1. Introduction
This parable is told by Jesus in the midst of a dinner at the home of a Pharisee. At this particular dinner, Jesus has already given lessons on the need for humility (rather than feelings of superiority) and the need for hospitality to be given through basic kindness (rather than thoughts of what could be received in return). Jesus had probably detected that the host on this occasion had a very preferential mindset and a real reticence to expand his social contacts.
Now, one of the dinner guests spoke up and said, “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God”. Now on the surface this sounds good, and perhaps the speaker is looking for Jesus to simply agree. But instead, Jesus speaks a parable. Whatever the dinner guest meant by what he said, was about to be challenged by one of Jesus’ challenging scenarios. If we are to be counted with those who truly dine at the feast given by God, what sort of attitudes should we truly hold? And further to this is the question: What is God’s style of hospitality?
2. The Original Invitees
Within Jesus’ parable, we see in verses 18-20 three varieties of excuses for not attending the dinner. The customary practice of the time would have been for the dinner invitations to have gone out some weeks beforehand, but without specific details as to date and time. On this basis the invitations would have been accepted and this would be a binding arrangement. When the dinner-party drew much closer, a messenger was sent out to tell all those who had already accepted that everything was now ready and that they should now come.
Yet we see that something has changed since people accepted the invitation and the occasion arriving. What do think about these excuses??? There was buying land, buying oxen, and getting married!
These are pretty lame excuses – they are meant to sound ridiculous and insulting!
· Would not the new landowner have gone to see the land before he bought it! And given that the contract had been completed, any further issues could certainly wait another day.
· Would not the new owner of the five yoke of oxen have tried out these animals before he invested in them! To have not done so would be like buying a second-hand car without driving it.
· Would not the newly-married invitee have known that he was getting married way before the first invitation went out (which had been accepted)!
Even if you were to buy into any of these excuses, such non-attendance would still be viewed as gravely dishonouring to the host. Material acquisition and business dealings were being put up as more important than fulfilling an appointment that they had been very privileged to receive. It was likely that the marriage excuse was the most bogus of all, relying on the cultural instruction (from Deuteronomy 24:5) of staying home with a new wife for the first year of marriage. Even this was a misuse of the Torah, as it was really only to excuse a man from military service within the first year of marriage (not social interaction).
The point is: these are hopeless excuses! “I cannot come” (in verse 20) should really be read ‘I choose not to come’. The fact is: attendance at the dinner had become inconvenient, and any excuse would do! Other priorities, or perhaps complete apathy, had taken over! In the culture of the time, to refuse to go having previously accepted, was a very serious insult. The honour of being invited should have been enough to ensure their participation. This was the breaking of a very binding covenant, which would have hurt the host. Even just changing one’s mind or just ‘going cold’ on the idea of attending, showed careless unconcern for the host – they have thrown the invitation back in his face.
Yet perhaps the host learnt something too. Those a host might naturally think would attend such a dinner (maybe the more ‘respectable types’), may actually not be the most receptive or willing to come. Perhaps there are others who might more happily respond.
3. The New Guests
At any rate it would be understandable that there would some sort of reaction from the host. There had been plenty of food made available at significant expense, so another invitation would have to go out. And when there was still more room and hospitality available, a further invitation, even farther afield, would go out. The first invitation, it seems, had not reached the “poor, crippled, blind and lame”, nor had it reached out into more distant regions. But now, with such rich resources available, the host’s servants had to be sure to offer hospitality in the most open-ended way.
For some of these new invitees, this offer would be coming out of ‘left-field’ as they had never before been treated with such generosity, so they might have needed quite a bit of encouragement. They may feel nervous about coming to where they would have previously felt out-of-place, so they would need to be reassured of their sincere welcome. As the servants went out with their big bag of invitations, you might have thought these were increasingly less likely to be accepted; but in they came [and there was still more room]!
It is interesting that the word translated “compel” was used in verse 23. Other translations have “make” or “urge”. It wouldn’t be the case that it was compulsory to attend, but the case would have to be so strongly put, that people would feel it almost necessary to come. Perhaps what was required was some gentle insistence, not so easily taking ‘no’ for an answer – the invitation was to be presented attractively and persuasively with integrity and sincerity. And the servants were not to be deterred.
4. Meaning
The first part of the parable reflects on those who toy with God (and take God for granted). Jesus would be drawing from Israel’s sad history of an on-again off-again relationship with God (represented in the Hebrew Scriptures – Old Testament) – crying out to God in bad times and ignoring God when they felt secure. The prophets’ call for the nation to exhibit faithfulness and justice was regularly ignored. Jesus’ own true identity was currently being denied by the religious elite.
And this stares in the face of anyone today who treats God so lightly. This is not those who haven’t heard or haven’t responded, but addressed to those who have initially responded but then let other things get in the way. Such as these will miss the blessing, the spiritual peace and joy, because in their own minds they were too busy or too successful or too important to bother anymore. God, and the way in which God wants to interact with people, can be treated very lightly, even by those who seem on the outside to be quite committed.
Yet God will not give up, not with so much love and grace to be gifted to people. The second part of the parable reflects on the open invitation that needs to be shared broadly across the community and the world. In some places the depth of the offer will fall on deaf ears, but there will remain a great harvest field to be involved in. God actively and compassionately seeks those who will respond to this invitation to receive Divine hospitality.
5. Conclusion
So, what of the dinner-guests statement – “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the Kingdom of God”?? Jesus’ parable gives a proper interpretation of what this might truly mean. Fulfilment in life will be found by those who wholeheartedly receive God’s hospitality and are open to broadly share such hospitality with others. Anything short of a wholehearted response to God will be found to be disappointing.
No comments:
Post a Comment