I lied because I was obstinately independent. I lied because I thought Christians were fools. I lied because it was socially expedient. It was the quickest way to get out of the uncomfortable conversation with my grandmother. By the time my grandmother died, I was an avowed atheist who liked to pick fights with Christians about their beliefs.

But then a friend who wasn’t afraid of my debates asked me to join him at a youth service to learn more. With the persistence of my grandmother he invited me again and again. And I relented. I discovered the pain of my stubbornness. I recognized my failure to be and do good apart from God and I came to learn that Jesus was the way of hope even in my brokenness. God had a plan that sought to redeem all things to his purposes, possibly even my life.

The Grace of a Conquistador

Having committed to faith in Christ though I quickly learned that God expected me to make manifest his kingdom. I flourished under these expectations, learning to live into the new identity God had given me.

At first, I was overzealous. Completely flip-flopping in my debates with Christians from avowed atheist to avowed apologist. The faith, its doctrines, and especially my thoughts on them had to be defended and I was just the man for the job. I would be the one to prove the bible true. Each and every doubt or question had a solution waiting to be conquered along with the people who voiced them.

My way of being hadn’t changed much post conversion. Like Benedict Arnold, I had simply switched sides. I still sought out the conflict, the fight and the debate.

Unfortunately, it is hard for a conqueror to communicate grace to the conquered.

On too many occasions my breath carried the odor of toe-jam. The after taste of which was less than satisfying. In her novel Gilead, Marilynn Robinson’s character John Ames perhaps said it best.

​Nothing true can be said about God from a posture of defense

But defend I did! Vigorously at that.

From Atheist to Apologist to Participant

I have a second grade daughter that is fantastic at mathematics. Her teacher sends home extra work for her because she finishes the regular work too quickly. Last week she wanted me to look over her homework and I noticed she had made a mistake.

She totaled the sum of 713 and 129 as 832 rather than 842. When I said that she might want to check her work she insisted that her answer was correct. Even after we did the problem another way, broke it down and solved it on a calculator she still insisted on her answer. There was no convincing her that the tens place should be occupied by a 4 rather than a 3.

She is her father’s daughter after all. As both an atheist and an apologist I had approached the problems of the biblical text in the same way. Obstinate defiance. I refused to see the evidence right in front of my face and admit the truth because doing so would somehow reflect my own fallenness, my own ability to make mistakes.

The irony is that it is precisely fallenness, that proclivity to make mistakes, that God wishes to redeem. In defending the full humanity of Jesus, Gregory of Nazianus, 4th C. CE Archbishop of Constantinople, argued that whatever Jesus “has not assumed, he has not healed.” At the time, Apollinaris had been arguing that Jesus was fully human except for his divine logos (or mind). To Gregory this was tantamount to saying that the human mind was beyond redemption – even the redemption offered by God.

I like to think that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If he was willing to enter fully into our humanity in Jesus, then it seems likely that he was willing to enter into that humanity during his self revelation in scripture. In seeking to partner with human authors and audiences God entered into our proclivity for encultured expression, miscommunication, misjudgement and error. He did this in order to do what he as always done: to heal that which he assumes, to redeem it (even its cultured expressions), transform it and draw it to a new place and purpose more conformed to himself.

I realized that I shouldn’t be an atheist or an apologist. I was simply called to be a participant in a story that was so much bigger than either of those categories, bigger than myself. I discovered that my relationship with God through Jesus in the power of the Spirit was not made up of one answered question after another, but manifest as part of the larger story of God’s redemptive history.

• A history that is filled with ambiguity and tension.
• A story that is filled with love and grace but also wrath and judgment.
• And a story of the reality of present suffering and of glorified futures already manifested in renewed identities.

I discovered that God has always sought those he calls to himself where they are at, in their own broken contexts, in order to bring them to a new context.

I search the archaeological and cultural backgrounds of the biblical text because I no longer see the biblical text as something to be affirmed or negated. It simply exists in the tension of the messy middle created by the combination of divine intent and human instruments. It simply reveals a God that is constantly calling us to participate in the greatest story of transformation ever told. Its title is ‘The Renewal of All Things,” atheists, apologists and participants included.

The Bible is not to be affirmed or negated. It reveals the God calling us to participate in redemptive history.

The area is so large that almost no historians would claim to specialize in the entire region. Yet, if we wish to become familiar with the many and varied people groups, cultures, and geographical settings of the bible we will have to become familiar with this grand landscape. For me, after having spent a decade focusing on the geography and and cultural backgrounds of Israel and Palestine, the next logical step was to expand my studies to Turkey (Anatolia/Asia Minor). That’s why I can’t wait to head to Turkey this summer to study the historical and cultural geography of the New Testament world with Brad Gray.

I think you should join me!​

If you’ve ever thought you wanted to visit the “holy land” or study the “lands of the bible,” you will need to include the lands of Turkey as a major part of that study sooner or later. They afford a picture of the New Testament world that is not available anywhere else. Here are seven reasons why.

7 reasons you should study the Bible in Turkey

Hagia Sophia. Photo courtesy of The Pictorial Library of Bible Lands

1. The New Testament was written from real people to real people

At least two-thirds of the new testament texts were either written from or to locations in Turkey (Asia Minor/ Anatolia). In our our attempts at systematic theologies and applications of the apostles’ words to our modern context we frequently forget that they were not written first and foremost for and to us. They were largely letters or narratives written for a very different people in very specific contexts. The more familiar you are with those contexts, the history, geography and culture of the texts’ authors and recipients, the better equipped you are to understand those texts in their original context. This prevents you from reading your own context into the text and allows you to better translate the texts’ original meaning for application today.

2. You’ll gain an appreciation for difficulties faced by the apostles

While, in many ways, the Roman imperial infrastructure facilitated the spread of the gospel throughout the 1st century Roman world, it is easy to loose touch with just how difficult those missionary journeys were. We flippantly refer to Paul’s 1st, 2nd and 3rd missionary journeys with little understanding of the miles, hills and valleys surmounted. Actually traveling the land (though certainly with the advances of modern transportation) you can begin to appreciate the massive task that was set before the apostles as they sought to fulfill the commission of making disciples of all nations.​

3. You’ll encounter the real seven churches of revelation

As often as we would like to apply a specific judgement about one of the churches of Revelation to the congregation down the street (Don’t pretend like you haven’t) we really shouldn’t look to today’s church as our primary point of reference for understanding the point of the message in revelation. That church down the street, or across the intersection was not John of Patmos’ first or even intended audience. No, the churches of revelation are all in Turkey: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea! In most cases their geographical and ancient cultural context figure prominently in Revelation’s words for each of them. There is no better way to get a handle on why Jesus told them what he did than from within their precincts.

Temple of Apollo – Didyma, Photo courtesy of The Pictorial Library of Bible Lands

4. You’ll realize everything is bigger in Turkey​

If you thought that the moniker “everything is bigger in …” should be applied to Texas for all time you would be wrong. During the 1st century BCE-CE, as western Turkey, Cappadocia, Lycia and Galatia were annexed into the Roman Empire, these provinces on the fringes not only had the means but also had the desire to prove their allegiance to the Emperor. As a result everything, especially the imperial cults became bigger in Turkey. There is no better place to get a clear picture of the influence those cults had on the early church. 

Siloam Tunnel Inscription – Istanbul Museum. Photo courtesy WikiMedia Commons

5. The Istanbul Museum​

Sometimes its not just about the sites but about the material collections available. The Istanbul Museum is just such an impressive collection of artifacts. During the period of Ottoman control of Palestine significant material remains, such as the Siloam tunnel inscription, were collected and transferred to the Istanbul museum. There are physical remains here that can’t be seen anywhere else in the world.

6. You’ll be better equipped to Connect the Contexts​

The ancient greco-roman world is perhaps more akin to our own modern context then that of ancient Israel. While Israel is a perfect place to get a handle on the ministry of Jesus and the texts of the Old Testament, Turkey offers a unique vantage into how the gospel spread amongst and came to be applied in a culture more similar to our own in the modern western world.

7. It isn’t a vacation, it’s an investment.

As you consider how you might enhance your ministry, either as a professional or as a lay leader, or seek to enhance your understanding of the biblical text in general, there is no book or tool that compares to the transformative experience of reading the biblical texts with your feet. Traveling to the Lands of the Bible are an investment that pays dividends over a lifetime of ministry and devotion in the text.

Hattusha’s (capital of the Hittites) Lion Gate. Photo Courtesy of the Pictorial Library of Bible Lands

I would go on, but stopping at seven seems more biblical. Like I have attained some fulfillment of the task to which I set out. There are certainly more reasons to include Turkey in your travel plans as you study the lands of the bible, not least of which is the region’s influence on the world and culture of the Old Testament (Who were those pesky Hittites after all).

Planning your trip:

I discussed some of the additional reasons why you may want to include a trip to Turkey as part of your biblical studies with Pastor and Author Brad Gray on October 30th. Brad also shared upcoming opportunities to join us as we Walk the Text in the New Testament World.

I will be traveling with Brad to Turkey this summer for his “Walking the Text in the New Testament World”  trip and would be happy to explain why I think this is fantastic opportunity for any pastor or lay person interested in getting a better handle on the texts of the new testament.

If you, or someone you know, might benefit from knowing more about how studying the biblical text IN Turkey could transform their spiritual life then be sure to share this opportunity and video (blab) with them.

While I think the film will be popular among many church-goers as a new arrow in the quiver of apologetics, I doubt many serious biblical scholars will agree with its conclusions. Indeed, those conclusions are widely connected to a historical theory which has been carefully negated in scholarship (even among otherwise orthodox biblical scholars). Because of this, I fear that the film’s popularity with churches will wind up leaving the church ridiculed for trying to fire another broken arrow at the “white tower establishment”.

Patterns begins with a straightforward enough concept: The Bible describes an exodus event for which, according to many scholars, there is little to no extra-biblical corroborating archaeological or historical evidence. Taking seriously the record of the biblical text, Mahoney, a self-described “reluctant participant,” engages in what he calls a “scientific method” of identifying the exodus in the historical record. This method attempts to match the chronological “pattern” of the exodus described in the biblical text to evidence of that same chronological pattern in the archaeological and historical record.

Mahoney comes to a crisis when, as noted above, he finds there is little evidence of that “pattern” in the time periods normally associated with the exodus event. Stymied by professional archaeologists, even those who are otherwise sympathetic to traditional interpretations of the biblical text, Mahoney turns to the theories of David Rohl and John Bimson who, instead of accepting the normal dates associated with the reigns of Egyptian kings, have argued for revising the traditional chronology of Egyptian kings by pushing forward and expanding the king list by nearly 200 years.

This would allow the archaeological remains associated with earlier Egyptian dynasties to coincide with a 1450 date for the exodus. Fantastically depicted in the film’s best feature, an imaginary expanding “wall of time” shows how the different levels (biblical chronology, Egyptian chronology etc.) are aligned by Rohl, Bimson and Mahoney’s chronological shift.

It’s no surprise that the film is billed as “provocative” and “game-changing.” Mahoney opts to change everything we think we know about Egyptian history in order to get it to match more closely with the biblical chronology. But, contrary to what the filmmakers would have you believe, there is nothing new here, just a dejected theory. Indeed, most of the scholars interviewed in the film, even those who believe in a traditional biblical dating of the exodus, reject this revised chronology and opt for less-sensational, less provocative, less game changing, more accurate and more nuanced descriptions of the archaeological evidence of the exodus.

Unfortunately, those alternative positions are never fully articulated in the film, nor, for that matter, are any specific problems with the revised chronology. By short handing particular perspectives, the film becomes biased towards Rohl’s revised chronological solution, when other solutions could have been discussed. When I asked Mahoney Media why that was the case, Steve Law, the film’s co-writer, indicated that test audiences wound up becoming fatigued by “too much information.” Ultimately he indicated that “To us, the emphasis given in the film to the general idea of chronological revision not only was more cinematically engaging, but also has the most explanatory potency.”

This is the problem with the documentary format. It is not the best format to put forth and test supposed “new” ideas and solutions no matter how much they are qualified by “perhaps’s” and “could’s.” Time constraints mean that creditable opposition is never addressed. In “Patterns,”  all scholarship becomes flattened in a “them” vs. the revised chronology paradigm. The film lumps together traditional biblical maximilists and secular minimalists in a gang of “archaeological giants” that the revised chronology will take down with nothing but a sling and a prayer.

Apparently, arguing that secular scholars might be right in the date of the exodus but wrong in the details is simply not as provocative as claiming that scholars have everything under the sun about the exodus wrong. This is the problem with the medium Mahoney is using to argue for the historicity of the exodus. When it comes to the box office, the more provocative solution is always the best one, but when it comes to doing good historical, archaeological and biblical research, a theory’s glitz bears little on its accuracy. Real historical research is pounded out in the dialogue of hundreds of articles and papers, and refined in the open response to accusations of error in hundreds of pages – a 2-hour time limit and audience fatigue is not a problem.

In six hundred theaters tonight, viewers will come away from the film with no idea that they have just picked up a broken arrow. They won’t know that the revised Egyptian chronology is not a new theory and has been shown to create as many problems for biblical chronology as it solves. For instance, the stratigraphic sequence of the archaeological record in Israel doesn’t change even if we change the chronology of the Egyptian kings and associated material remains in Egypt. Major synchronizations between the biblical text and the archaeological record in the Iron Age wind up being pushed out of sync by Rohl’s revised chronology, for the periods of the Judges, the united monarchy and thereafter. (For a more detailed discussion of the problems the revised chronology creates, see Bryant Wood’s article here . For a fuller articulation of the very cogent alternatives to Rohl’s chronology, read Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt)

Simply put, Mahoney doesn’t consider a large enough data set. When trying to link the biblical chronology to the archaeological record we can’t just account for the pattern of the exodus: the arrival of the Hebrews in Egypt, their multiplication and enslavement, the eventual judgment of Egypt and subsequent exodus and conquest of Canaan. We also have to account for every period thereafter: the arrival of the philistines, and period of the judges, the united monarchy, civil war and Shishak’s attack, and the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

What we know about the stratigraphic and historical sequence of the latter set in Israel makes the chronological revision suggested by Mahoney untenable. In the end, by over-emphasizing the revised Egyptian chronology, Mahoney abandons the critical scientific method that led him to question mainstream archaeological thought in the first place.

Ultimately, “Patterns of Evidence” will leave viewers with the erroneous impression that the bible can be proven true by archaeology, but the historicity of the biblical text is not dependent upon the vicissitudes of historical preservation. Archaeology will not prove the veracity of the bible. Archaeology informs our understanding of the biblical text and the biblical text informs our understanding of the archaeological record. While we cannot fully understand one without the other, neither “proves” nor negates the other. And really, we shouldn’t ask them to.

I talked to Dana about his unique project, The Society for Humanitarian Archaeological Research and Exploration (SHARE), in this fourteen minute video.

Note: You will need to be listening to the audio in stereo in order to hear both ends of the conversation.

Dana took a break from his work after just coming home from the field to discuss the current crisis in Israel and Palestine and how he hopes to address it now and in the future. In the interview, I asked Dana five questions:

1. How has the current conflict affected archaeological work in the region?
2. How has archaeology contributed to the conflict?
3. How can archaeological research and exploration play a role in solving conflict?
4. What are the nuts and bolts of the Society for Humanitarian Archaeological Research and Exploration (SHARE)?
5. What is the one thing people can do right now to help?

Dana DePietro is a good friend, all around good person, and a mentor who taught me archaeological field technique as a young volunteer. He has an earned PhD in Near Eastern Art and Archaeology from the University of California, Berkeley.  He has worked on excavations throughout the middle-east including Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and Israel/Palestine, and is coming off the field from Acco, along the western coast of Israel. While there, he oversaw and directed fellowship programs for his organization—SHARE.

I love the SHARE program and have been a member almost since its inception. It is important for Christians to come down on the side of peace, rather than a particular political entity. We have never been called to protect or gain any earthly claim through the strength of arms.

You can find out more about SHARE on its website, or see photos from their latest efforts to bring Palestinians and Israelis together by following them on Facebook.

Context, for the archaeologists is everything. Indeed, where a particular artifact was found, its provenance, is often more important than the artifact itself. Context is so important to the archaeologist that it is the fundamental unit of archaeological data. Everything from the smallest potsherd to the most massive of ancient walls is assigned a context.

Four benefits of knowing the archaeological context of artifacts

1. Context gives meaning to the artifact

Context tells us in what way an artifact was created, used or discarded. It connects the artifact to the greater narrative of the room, the building, the neighborhood, the city, and the society in which it was found. If an artifact is completely disconnected from its original context, if we have no understanding of how the artifact functioned within that society then it is often relegated to ambiguous categorization: “unknown, possible game piece/cultic item”

2. Context dates the artifact

The layer in which an artifact was found places the artifact within stratigraphic sequence or relative chronology of the site.

3. Context controls the artifact

Context reigns in the imagination of the archaeologist, or researcher. Artifacts are not whatever an archaeologist wants them to be. When artifacts are removed from their context all sorts of suppositions can be made about them which may have nothing to do with their original time and place.

4. Context provides perspective

While objects may be intrinsically valuable for their beauty, form, function or economy, lack of context destroys our ability to have proper perspective. Someone developed that object to function well, someone created its beautiful form, and someone conceived it to be more efficient. Without the perspective of context it is far too easy to elevate the status of the artifact above that of the artisan or society that created it.

Biblical Scholars, commentators, pastors and armchair theologians would do well to apply these lessons to their handling of the biblical text too.

Four benefits of understanding the cultural context of scripture.

1. Context gives meaning to the text

Some would have us ignore context because they view the biblical text as simply the literary product of an ancient society. Homer’s Odyssey, for instance, should not be subjected to a contextual reading because it is a work of fiction. “So too,” they say, “the biblical text is the literary fiction of a particular culture, disconnected from any basis in reality and thus has no need for contextual analysis.”

But, if context doesn’t matter to the text, if the people places and periods it describes didn’t actually exist, if God didn’t actually act in redemptive history then …

the biblical text’s content doesn’t matter.

The text is simply an “unknown; possible game piece”

Others would have us ignore context because their view of inspiration places the text above its human authors. “Let scripture interpret scripture; anything else would threaten its perspicuity,” they argue, “If scripture is not wholly above its human authors, then its divine authority is threatened. The meaningful thrust of the text is not towards the cultures to which it was first communicated, but to us, today, in its final form.”

But if context doesn’t matter, if God never actually intended to communicate his truth to Abram, or Moses or Isaiah in ways that were meaningful to them in their own time and place, and if their own cultural milieus didn’t affect how it was constructed and communicated then …

The biblical text’s content doesn’t matter.

If God wasn’t actually trying to communicate to them in ways they could understand what makes us think he is actually trying to communicate to us.

The text becomes an “unknown; possible cultic item”

2. Context dates the text

The communication that occurred in scripture did not occur in our own time and place. Fallen fools that we are, we are far too capable of anachronistic thinking. We far too often apply the lifeways of a western modern world to the revelation to an eastern ancient one. By placing the biblical text in its proper chronological context we prevent ourselves from imposing modern standards and worldviews on the text.

3. Context controls our reading of the text

Context reigns in our proclivity for reader response devotions which are burdened with presuppositions from our own time and place. I don’t trust anyone that tells me that the work of the spirit supersedes the need to do the hard work of studying the text in its original place and time. The hard work of studying is, in fact, the unleashing of the spirit into the world.

God choose to communicate his revelation to the world in specific places, at specific times, using the limiting language of specific people. He has also ordained, given the cultural gulf between his initial revelation and today, that education and teaching, and scholarship would be necessary in order to encounter his truth through scripture.

The text does not mean whatever we would like it to for our own situation. It witnesses to the truth communicated with specific intent to a specific place and time. As such, it is vital that we understand the self-imposed cultural limits of God’s self-revelation if we are to properly interpret and apply it in our own lives.

4. Context provides perspective

Finally, when context isn’t king, we elevate scripture over God, we elevate the act of communication over the intent of communication and we confuse what was said for why it was said.

The artifact is not more important than the society that created it.

Scripture is not more important than the God that revealed it.

While others debate whether or not the last supper represents a Passover meal this Easter, I would like to discuss the one component of the last supper of Jesus about which we are fairly confident. It is a cultural insight that has huge ramifications for how we understand Jesus’ relationship to Judas and to ourselves.

Dining in a U-shaped lounge

Our images of the last supper have largely been shaped by renaissance masters who portrayed Jesus sitting at the center of a long table with six disciples on either side, but Raphael and DaVinci got it wrong.  Indeed, all four records of the meal mention the reclined posture of the diners (Matthew 26:20, Mark 14:18, Luke 22:14, John 13:23).

This reclined posture seems to indicate that the last supper of Jesus was eaten in the fashion of a Greco-Roman triclinium. By the time of the first century A.D, textual and archaeological remains indicate that a number of Jews had adopted this Hellenized style of feasting, particularly for special meals.

The triclinium meal had eight distinct elements which affect how we understand the social dynamics of the last supper.

1. Rather than one long table, diners at a triclinium meal were arranged in a u-shape
2. Diners reclined on either pillows or low couches with their heads towards the center of the table settings and their feet towards the outside of the room.
3. Communal settings were usually placed for a person and his immediate neighbors
4. Diners lay on their left hip and elbow, freeing their right hand to consume food from the settings on the floor or on slightly raised tables.
5. This posture meant that one diner could lean back to place his head on the chest of the person to his left or, if someone was to your right, lean forward into your neighbors back.
6. The Host of a triclinium meal reclined second furthest to the left
7. The host’s “best man” reclined immediately to the right of the Host, allowing him to lean back on the host’s chest
8. The Guest of Honor reclined immediately to the left of the Host allowing the host to lean back onto the Guest of Honor’s chest.

What does all of this mean for the last supper?

First it gives us a good idea of the seating arrangement for at least four people during the meal.

• As the host, Jesus would have reclined at the second position on the left end of the U-shaped table.
• At one point during the meal, John tells us that he leaned back into Jesus’ chest to ask him a question. This would place John in the “best man” position immediately to the right of Jesus.
• John leans back, at the motioning of Peter, which means that Peter had to be reclining on the opposite side of the U-shaped configuration for John to see him. That puts Peter in the farthest right position (The position furthest from the host and normally reserved for servants)
• Mark, Luke and John tell us that Judas shared a place setting with Jesus (“dipped his hand” in the “same dish”) Since, the spot immediately to the right of Jesus was taken up by John , that only left the spot Immediately to Jesus’ left, the spot reserved for the Guest of Honor.

Judas was Jesus’ guest of honor at the last supper.

Judas and Jesus

Judas has gotten a bad rap over the centuries. He’s the betrayer, the super-villain of all super-villains. It’s easier for us if we make Judas out to be an enigma of extreme evil. We don’t have to compare ourselves to Judas if he is over-the-top, we’ve never felt that-way-before, evil. But Judas’ betrayal of Jesus may have been far more banal than we would like to imagine.

Jesus was supposed to have been the Messiah, the one person that could initiate a new exodus and once and for all time sweep the Jews out from under the yoke of Roman oppression.  Jesus was supposed to be the second son of David, the one that would establish an everlasting political and territorial kingdom for Israel.

It may have been that, for Judas, this non-violent servant-king that Jesus had become was anti-climactic to say the least. In the words of Paul Wright “it is likely that he [Judas] was simply disillusioned, feeling that it was not he but Jesus, so full of promise, who had betrayed the cause” (Greatness, Grace and Glory).

During the last supper, Jesus knew that Judas had, hours before, arranged to betray him. Jesus knew that, hours later, Judas’ kiss would set in motion the terrible pain and suffering of a trial and crucifixion.

And yet, Jesus gave Judas the position of greatest honor at the table. It’s as if Jesus was making one last effort to bring Judas closer to himself. Indeed, Judas reclined where Jesus could lean back against Judas’ chest and weigh the beats of his heart.

The disillusioned guest of honor

Paul Wright’s words have been so hard for me to read at times. If disillusionment is all we have to feel to be in the company of Judas, how close are we to betrayal?

How many of us have been disillusioned with the church or disillusioned with who we thought the church should be or disillusioned with who we thought some leader in the church should have been?

How many of us have become disillusioned with God when we get cancer,

or our spouse dies,

or we lose our Job, lose our house,  get squeezed out of the market, passed up for promotion,

or when one of our children finds themselves stuck in a wheelchair?

How many of us know someone who is disillusioned about God? Someone who is feeling angry and betrayed by a distant creator? How many of us know someone who was left with a bad taste in their mouth by “that Christian” down the block that didn’t seem so Christ-like.

How many people do you know that would say “I want nothing to do with Jesus!”

When we are disillusioned, how far away from Judas are we?

When we are disillusioned, How far away from Jesus are we?

When Judas was disillusioned he was right there, next to Jesus and so are we –the guest of Honor. Jesus is leaning back against our hearts waiting for us to lean into him.

Whether you sit, stand or recline, at the communion table this Easter remember you are Jesus’ guest of honor. No matter how betrayed or disillusioned either of you feel, he is always right next to you, willing to share a common place setting at the triclinium table.