet, the symposium.

The ceremonial glass of wine was done as a way of honoring Jupiter or one of the other gods of Rome. Usually Caesar was honored as well, especially since Caesar was a god, or a son of God. So to a large degree, the meal was about loyalty to Rome.

Not saluting Rome and Caesar at these meals was unheard of. It would be like not standing for the National Anthem at a ballgame… or not having the national anthem. Even though peasants only ate with peasants, businessmen only ate with businessmen, and nobles only ate with nobles – and Jews only ate with Jews – they were all united in their allegiance to Rome through the ceremonial drinking of wine.

The banquet then moves on to the second part, the symposium. Most often the symposium was a time of conversation, often around a particular topic which would be announced in advance. Sometimes there was singing. And occasionally there would be some form of entertainment, especially among the upper classes: dance, or some other type of performance, such as Salome’s dancing at Herod’s banquet.

Because he was a well-known teacher, Jesus was often invited to these banquets. They wanted to hear what he had to say – he always had something new or fascinating to say – and they wanted to engage him in conversation or lively debate. You see this in all the gospels, but especially in the gospel of Luke, which describes many of these banquets that Jesus attended.

The first banquet that Luke describes is the one Jesus attended at the house of Levi. The scripture says that there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others reclining with him.

Then the scripture mentions the Pharisees. Were Pharisees also invited to this banquet? Probably not. For them, the boundaries of who could dine with who were strictly observed, and they would never accept an invitation to a banquet at the home of a tax collector. Tax collectors were collaborators with Rome, and the Pharisees – like many other Jews – saw Rome as an oppressive empire completely at odds with Judaism.

Of course, that didn’t stop them from participating in their own banquets.

So how did the Pharisees get there, in Levi’s house? It’s likely that the triclinium was somewhat open to the public; perhaps it had large windows, as buildings often did, to let in cool air, and the Pharisees stood in the windows. Or perhaps they stood in an open door and interrupted the banquet that way.

And, during the symposium that followed the meal, they asked Jesus, “Why do you dine with tax collectors and sinners?”

It went against Roman ideals to invite people from different sectors of society to the same banquet. Rome wanted to keep people in their place, and the banquet was a means of doing so.

It also went against the ideals of the Pharisees, who believed in only associating with pure, righteous Jews (like themselves).

But Jesus is not interested in the ideals of Rome, or even of the religious elite. His interest is the kingdom of God; and in God’s kingdom, there are no boundaries. In God’s kingdom, the walls are broken down. God’s kingdom is an inclusive kingdom, where all are welcome, all are equal, and all are invited to dine at the banquet table together.

Then someone asks him about fasting. This is the kind of conversation that took place at a typical symposium, although Jesus’s answers were often anything but typical.

As far as fasting is concerned, Jews often fasted as a way of anticipating God’s kingdom. I don’t know for sure, but since these banquets honored Caesar and the gods of Rome, perhaps they abstained, on occasion, from eating at these banquets as a way of protesting against Rome without drawing too much attention to the fact that they were protesting against Rome, because it wouldn’t be wise to draw attention to anything anti-Roman.

Jesus says, basically: “You fast as a way of anticipating God’s kingdom, but now that I’m here, God’s kingdom is here as well. I am the harbinger of that new kingdom. I am God’s representative on earth, the son of God.”

Do you hear how much more anti-Roman Jesus’s statement is? It’s one thing to say “I’m waiting for a new kingdom that will come one day.” Perhaps Rome could tolerate a sentiment like that.

It’s a whole other thing to say “that new kingdom is here now.”

And to say that you are God’s son, that you are God’s representative on earth – that’s how the Romans talked about Caesar. So basically, Jesus is saying, “I’m the new Caesar. I’m the new king. It’s a whole new game. All that fasting business, in anticipation of the kingdom… that’s old wine. The kingdom of God is at hand. Now it’s time for new wine, in new wineskins. A new day has dawned.”

Eventually Rome took notice of Jesus, and all his “new-kingdom” talk, and executed him. After all, there can only be one Caesar.

However, through the resurrection, God demonstrated that what Jesus said was true, that he really was God’s representative on earth, God’s son … and not even Caesar could stop him.

And it wouldn’t be long before Jesus’s followers began dining and raising their glass not to Caesar, but to Jesus. That was a radical shift… and one that could get them in big trouble. The meal they ate became a meal of remembrance… in remembrance of Jesus, not Caesar.

It became the meal of a new kingdom on earth.