GOOD NEWS AND A WARNING
Luke 14:15-24
15 One of the dinner guests, on hearing this, said to him, “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!” 16 Then Jesus said to him, “Someone gave a great dinner and invited many. 17 At the time for the dinner he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is ready now.’ 18 But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a piece of land, and I must go out and see it; please accept my regrets.’ 19 Another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please accept my regrets.’ 20 Another said, ‘I have just been married, and therefore I cannot come.’ 21 So the slave returned and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and said to his slave, ‘Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.’22 And the slave said, ‘Sir, what you ordered has been done, and there is still room.’ 23 Then the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled. 24 For I tell you, none of those who were invited will taste my dinner.’ ”
In this chapter, Jesus has been invited to a meal at the home of a leader of the Pharisees. This was not particularly hospitable since the goal of the Pharisees was ‘to watch him closely’. The authorities wanted to check Jesus out. But instead of being interrogated, Jesus turns the tables.
Jesus becomes the interrogator and the instructor. In the first series of exchanges, Jesus points out what the Kingdom of God isn’t. First, Jesus noticed a man at the meal who had edema. Jesus asks “Is it lawful to cure people on the Sabbath or not?”— “ But they were silent”. He then asks …“If one of you has a child or an ox that has fallen into a well, will you not immediately pull it out on a Sabbath day?” And they could not reply to this. Each of these questions tacitly exposes that obedience to the law always has an exception.
Jesus is challenging obedience to the letter of the law with the spirit of the law. No matter how good or holy a law is, Jesus wanted us to realize that the law was a guideline for living, not a test of obedience. This is usually a very disturbing insight. Obedience is a lot easier to measure than discernment. When obedience is the test, we can fall back on what is legal without struggling with what is right. Secularly, this is how the world works. Jesus has a different way.
Jesus next notices the seating patterns in the group. Seeing the all too human desire to sit in ‘places of honor’, Jesus challenges them with the words: “When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not sit down at the place of honor…” Competing for recognition is not a good way to determine human worth. As Jesus points out, there always may be someone who supersedes you. In which case, you must give up your seat and have your ‘lower ranking’ exposed to all. Secularly, this is how the world works. Jesus has a different way.
Likewise, when you are inviting people to share a meal, do not do so expecting reciprocity. Do not turn the gift of hospitality into a transaction. For Jesus, love and hospitality is a gift. It cannot be earned by obedience, nor social standing, nor expectations of reciprocity. Secularly, this is how the world works. Jesus has a different way.
This brings us to this week’s passage. “15 One of the dinner guests, on hearing this, said to him, ‘Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!’” Jesus is quick to point out that the Kingdom of God reflects a radical way to view human worth–a way that is not bound by ordinary human values. Jesus then tells a parable.
Someone is offering a banquet and invites many but instead of appreciating and enjoying the gift, excuses are made (lame ones at that) and regrets are offered. The guest list has shrunk. The host is offended. Who wouldn’t be? His response is anger and he breaks every rule of convention. He tells his slave: ‘Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.’ These are not the people who would be included on a guest list. And they certainly would not have expected such an invitation. There is still room, so the host becomes more emphatic —he has begun with the language of a standard invitation in vs 17 using “say” all is ready. Then he ups the intensity in vs 21 to “bring in” the marginalized. Finally, he uses a very strong word, “compel” to fill his banquet hall.
A word about parables. It is easy to turn them into allegories in which each part is a code for something else. The Host becomes God. The original invitees become the ungrateful, entitled ‘chosen people.’ The next two groups of invitees expand to the unrighteous, the unclean and even the Gentiles. The problem is that this makes God in our image. The host is angry and his inclusiveness is as much to teach the entitled a lesson—”none of those who were invited will taste my dinner” —than it is to teach about God’s love.
This is a constant problem in biblical interpretation. Jesus’ teaching has many layers and we must be careful about allowing our assumptions to interfere with our ability to hear those layers. If our primary lens views God as disciplinarian—for our own good but a disciplinarian nonetheless—we will likely be comfortable with the interpretation just described. But if we view the same words as a way to communicate a God who loves and a God who teaches love, we will read the same words differently.
A case in point is the word ‘compel’. St. Augustine was and is a foundational theologian of the Christian church. He believed the word ‘compel’ included coercion and one of the definitions in the Greek supports that understanding. In fact, his thinking was used to justify the Spanish Inquisition. If someone’s immortal soul is at stake, no amount of earthly pain was out of bounds if that pain could ‘compel’ belief. Over the centuries, scholarship views the same word in a far less coercive way. It is also quite legitimately translated as ‘strongly urged’ — which is a lot different than using coercion.
The Reformed tradition allows for a ‘re-forming’ of our understanding of Scripture. If we view this passage as a parable more than an allegory, there is Good News and a warning for us.
If we enter the story as someone needing an invitation — but who does not qualify by the world’s standards — this passage is Good News. God’s love is not dependent upon deserving, God’s love depends upon the gift of the giver. God’s love includes those well outside of human categorizations of the righteous. This is such a difficult concept to accept, we need to be ‘urgently persuaded’ that God’s love reaches into our most embarrassing secrets. It is one thing to be promised such love and quite another to be vulnerable and transparent enough to accept it. But it is wonderful news when it happens.
That said, love does not preclude consequences. Whether we say no to the invitation ‘to taste and see that it is good’ because of our sense of entitlement or because we insist upon holding on to secular definitions of deserving, we are denying ourselves the opportunity to experience a love that passes all understanding. This is not a punishment. This is a consequence. We will be doomed to living a competitive life that ends with our dying. We will be unable to receive the riches of a love that transcends our individual lives. I believe this is what God wants for us and I believe that is what Jesus lived and taught. I do not believe we are forced to follow but I do believe we are ‘urgently persuaded’ to do so.
We can be offered the promise of love to all of us—Good News indeed. We can be warned about the consequences of saying no. The banquet awaits. Choose the life that gives life. Let it be so.
