thanks for the e-mail message telling me this is helpful. I appreciate the feedback and will try even harder to make this worthy of your time!
(open Bible to Luke 14:16ff) Luke's parable is less complex than Matthew's.The story line is simple. A man has a banquet and sends his slave to tell the invited guests that it is time to come and eat. This was a common practice in ancient times. An invitation went out far in advance and then the reminder came the day of the event. We notice that the scale of the story. There is a man with a slave. Only three guests respond, but one assumes that they are representative. The excuses which are given are mundane: one bought land, another oxen, and the last is newly married. (The first and third excuses echo Deuteronomy 20, where young men could be excused from war) So the man sends his slave to gather up the street people (poor, crippled, blind, lame) but the hall is not yet full. So the slave is sent out again to get more people in the outer reaches of the city.
The original parable of Jesus provides an insight into God's offer of inclusion to all people. No doubt when told to the Jewish leaders it had a judgmental edge to it. (Hence the parable's conclusion "none of those who were invited will taste my dinner") For such an audience, the parable serves as a declaration (and rationale) for doom. However, one can also imagine other settings where Jesus is showing the 'outcast' that they have access to the Feast! In such a case, the story would have a wondrous dimension. People who were destitute were invited to imagine a scenario where they are scooped up, off the road, and brought into the home a wealthy man. There a grand feast is spread out before them and they sit in the seats of honor intended for others. As I said yesterday, Jesus no doubt told this story, or a variant of it numerous times to different groups in diverse settings. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that in some cases he even shaped the characters to reflect his actual audience. One can picture Jesus talking about the outcasts, and then, gazing at the dirty face of a poor mother holding her child, adding that "a woman and her child, a child of three" (as he looks at her child) "hurried into the meal, and ate with great joy." Would a tear roll down her cheek as she made the connection between her plight (and salvation!) and the story of Jesus? Would a divine tear roll down His human cheek as he gazed at the woman?
As Luke works this story into his Gospel, we notice several things about the setting. First of all, it occurs at a dinner party (14:1 it is a Sabbath meal at the house of a leader of the Pharisees). Jesus heals a man (which creates an uproar). Then Jesus notices how people are vying for a place of honor. Luke quotes Jesus on humility. The Jesus tells the host, "when you give a dinner invite, not your friends, but the "poor, cripple. lame, blind." Notice, this is the same group who populate His parable! Luke had a heart for the poor and his Gospel refers constantly to the needy.
(Lk 14:25) Immediately after the parable Jesus is teaching a crowd where He demands that we love Him more than family and friend. He continues, that those who follow Him must crry their cross. He concludes, "none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up your possessions." [The announcement of grace is always balanced with the total demand of the Kingdom. Everyone gets in free, but it costs everything!]
Now the parable is illuminated further. Luke is certainly keying in on inviting the poor, but we can see the 'excuses' in new light. The people who were originally invited in the parable are not street people. One is a land owner, the second is quite wealthy (ten oxen is a huge number). The third, newly married, is at least of sufficient means to have a wife. Luke's concern, that we understand Jesus' commitment to the poor and outcast, is present throughout the chapter and is woven into the texture of the parable itself. He narrows the outcast to the poor and needy (as opposed to the 'sinners,' tax collectors and whores, in other Gospels)
Now some might ask, "Did Luke emphasize the poor because Matthew and Mark got it wrong?" The answer of course would be, 'yes and no.' Yes, Luke emphasized something which they didn't, but the others were focused on other areas of Jesus' identity. Keep remembering, Jesus is bigger than any single protrait of Him. Once we escape a shallow, wooden literalism (while avoiding the cynical, unbelief of the Liberal/Modernist or post-Modernist) we can emerse ourself in the revelation of God, through the human writer, about our Lord. Like facets of a diamond, the different angles on Jesus provide us a richer, complementary view, not a contradictory one.
Luke has given us Jesus' teaching from a particular (valid) angle. We know Him as He confronts us with an immensely difficult collection of stories (who among us regularly feeds unknown needy people instead of our families?). The difficulty is intensified as we live our generally materialistic Western lifes. Jesus would be stunned at how rich His followers are, and how reluctant we are to share our abundance. That is enough to ponder for one day.
Next we turn to Matthew, and we will see how thoroughly he reshapes the parable, placing it in a totally different setting and actively making it an allegory about Jesus (and us).
No comments:
Post a Comment