Healing Again on the Sabbath, 1-6

14:1 Now one Sabbath when Jesus went to dine at the house of a leader of the Pharisees, they were watching him closely. 14:2 There right in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. 14:3 So Jesus asked the experts in religious law and the Pharisees, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?” 14:4 But they remained silent. So Jesus took hold of the man, healed him, and sent him away. 14:5 Then he said to them, “Which of you, if you have a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out?” 14:6 But they could not reply to this.

There right in front of him – Such meals were often quite public occasions, with onlookers milling around the table.

Dropsy – Oedema; an abnormal collection of fluid in some part of the body.

Son – So many of the best manuscripts.  Others have ‘donkey’, which suits the context better.

Marshall (NBC) suggests that a key point in the story is the healing of an uninvited guest.

On Seeking Seats of Honor, 7-14

14:7 Then when Jesus noticed how the guests chose the places of honor, he told them a parable. He said to them, 14:8 “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, because a person more distinguished than you may have been invited by your host. 14:9 So the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your place.’ Then, ashamed, you will begin to move to the least important place. 14:10 But when you are invited, go and take the least important place, so that when your host approaches he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up here to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who share the meal with you. 14:11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

He told them a parable – Marshall (NBC) says that we should not read this simply as a piece of social advice.  As a parable, it has spiritual significance.

Wedding feast – ‘a recognized symbol for the kingdom of God and heavenly bliss’ (Marshall, NBC).  See also v15.

“Everyone who exalts himself will be humbled” – A divine passive, meaning that the one who exalts is God himself.

On the potentially destructive nature of power and status:

‘Pride and status are social issues in any culture, and the ancient Jewish culture was no exception. Status brings power, and power often begets pride. Jesus regards this equation as destructive to spiritual health. Jesus’ disciples are marked by humility. Both how we operate socially and whom we invite to dinner indicate the type of person we are. Humility means ignoring rank or class. Friends can be made anywhere. The lesson is a hard one, as some of the New Testament epistles show. (1 Cor 11:17-22; Php 2:1-11; Jas 2:1-5; 4:6; 5:1-6) But Jesus’ picture parable (Lk 14:7) shows that he regards this attitude as fundamental to discipleship.’

(IVP Commentary)

14:12 He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you host a dinner or a banquet, don’t invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors so you can be invited by them in return and get repaid. 14:13 But when you host an elaborate meal, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind. 14:14 Then you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

“Don’t invite your friends…” – As Marshall (NBC) says, we should be careful not to misunderstand Jesus’ words here:

‘The ‘do not do one thing, but do the other’ form of words was sometimes used (as here) with the force: ‘Do not (merely) do one thing, but (rather and also) the other.’ Jesus is condemning the attitude which does good mainly for the sake of a tangible, earthly reward.’

---

The Parable of the Great Banquet, 15-24

A similar story is told in Mt 22:1-10.  Scholarly opinion is divided as to whether these have a single source in the teaching of Jesus, or are accounts of two separate parables.  The differences are such that they are distinct, I would suggest.

Among the interpretative issues, Snodgrass aks:

1. What is the relationship between Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts?  Are they variations of the same parable?
2. Is the focus on attitudes towards the rich and the poor, or on the rejection of the invitations?
3. What degree of allegory is it proper to see in this parable?
4. What is the message and significance of the parable?
5. Is the parable anti-Semitic?  Does it imply that Israel is rejected by God?

I would add some further questions:

Does the twofold invitation to the banquet reflect the ministry of the prophets of all, on the one hand, and that of Jesus, on the other hand?

Is it proper to see in this parable a hint of the rejection of the gospel by many Jews, and its acceptance by many Gentiles (as recorded in Acts)?

Snodgrass notes that eating and meals feature prominently in Luke’s Gospel – nearly every chapter has something relevant to this subject.

The theme of the parable has already been anticipated in Lk 1:53 –

‘He has filled the hungry with good things, and has sent the rich away empty.’

The meal takes place at the home of a leader of the Pharisees (v1).  It very probably took place with guests reclining around one or more low tables (Bailey, Through Peasant Eyes).

Bailey comments on the literary background to this parable:

‘The great banquet of God described in inclusive terms in Isaiah 25. The Targum of the same passage reverses its terms. Enoch sees the gentiles excluded. The Qumran community turns the scene into an ordered banquet where only the worthy can attend and they by rank. In Luke 13 we read of a great ingathering and banquet with the patriarchs. Some have refused an earnest invitation. Many who expect to be there will be rejected. The guests come from the four corners of the earth.’

Ryken notes five main parts to the parable:

(a) a gracious invitation (Luke 14:16–17),

(b) a rude rejection (Luke 14:18–20),

(c) a wider invitation (Luke 14:21),

(d) a compelling exhortation (Luke 14:22–23), and

(e) a final caution (Luke 14:24).

(Reformatted)

14:15 When one of those at the meal with Jesus heard this, he said to him, “Blessed is everyone who will feast in the kingdom of God!” 14:16 But Jesus said to him, “A man once gave a great banquet and invited many guests. 14:17 At the time for the banquet he sent his slave to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, because everything is now ready.’

“Blessed is everyone who will feast in the kingdom of God!” – ‘Feast’ is, lit., ‘eat bread’.  Compare our word ‘company’ – derived from the Latin ‘com‘, together, and ‘panis‘, bread.

Wilcock characterises this sentiment as ‘blameless’ but ‘thoughtless’.

Ryken remarks that:

‘By this point in the meal, Jesus had offended just about everyone at the table: the Pharisees by healing a man on the Sabbath, the invited guests by telling them not to take the best seats in the house, and the host by criticizing his guest list. Who else was left for him to offend?’

After all that has gone on around the table, then, these words might be little more than an attempt to break a rather embarrassed silence.  The speaker says nothing about the condition Jesus has just set for admittance to the heavenly feast.

Jesus has just (v14) referred to the resurrection of the righteous.  The messianic banquet was supposed to take place at that time.  Hence this exclamation.

Perhaps these words were intended to prompt Jesus:

‘to endorse the popular expectation of who will be on the guest list. Instead, as in 13:28–29, Jesus will turn it on its head.’ (France)

Blomberg comments:

‘That man, probably a Pharisee (cf. Lk 14:1), no doubt shared the exclusivist attitude of his fellow sectar­ians, limiting entrance into God’s kingdom to pious Jews. Jesus challenges this narrow-mindedness just as he did earlier during the banquet (Lk 14:1-14).’

Although Jesus does not direct challenge this exclamation, it might nevertheless represent:

‘a wish only to be safe and happy at last, while rejecting all present invitations to turn to God and live.’ (JFB)

Jesus does not question the basic premise that there will be such a feast.  Referred to as ‘my banquet’ in v24.  See also:

Luke 13:28f “There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves thrown out.  Then people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and take their places at the banquet table in the kingdom of God.”

The eschatological banquet is attested in many places in Scripture:

Psalm 23:5 You prepare a feast before me in plain sight of my enemies. You refresh my head with oil; my cup is completely full.

Isaiah 25:6 The LORD who commands armies will hold a banquet for all the nations on this mountain. At this banquet there will be plenty of meat and aged wine— tender meat and choicest wine.

Matthew 8:11 “I tell you, many will come from the east and west to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 22:2 “The kingdom of heaven can be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son….”

Matthew 26:29 “I tell you, from now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”  (Also Mark 14:25)

Revelation 3:20 Listen! I am standing at the door and knocking! If anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come into his home and share a meal with him, and he with me.

Revelation 19:9 Then the angel said to me, “Write the following: Blessed are those who are invited to the banquet at the wedding celebration of the Lamb!” He also said to me, “These are the true words of God.”

This exclamation is made by someone who did not appear to entertain any doubts about his own place at the table.  Jesus, in the parable that follows, seems to be suggesting that such confidence might be misplaced.

Snodrass notes a comparison with Lk 11:27f –

‘A woman in the crowd spoke out to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts at which you nursed!”  But he replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!”’

Snodgrass comments:

‘Surely in 14:15 the man who gave the blessing expected an affirmation of his statement, possibly something like “May we be among the righteous who sit at that table” or “May that day come quickly.” As in 11:27 the blessing meets an unexpected response.’

Lk 13:26 has already made it clear that not everyone who shares table fellowship with Jesus will do the same in the messianic kingdom.

Perrin writes:

‘by invoking the common hope of the eschatological banquet in the context of a Pharisaic meal, the fellow guest inevitably aligns the current gathering on the trajectory leading up to the great banquet.’

Garland comments on the nature and purpose of the parable:

‘The parable explores the issue of the identity of those who would be resurrected and participate in the banquet. It pointedly raises the question for the listeners gathered at this dinner. Will they honor Jesus as their benefactor, accept his invitation, and be present at his table in the reign of God (22:30), or will they lose out on this blessedness because of their business quests, their preoccupation with family, and their disdain for the host and the other guests who show up?’

“A man once gave a great banquet and invited many guests” – As Garland notes:

‘[Jesus] seizes on this declaration as a teachable moment, but are the Pharisees teachable?’

Such a banquet would take place in the late afternoon or early evening. (Jeremias, Bailey)

On the gospel as an invitation to a banquet:

‘The Gospel contains a full supply of everything that sinners need in order to be saved. We are all naturally starving, empty, helpless, and ready to perish. Forgiveness of all sin, and peace with God,—justification of the person, and sanctification of the heart,—grace by the way and glory in the end,—are the gracious provision which God has prepared for the wants of our souls. There is nothing that sin-laden hearts can wish, or weary consciences require, which is not spread before men in rich abundance in Christ. Christ, in one word, is the sum and substance of the “great supper.”’ (Ryle)

On the ‘blessings which crown the gospel board’:

‘Pardon of sin, favour with God, peace of conscience, renewal of the heart, access to the throne of grace, the comforts of the Holy Spirit, the exceeding great and precious promises of the Scriptures, and a well-grounded hope of eternal life.’

(Taylor, The Parables of our Saviour)

It is a feast, therefore, in respect of abundance.  But it is also a feast in respect of fellowship, for we shall not only sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom, but enjoy everlasting communion with the Triune God.  Moreover, it is a feast in respect of joy.  Our loving Father will rejoice in the return of each redeemed sinner; our divine Saviour will ‘see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; the Holy Spirit will delight in the presence of those he has renewed and sanctified.  And the joy of each guest will be multiplied by the gladness of all the rest. (Taylor)

‘Come, because everything is now ready’ – Bailey places this second invitation in its cultural context:

‘The double invitation is in perfect harmony with traditional Middle Eastern custom, which still persists in conservative areas. A village host must provide meat for a banquet. The meat will be killed and cooked on the basis of the number of guests. A host sends out his invitations and receives acceptance. He then decides on the killing/butchering of a chicken or two (for 2–4 guests), or a duck (for 5–8), or a kid (10–15 acceptances), or a sheep (if there are 15–35 people), or a calf (35–75). That is, the decision regarding the kind of meat and the amount is made mostly on the basis of the number of accepted invitations. Once the countdown starts it cannot be stopped. The appropriate animal is killed and must be eaten that night. The guests who accept the invitation are duty-bound to appear. The host completes his preparations. Then at the “hour of the banquet” a servant is sent out with the traditional message, “Come, all is now ready,” meaning the meat is cooked and we are ready for you.’

Taylor stresses that, although the gospel invitation is through human instrumentality, it originates with God himself, and is not to be trifled with or despised.

14:18 But one after another they all began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please excuse me.’ 14:19 Another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going out to examine them. Please excuse me.’ 14:20 Another said, ‘I just got married, and I cannot come.’

“They all began to make excuses” – The three excuses that follow may be regarded as specimens of the many.  Such a collective snub would have amounted to a ‘social catastophre’ for the host’ (Edwards).

As Bailey remarks:

‘Everything was flowing smoothly, the invitations were accepted, the animal butchered, the meat cooked, the guests summoned— and all at once—excuses!’

It would have been considered very rude to reject, at the last minute, an invitaton that had previously been accepted.

Marshall (NBC) says that these excuses would have sounded comically lame to the hearers,

‘until they realized that this was how, in Jesus’ eyes, they were treating God’s invitation to them.’

The various excuses are given in the areas of (a) property, v18, (b) work, v19, and (c) family, v20. Each of these is a legitimate pursuit, but each, too, can become an all-consuming passion.

Note also:

Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

Snodgrass notes that:

‘The excuses in Lk 14:18–20 are similar to the three dialogues on discipleship in Lk 9:57–62, the three requirements of discipleship in Lk 14:26–33, and the comparison of the days of the Son of Man to the activities and judgment in the days of Noah and of Lot in Lk 17:26–31.’

The making of excuses has a long, if disreputable, history.  It goes back to Adam: “The woman you gave me, she made me do it!”

Ryken quotes an old children’s chorus:

I cannot come to the banquet, don’t trouble me now;
I have married a wife; I have bought me a cow.
I have fields and dominions that cost a tidy sum;
Don’t trouble me now—I cannot come.

(Or, in some children’s rendition: ‘I have bought me a wife; I have married a cow.’)

The excuse of the newly-married man might seem more reasonable than the other two.  He could not take is wife, because only men attended banquets (EBC).  Indeed, he might cite Deut 24:5 in support; but this refers to exemption from military service, not from social responsibilities.

Christian evangelists may be tempted to beat themselves up over a lack of positive response to the gospel.  ‘If only I present the message in the right way, surely it will be accepted’.  But this is to ignore the determination of some to resist the generous offer of salvation.  Any old excuse will do.

In this connection, Garland quotes Heil:

‘This story of the householder “provides the audience with a model for not being discouraged by the rejections of their announcement that the kingdom of God has arrived (Lk 10:1–12) but to turn to those who are better disposed to accept and appreciate it.”’

‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it’ – Garland suggests that:

‘This excuse is intended as an example of one who is totally fixated on his business affairs. He is like those in the days of Lot who were “buying and selling, planting and building” and were oblivious to the danger of the hour (Lk 17:28–30).’

For Bailey:

‘The statement is a bold-faced lie and everyone knows it. No one buys a field in the Middle East without knowing every square foot of it like the palm of his hand. The springs, wells, stone walls, trees, paths, and anticipated rainfall are all well-known long before a discussion of the purchase is even begun.’

Since the banquet would have been held in later afternoon or early evening, what would be the point of traveling out of town to view the field just as it was getting dark?  And what what was preventing him from leaving this until the following morning?

As Bailey remarks:

‘When the guest says, “I must go and see it,” he is affirming that this field is of greater importance to him than his relationship to the host. In the Middle Eastern world where personal relationships are of supreme importance this equation strikes with special force.’

‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going out to examine them’ – Another ludicrous excuse.  No sensible person would buy pairs of oxen without first testing them.  Bailey explains:

‘Teams of oxen are sold in the Middle Eastern village in two ways. In some places the team is taken to the market place. At the edge of the market there will be a small field where prospective buyers may test the oxen. If they cannot pull together they are of course worthless as a team. In the smaller villages the farmer owning a pair for sale announces to his friends that he has a team available and that he will be plowing with them on a given day. Word spreads quickly in an oral tradition community. Prospective buyers make their way to the seller’s field to watch the animals working and, of course, to drive them back and forth across the field to be assured of their strength and evenness of pull. All of this obviously takes place before the buyer even begins to negotiate a price. Again the excuse offered here is a transparent fabrication.’

For a modern equivalent, Bailey suggests:

‘If we can reuse our modern surburbanite as a cultural parallel, in this case he calls his wife and says, “I cannot make it home tonight for dinner because I have just signed a check for five used cars, which I bought over the phone, and I am on my way down to the used car lot to find out their age and model, and see if they will start.” On hearing this, even the most devoted wife will worry about her husband’s sanity.’

‘I just got married, and I cannot come’ – The wedding has already taken place.  It did not happen on that very day, because no village could accommodate two important events at the same time.  In any case, why did the bridegroom-to-be accept the inviation to the banquet when he knew that he was soon to be married?

In that society, it was considered improper for a man to hint at honeymooning activities.  To say, in effect, ‘I cannot come to your banquet, after all, because I am busy with my wife’ would be the height of rudeness (Bailey).

Bailey:

‘Some commentators have noted that a newly married man was exempted from military duty for a year (Deut. 20:7; 24:5; cf. Plummer, 361f.), and assume that this text is behind the excuse. Such is not the case. Deuteronomy is talking about a year’s military service away from home. Our passionate guest has accepted the invitation. There is no war; he is not called to leave the village. The time away from home will be at most a few hours, and he will be back in his wife’s arms late that same night. Finally, he does not even ask to be excused. The entire response is guaranteed to infuriate the most patient of hosts, East or West (Thomson, I, 179). ‘

As Ryle remarks:

‘It is not so much the open breach of God’s law, as an excessive attention to lawful and innocent things which ruins many men’s soul. Few truths are so completely overlooked.’

Of these three excuses generally:

‘To all these excuses one thing is common—in each a present good is esteemed above the heavenly offer; in other words, temporal good is valued higher than spiritual. The three excuses may be classed under the following heads. (1) The attraction of property of different kinds, the absorbing delight of possessing earthly goods. (2) The occupations of business, the pleasure of increasing the store, of adding coin to coin, or field to field. (3) Social ties, whether at home or abroad, whether in general society or in the home circle’ (Pulpit Commentary)

Legitimate excuses?  Garland cites Linnemann as suggesting that the excuses were legitimate and that these people intended to come to the banquet, but later.  But this flies in the face of the text: they do not say that they will be late, but that they cannot come.

A concerted boycott?  Rorhbaugh (also cited by Garland) thinks that the excuses are insincere attempts to hide what may be in effect a concerted boycott of the banquet.  But the text does not disclose any reason why the host and his invitation should be shunned in this way.  The older translation: ‘They all with one consent began to make excuses’ mistakenly conveys the impression of a concerted boycott.

Edwards rightly comments that it does not matter too much whether the excuses were reasonable or not, for they prevented the invitees from attending the banquet, and no excuse can be allowed to trump the Messiah’s invitation to his feast.

What we can say is that, taken together, these excuses illustrate how the ‘worries and riches and pleasures of life’ can choke the Word (Lk 8:14).  They also reflect the Lord’s words: ‘You will not come to me, that you might have life’.

14:21 So the slave came back and reported this to his master. Then the master of the household was furious and said to his slave, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and alleys of the city, and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.’ 14:22 Then the slave said, ‘Sir, what you instructed has been done, and there is still room.’ 14:23 So the master said to his slave, ‘Go out to the highways and country roads and urge people to come in, so that my house will be filled. 14:24 For I tell you, not one of those individuals who were invited will taste my banquet!’ ”

The master of the household was furious – This, suggests Gundry,

‘portends judgment on those who reject the salvation offered through Jesus.’

We canot emphasise or celebrate the generous love of God too much.  But we do him and the gospel a grave disservice if we conclude that God is just genial benevolence.

“Go out quickly to the streets and alleys of the city, and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame” – The marginalised; precisely those who should be on our guest list, v13 –

Luke 14:13 – “But when you host an elaborate meal, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.”

As Garland remarks:

‘These are people who would never make it on anyone’s party list.’

‘Bring in’ suggests that they are not merely invited, but led in (Garland).

According to Gundry, they don’t need to be asked twice! –

‘The poor, maimed, blind, and lame are begging on the main and side streets of the city. Because they’re begging there, they needn’t be told to come. They’ll come without being told to.’

Perrin comments:

‘Of course, the same people have also been the focus of Jesus’ ministry (Lk 7:22). In a stroke, therefore, the parable defines the ministry of Jesus and of the apostolic church as the preliminary stage of a great banquet. The call to repent in view of the kingdom’s arrival, issued by both Jesus and his followers, is essentially a call to the messianic supper.’

These new invitees could be regarded as ‘unworthy’:

‘The host is not indebted socially to the poor, maimed, blind, and lame, and they will not be able to respond in kind.’ (Bailey)

Garland:

‘According to Isa 35:5–6, the blind, deaf, lame, and mute are those who will benefit from the coming salvation of God. The blind will see, the deaf will hear, the lame will leap, and the mute will shout for joy (Lk 7:22). In Jesus’ parable, these become the guests of honor while those who thought themselves to be most worthy to sit in the places of honor will not simply be dispatched to the lowest seats (Lk 14:7–14), they will be excluded from the feast. Others who truly value the invitation will take their places.’

Snodgrass insists, however, that God’s (and our) attitude toward the poor is of secondary, not primary, importance in this parable.  Otherwise, the third excuse would be irrelevant, for poor people got married too.

“There is still room” – As France comments:

‘In adding a second stage of recruitment (contrast Matt. 22:9–10), Luke is perhaps reflecting on the process that he will relate in Acts: the mission to Jews was followed by one to Gentiles (represented here by those outside the town). The repeated and pressing invitation emphasizes the host’s determination that his provision not be wasted, and thus it expresses God’s desire to welcome as many as possible into his kingdom.’

Ryle notes:

‘There is more willingness on God’s part to save sinners, than there is on the part of sinners to be saved, and more grace to be given, than there are hearts willing to receive it.’

“Go out to the highways and country roads and urge people to come in” – The invitation is extended still wider.  The first group were from the city, and therefore part of the community.

According to Garland:

‘The areas outside the city would have been inhabited by outcast groups (ethnic groups, tanners, traders, beggars, prostitutes), who required access to the city but were not permitted to live within it.’

This second group probably (bearing in mind the echoes of Isa 25:6–9) includes Gentiles.  Such foreigners might be hesitant to accept such an invitation, so they are to be urged.

Such persons might suspect that accepting such an invitation would place them in another’s debt.  Or they might feel resistant to being patronised.

Bailey:

‘A stranger from outside the city is suddenly invited to a great banquet. He is not a relative or even a citizen of the host’s city. The offer is generous and delightful but (thinks the stranger) he cannot possibly mean it. After some discussion the servant will finally have to take the startled guest by the arm and gently pull him along. There is no other way to convince him that he is really invited to the great banquet, irrespective of his being a foreigner. Grace is unbelievable! How could it be true?’

Many interpreters think that the three invited groups represent the gospel invitation as extended, first to the Jews, then to the socially ‘unworthy’, and finally to the Gentiles.

Snodgrass, however, thinks that a severe limit should be placed on any such allegorical interpretation.  He allows that the meal refers to the eschatological feast, that the host refers to God or the Messiah, and that the servant points to God’s emissaries.  But Snodgrass dismisses as ‘merciless allegorizing’ any suggestion that:

(a) the first invitation was to the Jews in Jesus’ lifetime, and at least one of the subsequent invitations refers to the post-Easter evangelization of the Gentiles;

(b) God only becomes interested in the poor after the rich have rejected his invitation;

(c) the parable represents ‘real time’ (in which one invitation would be issued after another had been rejected).

The substitute guests, accordingly, are ‘the marginalized of society, not the Gentiles’:

‘Because of Jesus’ eating with toll collectors and sinners (note 15:1–2) and resonances between 14:21 and 7:22 (the description to the Baptist of the healing of the blind and lame and of the proclamation to the poor), we should probably think more generally of all those who have responded affirmatively to Jesus’ ministry, the very people the religious leaders did not respect.’

Blomberg (Interpreting the Parables):

‘The two categories of replacements for those originally invited are often taken to stand for Jewish outcasts and Gentiles, but there is nothing in the parable’s imagery to suggest that any non-Israelites are in view. The servants simply move further afield within Israel in their quest for guests—from the streets of the city to the highways of the countryside.’

Edwards, while sympathetic to the allegorical interpretation outlined above, warns that it shifts the emphasis from the generosity of the host ‘and his indefatigable desire for a full and joyful banquet’.

“Urge them to come in” – This reflects ANE practice, in which a determined host might take the hand of a hesitant guest:

Genesis 19:3 ‘But he urged them persistently, so they turned aside with him and entered his house. He prepared a feast for them, including bread baked without yeast, and they ate.’

Even the older translation – ‘compel them to come in’ – does not, of course, legitimise forcework, let along persecution, as a means of growing the church.  Augustine, followed by the perpetrators of the Spanish Inquisition, thought otherwise, however, and exploited this text to justify the use of force against heretics.

Bailey comments:

‘The Spanish inquisition and other tragic subversions of the gospel have been perpetrated by the organized church using this text as support. Nothing could be further from its original intent. In the Middle East the unexpected invitation must be refused. The refusal is all the more required if the guest is of lower social rank than the host. (The unexpected guest may be half starving and in real need of the offered food, but still he senses a deep cultural pressure to refuse.)’

Further: we have here,

‘a classical case of an unexpected invitation from someone of a higher rank. A stranger from outside the city is suddenly invited to a great banquet. He is not a relative or even a citizen of the host’s city. The offer is generous and delightful but (thinks the stranger) he cannot possibly mean it. After some discussion the servant will finally have to take the startled guest by the arm and gently pull him along. There is no other way to convince him that he is really invited to the great banquet, irrespective of his being a foreigner.’

This, suggests Bailey, provides a wonderful picture of divine grace.  I have done nothing to deserve it.  It seems too good to be true!

If this is God’s attitude towards the ill-deserving, it should be ours too:

‘Banquets were closely related to one’s status in a community and governed by shame and honor. When one wanted to signal one’s prestige or to tap the barometer of one’s prestige in the community, one entertained. Accepting an invitation recognized the status of the host and brought with it the responsibility to reciprocate to remain on an equal footing. What Jesus recommends is that the rich invite the poor to join in the time of rejoicing and expect nothing in return, not even praise, which turns the system upside down. It is a call to charity.’ (Garland)

In its original setting, this parable represents ‘something akin to a social revolution’ (Esler):

‘The reason is that the fundamental rationale for gift-giving in a Hellenistic society was to “establish reciprocal relations which could be cashed in at a later date.” Therefore, one was “generous” to those who were in a position to return you a favor. The sort of people whom the host invites—beggars, lame cripples, and the blind—could never repay. Any repayment one might receive for inviting such folks would take place only at the resurrection.’ (Garland)

We should be prepared to take the same ‘risk’ that God has taken:

‘The host opened himself up to social ridicule by opening his doors to a ragtag group of outcasts, but so does God, who has chosen what the world regards as foolish—the low and despised to shame the wise and the high and mighty (1 Cor 1:26–28).’ (Garland)

Indeed, God has:

Luke 1:52f – “brought down the mighty from their thrones, and has lifted up those of lowly position; he has filled the hungry with good things, and has sent the rich away empty.”

Bailey notes that, in the parable, the command to invite these outsiders is not fulfilled:

‘It remains an unfulfilled future task as the parable closes. The order to invite the outcasts within the community is carried out in the parable. This parallels Jesus’ own ministry in that he did carry out a ministry of inviting the outcasts of Israel into his fellowship. He did not carry out any major outreach to the gentiles. Indeed, the twelve were sent only to the lost within Israel (Matt. 10:5). Thus the details of the parable as it now stands precisely fit Jesus’ own historical ministry.’

The great turning point comes with the resurrection:

‘The ministry of Jesus is clearly focused on “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:23). Johannes Blauw has argued that the resurrection is a great turning. There the centripetal force of mission (let the gentiles come in if they like, but do not go out to them) becomes a centrifugal force and the Church goes out to the gentiles with a message for all people.’

“So that my house may be filled” – God will have a people,

‘even if, as John the Baptist warned, God has to raise up children to Abraham from stones (Lk 3:8) or has to invite the riffraff off the street.’ (Garland)

Theologians and preachers have speculated about whether the final number of the redeemed will be relatively large or small.  Such speculation is unwise, since our Lord himself declined to give a direct answer to the question:

Lk 13:23 ‘Someone asked him, “Lord, will only a few be saved?” So he said to them, “Exert every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.”‘

But Scripture does encourage us to ‘think big’:

Rev 7:9 ‘After these things I looked, and here was an enormous crowd that no one could count, made up of persons from every nation, tribe, people, and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb dressed in long white robes, and with palm branches in their hands.’

‘I tell you, not one of those individuals who were invited will taste my banquet!’ – Probably said not by the host, but by Jesus, addressing not the servant but Jesus’ hearers (‘you’ is plural). (So, for example, Harper’s Bible Commentary, Bailey, Jeremias, Garland, Edwards and others, but contra Marshall).

Snodgrass, however, thinks that the voices of the host and of Jesus merge at this point:

‘If so, the christological implications are significant. The eschatological meal is Jesus’ meal, and he determines who is and who is not included.’

Note the ‘role reversal’:

‘Those originally invited were excluded and those who were originally excluded participated in the banquet.’  (Faithlife Study Bible)

Gundry:

‘Subtly, Jesus has implied that those who refused to come and made excuses represent his critics, the Pharisaical rulers of 14:1. They may be reclining at table with him, but they’ve refused his message of salvation.’

This pronouncement:

‘knocks the air out of the smug sense of security implicit in the opening beatitude by one of the guests.’ (Garland)

Of course, writes Garland, this statement:

‘should not be pressed to mean that no Pharisee or Jew could be saved. Paul, the Pharisee, is an example of one who initially rejected the invitation as a persecutor of the church but who was not written off by God. The parable dramatizes the paradox that the first can indeed become last—and not only last, but totally shut out. It is a warning to all who regard themselves as privileged with God that they can cause themselves to be cut off from all of God’s privileges.’

Snodgrass agrees:

‘The parable expresses an absolute exclusion, but the plane of the parable is not the plane of reality. People do not have to stay excluded. The hearers of Jesus’ parable, like later readers, are confronted with a challenge to change course, to look past the superficial, and to respond to God’s work taking place in Jesus’ ministry. ‘

There are strong links between the message of this parable and our Lord’s teaching in the previous chapter:

Luke 13:28-30 ‘There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves thrown out.  Then people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and take their places at the banquet table in the kingdom of God.  But indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.’

Bailey unpacks the symbolism of the parable:

• the banquet = the messianic banquet that ushers in the new age
• the original guests = the leaders of Israel who are rightfully the first to be invited
• the lame and poor of the city = the outcasts within the house of Israel
• the guests from the highways and the hedges = the gentiles

But what of the master and slave?  We should resist, says Bailey, the temptation to equate the master with God, and the servant with Jesus.  Rather, they together represent God acting through Jesus.  Note that Jesus refers to ‘my banquet’.

According to Isa 25:6, the messianic banquet would involve people from all nations.  The shape of this parable, then, anticipates the argument of the letter to the Romans –

Rom 11:11 – ‘Salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous.’

Elsewhere in the same epistle: ‘to the Jew first, and also to the Gentiles’, with the latter’s acceptance being premised on the rejection of the former.

Wiersbe writes:

‘This parable had a special message for the proud Jewish people who were so sure they would “eat bread in the kingdom of God.” Within a few short years, the Gospel would be rejected by the official religious leaders, and the message would go out to the Samaritans (Acts 8) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10; 13ff).’

Stein comments:

‘The second sending is unique to Luke and speaks of the entrance of the Gentiles into God’s kingdom. The rejection of Jesus and the kingdom by official Judaism (Lk 14:24) precipitated the inclusion of Israel’s outcasts (Lk 4:18, 7:22) and the Gentiles (Acts 13:47–48; 18:6; 28:25–28). The great reversal had taken place. Alas, Israel, however, was rejected (Lk 13:34–35). They ignored the day of visitation, the “now” of Jesus’ ministry (Lk 4:21; cf. 2 Cor 6:2).’

Garland, however, warns against the overly simplistic identification of the first group (those who reject the invitation) as the Jews or their leaders, and of the second group (those who are then brought in to the banquet) as Gentiles.  For:

‘While some Jews do reject the gospel in Luke-Acts, many, including priests, respond positively (Acts 5:14–16; 6:7; 13:47; 18:6, 8; 21:20; 28:23–28).’

Garland comments on the two guest lists:

‘If the focus of the parable is on the identity of the guests who will dine at table in the reign of God, it makes the point that they will include those who do not make it on anyone’s A-list except God’s. The guests are at the opposite end of the spectrum—religiously and socially—of those first invited. The clubby members of the social register who move in the best of circles and believe themselves to be the insiders will miss out. Jesus implies that this surprising shift is already happening in his ministry. God’s reign has arrived, and those who will enjoy the banquet are the derelicts who are neither physically whole nor healthy. The parable serves as a vindication of his fellowship with sinners and/or as a part of his theme of the great reversal and the Lukan context with the parables in chapter 15.’

For France, the parable is focused more on corporate, rather than individual, responses to God’s gracious invitation:

‘This is about Jewish rejection and Gentile reception of the gospel.’

So, what was the meaning of the parable for its first hearers? –

• The first invitation had been issued long ago, by the prophets.  The second is issued by Jesus.
• The messianic banquet has been announced; all is now ready.
• Those to whom invitations had first been extended (the Jewish leaders) profer lame excuses for not attending
• What is behind these excuses? They resent the fact that Jesus eats with ‘sinners’, and entertain false expectations about the Messiah himself
• This-worldly pre-occupations – property, commence, relationship – are allowed to take precedence over the things of the kingdom.

Their excuses reveal their priorities:

‘The excuses that kept the no-shows away reveal that they are persons whose lives are wrapped up entirely in earthly enterprises. Their last-minute excuses reveal their true priorities…They were all winners, and they had to spend a lot of time to keep being successful and to stay on top. There are so many deals to be made; who has time for this inconsequential party that only interferes with our pressing affairs? They are self-absorbed and spend their lives consumed by their consumption of material things.’ (Garland)

Don’t settle for second best:

‘People today make the same mistake that the people in the parable made: they delay in responding to the invitation because they settle for second best. There is certainly nothing wrong with owning a farm, examining purchases, or spending an evening with your wife. But if these good things keep you from enjoying the best things, then they become bad things.’ (Wiersbe)

Blomberg summarises three lessons from the parable:

‘(1) From the graciousness and severity of the master we learn that God generously and consistently invites all kinds of people into his kingdom but that a day will come when the invitation is rescinded and it is too late to respond.

(2) From the excuses of the first group of guests stems the principle that all excuses for rejecting God’s invitation are exceedingly lame.

(3) From the helplessness of the second group of guests follows the teaching that God’s generosity is not thwarted by the rejection of the “estab­lishment,” because he extends his invitation even to the dispossessed of this world.’

(Reformatted)

Bailey identifies a number of theological motifs:

1. Jesus is God’s unique agent calling for participation in the messianic banquet of salvation.

2. The messianic banquet promised by Isaiah (Isa 25:6–9) is inaugurated in the table fellowship of Jesus (realized eschatology). But the parable is left open-ended. All the guests are not assembled. The parable breaks off with the house not yet full. Thus there is an unfulfilled future anticipated by the parable (futuristic eschatology). The full vision of the messianic banquet is yet in the future, when the faithful will sit down in the kingdom with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Luke 13:28–29). Thus the messianic banquet of the end times is both now and not yet.

3. The excuses people offer for refusal to respond to the invitation to join in the banquet are stupid and insulting. The original guests have their counterpart in every age.

4. The invitation to table fellowship at the banquet is extended to the unworthy who can in no way compensate the host for his grace. These outcasts may be from within or from without the community.

5. Grace is unbelievable. This is so true that some special pleading is required for many of the undeserving to be convinced that the invitation is genuine.

6. There is a centrifugal force of mission taught in the parable. The servant, with his invitation, is told to go out beyond the city. If God’s salvation is to reach to the ends of the earth (Isa. 49:6) someone must take the message out and present it with all the winsomeness possible (Luke 14:23).

7. There is a self-imposed concept of judgment. Those who by their own choice reject the invitation thereby shut themselves off from fellowship with the host and his guests.

8. There is a warning addressed to the presumptuous in the believing community. God can get along without them. If they fail to respond to His invitation, He will proceed with outsiders.

9. Time runs out on the invitation. As Charles Smith has said, “Places are not kept open indefinitely at the Messianic table and those who assume … that there will always be room for them arc likely to receive a rude shock” (C. Smith, 125).

10. The guests must be invited. No one “storms the party.” Attendance is by invitation only. Yet the guests must respond and come in. There is no participation at a distance.

Manson (cited by Bailey, and also by Edwards) comments that, based on this teaching:

‘No man can enter the Kingdom without the invitation of God, and that no man can remain outside it but by his own deliberate choice. Man cannot save himself; but he can damn himself…. He (Jesus) sees the deepest tragedy of human life, not in the many wrong and foolish things that men do, or the many good and wise things that they fail to accomplish, but in their rejection of God’s greatest gift.’

Edwards agrees: God’s attitude is one of invitation, not exclusion.  Moreover:

They are excluded not because they are wicked, sinful, or bad. They are good and respectable people; were they not, they would not have been invited in the first place. Their excuses—at least in their minds—seem justified. Like the people in 14:1–6, they know Jesus, they sit at table with him and enjoy his company. Their absence at the banquet is contrary to the will of the host and due solely to the fact that they had other and higher priorities. Their finances, businesses, occupations, and families were more important than the invitation to the feast.’

So, when they find themselves excluded, ‘they have only themselves to blame.’

Rev 19:9 – ‘Then the angel said to me, “Write the following: Blessed are those who are invited to the banquet at the wedding celebration of the Lamb!” He also said to me, “These are the true words of God.”’

---

Counting the Cost, 25-35

14:25 Now large crowds were accompanying Jesus, and turning to them he said, 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 14:27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. 14:28 For which of you, wanting to build a tower, doesn’t sit down first and compute the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 14:29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish the tower, all who see it will begin to make fun of him. 14:30 They will say, ‘This man began to build and was not able to finish!’ 14:31 Or what king, going out to confront another king in battle, will not sit down first and determine whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 14:32 If he cannot succeed, he will send a representative while the other is still a long way off and ask for terms of peace. 14:33 In the same way therefore not one of you can be my disciple if he does not renounce all his own possessions.

Jesus has spoken of a banquet to be enjoyed. He will now spell out the cost attached to that invitation to feast.

Jesus matched his teaching carefully to those he was speaking to. To the Pharisees he preached humility; to the crowds who enthusiastically followed him around, as here, he spelled out the cost of commitment.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” – This is hyperbolic.  See following discussion.

We might have expected Jesus to say, “If anyone comes to me he will have joy, peace, and fulfilment in abundance.” But he doesn’t say that.

Whoever does not carry his own cross and follow me cannot be my disciple – This illustrates the phrase “even his own life” in the previous verse. The disciples of Jesus must be willing to carry that which is very heavy.

Crucifixion was a common enough event for people to be able to appreciate Jesus’ words here. To carry one’s cross means to count as dead one’s former life; it means to renounce selfish desires. See the similar (but positive) statement in Lk 9:23-25. Of course, it would mean readiness for literal martyrdom for some: though not all of Christ’s disciples will be crucified, yet all must carry their cross in readiness for this.

It is possible to be an admirer of Jesus without being his disciple.

“And follow me” – How ought the professing Christian follow Christ? –

‘As the soldier follows his general, as the servant follows his master, as the scholar follows his teacher, as the sheep follows its shepherd.’ (Ryle)

“A tower” – The tower could be a watchtower for a vineyard or a farm building. Common sense determines that before any important project we will deliberately sit down and calculate the cost to make sure the task can be completed.

The possibility of making a preliminary enthusiastic commitment to Christ but failing to see it through reminds us of seed that fell on stony ground and that which fell among weeds in the parable of the sower. Think of the examples of Judas and Demas. ‘Look,’ says Jesus, ‘before you leap.’

‘The cause of Christ will bear a scrutiny. Satan shows the best, but hides the worst, because his best will not counter-vail his worst; but Christs will abundantly.’ (MHC)

“What king, going out to confront another king in battle” – Our Lord, having given a proactive, peaceful illustration of counting the cost, now gives a reactive, military illustration of it; for discipleship has both elements – it involves both building and fighting.

This is an apt illustration of the Christian life. We face a formidable foe, 1 Pet 5:8; 1 Jn 2:16.

“Give up” – lit. ‘bid farewell’; ‘renounce.’

Christ calls for whole-hearted devotion, complete self-denial, so that one places all of oneself, and all that one has, at his disposal.

Suppose you want to undertake some major building work on your property. Will you take the first quote you are given? How will you feel if the builder keeps adding on unexpected costs? What will happen if run out of money half-way through?

14:34 “Salt is good, but if salt loses its flavor, how can its flavor be restored? 14:35 It is of no value for the soil or for the manure pile; it is to be thrown out. The one who has ears to hear had better listen!”

“It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile” – This would seem to challenge our assumption that ‘salt’ in the NT has to do with either flavouring or preserving.  This verse suggests that it was used as a fertilizer.  Such use is attested not only among the ancient Hebrews, but also among the early Chinese and Romans.  In the Philippines to this day salt is used to promote the growth and productivity of coconut trees.  Anthony B. Bradley explains that ‘salt’ in NT times was very different to our table salt (more or less pure sodium chloride).  It consisted of a range of chlorides of sodium, magnesium and potassium.  It also contained some calcium sulphate (gypsum).  Some mixtures degraded more quickly than others; they ‘lost their saltiness’:

‘So when Jesus talked to his followers about losing their saltiness, he was talking about losing their fertilizing properties, their ability to bring about life and growth.’

Consequently, writes Bradley,

‘Christians are not here to merely season or preserve the world from decay. The followers of Jesus Christ are sent on a mission to stimulate growth in the parts of the world that are barren, and to be mixed into the manure piles of the world so that God can use that fertilizer to bring new, virtuous life. But if those same followers are not committed to the radically countercultural message of Jesus Christ, they lose their “saltiness,” which is the unique witness to the power of the gospel that brings the kingdom of God to the messes of the world, stimulating life and growth. If we lose our “saltiness,” we are “no longer good for anything” and cannot be the agents of change that Jesus intended for his followers to be (Matt. 5:13).’

‘It costs much to follow Christ; but it costs more not to.’