Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§14.8 The Character of Disciple ship
family. 251 The Jesus tradition certainly resonates very positively with the imagery,
but none of the stages of the Jesus tradition reflected in the Gospels (not
even Mark) would validate pressing it to a necessary or unavoidable antithesis.
14.8. Open Fellowship
I have left this characteristic of discipleship to the last, not because it is of lesser
importance than the rest, but because it sums up much that was both characteristic
and distinctive of the social self-understanding that Jesus encouraged in his disciples.
Two features in particular stand out: table-fellowship and absence of boundaries.
They overlap, but it is worth attempting to give them separate treatment.
a. Table Fellowship
Jesus' practice of eating in company was clearly a regular and important feature
of his mission. We have already noted that Jesus had a reputation for eating and
drinking too much — 'a glutton and a drunkard' (Matt. 11.19/Luke 7.34). 252 We
should hardly take such an accusation literally. 253 But presumably Jesus did
spend a fair amount of time at the meal table, no doubt in conversation and teach-
251. It is unclear what Matt. 19.12 ('. . . there are eunuchs who have made themselves
eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven') contributes to the discussion. It can certainly
be attributed to Jesus (see particularly Davies and Allison, Matthew 3.22-25; Allison, Jesus
182-85) and could be taken as a piece of autobiography (without implication of literal selfcastration)
in partial explanation of why Jesus himself did not marry (e.g., Schräge, Ethics 93;
Gnilka, Jesus 172-73), quite possibly as a jibe directed against Jesus by his critics (J. Blinzler,
'Eisin eunouchoi. Zur Auslegung von Mt 19,12', ZAW48 [1957] 254-70; F. J. Moloney, 'Matthew
19.3-12 and Celibacy', JSNT2 [1979] 42-60 [here 50-52]; Meier, Marginal Jew 3.504-
505, 507-508). But if so, is it more than a vivid expression of complete commitment to his mission
(cf. Paul: 1 Cor. 7.32-35; 9.5, 12)? And is there any real indication that Jesus expected
quite such an extreme expression of dedication from all his disciples (contrast 1 Cor. 9.5)?
Allison pushes the evidence too hard (Matt. 19.10-12; 5.27-28; Mark 9.42-48 [chapter 12
n. 192]; 12.18-27) in arguing that Jesus can be understood as a 'millenarian ascetic' some of
whose teaching 'reveals a deep alienation from the world as it is' (Jesus 172-216, quotation
from 205). Nor should Matt. 23.9 ('Call no man your father on earth') be cited here (pace
Gnilka, Jesus 201-202; cf. Barton, Discipleship 130). As Barton notes (215 n. 294), what is in
view is not household authority but teaching authority (see also Davies and Allison, Matthew
3.276-77).
252. Cited above, §12.5c; and see also §13.5.
253. 'An urban partygoer', 'the proverbial party animal' (Funk, Honest 192, 208).
Jeremias argues that the denigration of Jesus is derived from Deut. 21.20 and 'stigmatizes him
on the strength of this connection as a "refractory and rebellious son", who deserved to be
599