The parable of the Great Banquet

I was chatting today with a friend who is preaching on the Parable of the Great Banquet in Luke 14:15-23 soon.

It's a popular passage, and rightly so. It beautifully depicts the free offer of the Gospel and the celebratory and joyful nature of the Kingdom of God. However, from Luke 14:15-23 alone you could easily gloss over the brief mention of anger and preach the Gospel as a nice invitation to a party that is worth accepting, but that if you choose to try out your oxen or spend time with your wife then that's okay. You're missing out, but each to his own.

Matthew's account in 22:1-14 is a bit more chilling. In his account the servant carrying the invitation is killed and the king responds by destroying the murderers and burning their city. A guy then turns up without a wedding garment and is cast out into the outer darkness. There is still a party, but I suspect Luke's account is the more popular one today.

But my friend pointed out that Luke's account in chapter 14 follows chapter 13 which includes some stark warnings of its own. For example, Jesus in verse 22 is the servant carrying the invitation by preaching the through the towns and villages. He is the door into the Kingdom of God, but there will be a time when the door will be shut and people will plead to enter but will not be admitted. Outside the house he says there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' but inside there will be feasting (vv. 28-29).

Luke's Jesus is not the 'nice' Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke depict a Jesus who preaches judgement to come. Very sobering for me to be reminded.

Christian notes on the beginning of Samuel

Hannah's prayer (1 Samuel 2:1-10) begins with her heart exulting and her horn exalting! It ends with YHWH exalting his anointed king.

This is striking because as yet there is no king of Israel, only judges. This is compounded by verse 10 which says that YHWH himself will judge, not just Israel, but the earth.

It is also striking because it implies that Hannah has united her exaltation with the exaltation of the Messiah. Hannah sees that she will be exalted in the Messiah's exaltation. Christ's resurrection and glorification will be her resurrection and glorification. This is a gift she could only grasp by faith!

Union with Christ in his death and resurrection comes out in the middle of the prayer. The middle is marked by great reversals, the greatest of which is that "The Lord kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up." God will bring the rich to poverty and the poor to prosperity, the childless will give birth, the hungry will eat, etc.

Standing at the beginning of the book of Samuel we see this movement of death to new life in all the messianic shadows in the book:

1. The judges: Eli dies and Samuel is the new and better judge.
2. The priests: Eli dies and all his line is gradually wiped out (only completed in 1 Kings 1-2), and Samuel and then ultimately Zadok are the new and better priests.
3. The kings: Saul dies and David is the new and better king.

Luke picks up a lot of Samuel's messianic shadows.

It is often noted that Mary, who like Hannah has no possibility of having a child humanly speaking, sings a Hannah-like song in the Magnificat. She too rejoices in the Lord and in the great reversals he will bring about. Zechariah also sees God raising up a horn of salvation (Luke 1:69). In fact, Zechariah can be seen to perform a role similar to that of Eli. Eli is a flawed priest who does recognise what God is doing with Samuel and accepts the judgement on his line. Zechariah is also flawed but sees what God is doing in Christ.

Simeon prophesies that Jesus will be the cause of the "falling and rising of many in Israel" just as Samuel is. What neither he, nor Mary or Zechariah mention when they mention the great reversals is that Jesus will be the cause of these things by both happening in him. He will fall and rise again. All those apart from him will fall in their condemnation of him. All those united to him will fall into the grave too, but rise again by the power of the Father's Spirit.

Finally, just to bolt on the end. It is mentioned a number of times that Samuel grows up (1 Samuel 2:21; 3:19) and the same is said of Jesus in Luke (1:80; 2:52). Another indication that Luke had Samuel on the mind....

Faith is how we feed

Listening to: Mozart: Violin Concertos

[This is an attempt to explain why only those with faith are saved by putting it in the context of the nature the salvation itself. I'm a bit torn whether I've succeeded. Let me know your thoughts if you have any]

1. God lays on a meal for everybody, no matter who they are

In the Parable of the Great Banquet, Jesus begins by encouraging generosity to all types of people.  He says that ““when you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbours, in case they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind” (Luke 14:12-13).

It is obvious why Jesus needs to say this isn’t it?

We are nice to those people that we want to be nice to us in return.  Who among us can say that we treat the shop attendant with the same attention we do someone interviewing us for a job?  We will buy a round for someone who we know has a record of buying rounds for us, but we won’t do the same for someone who never offers to get us a drink.

Or we can be prejudiced against whole classes of people who we don’t identify with.  Historically we have treated those of a different race as second class citizens, but perhaps now are more likely to express contempt towards those both above and below us on the class ladder.  Paul seems to be combating just that attitude in 1 Timothy 2 when he encourages the Christians to pray for their political leaders, because God cares for ‘them’ as much as ‘us’.  Although for them it may have been even tougher given the oppression they would have experienced from their leaders.

Like Paul, Jesus sees that how we treat other people will mirror how we believe God treats people.  Often we are tempted to feel that God loves people like ‘us’, not people like ‘them’, and we think that justifies us in our lack of love to those people.  Where we do that we need to be sorry and change because God should be our model and is not like that.  God loves “all” people, as Paul says.

Jesus illustrates how God loves all people in this Parable of the Great Banquet.  He compares “the Kingdom of God”, or as Paul would say it “salvation”, to a great banquet.  It is not a bring-your-own meal and it is not beans on toast, instead it is a lavish feast provided entirely at God’s expense.

And this feast is not just for God’s friends or those who have something to offer him.  He has “made everything ready” for “many” people, even those who we read later in the parable don’t like him very much.  

God models just what Jesus says that we should do.  Love everyone and happily share what we have with everyone.

2. The meal is Jesus and he gives life

But what is the banquet that God puts on?  The disciple in verse 15 talks about “bread”, which doesn’t sound all that lavish.  But in John 6 we learn what type of bread is on offer.

Jesus explains that he is “the bread of God” (v.33) who gives “life”.  When we eat food we are nourished and sustained in life.  The difference with this bread is that Jesus gives not just “life” but “eternal life”.  Normal bread fills us up for a little while but then we need more to keep on living, but in contrast if we eat “the bread of God” then we shall “never hunger” (v.35).

I often feel it is a bit weird and disgusting that Jesus is talking about himself as food to be eaten.  When it says that the disciples said in response that “this is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (v. 60) I have to sympathise with them.

It is pretty offensive that a lamb is slaughtered so we can eat it, but it is even more offensive that Jesus is crucified so that we can eat him. There is no getting round that. You cannot prettify death, but Jesus’ death is the major event of the Gospels and Christianity as a whole so you cannot avoid talking about it.

But as well as an offensive image, there is a sense in which this is the most beautiful image you could imagine. It is a beautiful thing when someone empties their fridge to lay on a meal when you visit. It is an even more beautiful thing, although also more tragic, when a single mother goes out to work all the hours she can manage to put food on the table for her family. It is the most beautiful thing I have ever heard of that Jesus died so that everyone can have eternal life. That is why it is at the centre of what Christians believe.

It is interesting how Jesus defines life in John’s Gospel though. The image of food suggests that Jesus is just the source of life. However, later in the same Gospel he also says that he is “the life” itself (14:6).

Jesus explains that “eternal life” doesn’t mean just existing for a long time, living a life of leisure or having lots of stuff. Instead he defines it in terms of a relationship: “this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ” (17:3).

If Jesus stayed dead to give us life, then that would be no kind of life at all. One of the best things about life is the people, but the very best thing, and source of all other good things, is knowing God and his Son, Jesus. The reason that Christians celebrate Easter is that Jesus was raised from the dead after 3 days being dead, so that we could have a relationship with him and his Father by his Spirit.

Jesus Christ is the feast that God the Father has put on for us, and his company at the table is what makes it worth looking forward to.

3. God invites people to the meal through people speaking about it and eating bread and drinking wine

God has provided a feast which he wants every single person to come and enjoy. But how will people come and enjoy it?

In the first place they need to know that there is feast to enjoy.

In the Parable of the Great Banquet Jesus says that the host sends out his servant to tell everyone that the banquet is ready to be enjoyed (14:17). In a similar way at the end of every Gospel Jesus says that the invitation to him is to go to all the nations. It is not just for the Jews, because God wants everyone to come, so the disciples will have to pass on the message to people all over the world (Matt 28:18-20, Mark 16:15; Luke 24:46-48; John 20:21).

This message is passed on by preaching and by the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, all of which have a fundamental role in the life of all Christians. When Paul preached he said he aimed to preach “Christ crucified” (1 Cor 1:22). Not advice, not rules on how to live and not philosophy, but an offer of a death to give us life. Jesus’ death is also prominent in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper which originates from when, the night before he died, Jesus told the disciples to regularly eat bread and wine as his body and blood given for us.

When the bread is broken in two at the front of a church meeting, or when we hear someone talk about how Jesus died so that we could live knowing him, then we are invited to come and eat at the feast. We will only get tasters now, but when Jesus comes again then we will sit down to a great feast (as many other Bible passages talk about).

It is a sobering thought that if people do not receive the invitation they will not come to the feast. If we love people like God loves them then as his servants we will carry out the task Jesus gave to his disciples at the end of each Gospel and go to every corner of the earth to tell people invite people along. And that is what thousands of Christians have done, even if like Jesus it cost them their life.

4. Eating the meal by faith

This odd concept of eating Jesus, even though it is rich and meaning-packed, begs an important question: ‘how do we eat someone who is alive but we cannot see?’

Jesus makes clear what he means by eating in John 6:35-40. To eat him is to come to him (the feast) and we do that by believing in him.

In the Parable of the Great Banquet the invitation goes out to lots of people who come up with excuses not to come. But why would someone not want to come to a free party?

You only don’t accept an invitation because you believe that the alternative is better. If you don’t think you will enjoy the company, or that the food won’t be that good you make your excuses and don’t come. That is what lots of people do in Jesus’ parable. They thought that staying at home has more to offer than Jesus.

As any host the Father is offended by this. He has been the great giver, but people refuse to receive the gift. It is irrational and morally reprehensible, but people do that to other people and they do that to God. God is angry with those who despise his beloved Son.

The offer still stands until Jesus comes again though. Jesus says that he is offered “so that one may eat of it and not die” (John 6:50). It is important to remember that the reason people will die in hell is because they have chosen to refuse the invitation to eat. This seems mad, but people do have their reasons. They refuse the gift of salvation in Jesus because they that they have a better offer of salvation somewhere else.

That people do not hear about this great feast is a terrible tragedy and the fault of the church. That people hear about this great feast and yet believe it to be a poor offer not worth taking up is also a tragedy, but it is their fault not God’s.

The truth is stark, but if you don’t believe you don’t eat and you don’t live. But if you do believe Jesus is the bread of life he promises and you do eat of him visibly at the Lord’s Supper and by invisibly by listening to the Bible taught, then you will live and feast with him when he comes again.

The Son of God in Luke 1-4

Listening to: The Creation (Haydn - no really I am)

The first four chapters of Luke seem to constantly be asking the question "whose son is Jesus?" There is barely an episode involving Jesus where that question isn't asked.

Luke 1:32-35: The angel declares to Mary that she will bare a son who will be called the "Son of God"

Luke 2:41-52: The family visits the Temple and they lose Jesus. When they find him Mary tells Jesus "Son...your father and I have been searching for you". He responds by explaining that he must be in his "Father's house". They don't realise whose Son he really is. But he doesn't grasp at his sonship to the Father but is "submissive" to them. Perhaps you could say that although he is the Son of God, he is willing to count himself "Son of Man" (although that title has Daniel-vision-of-glory-connections it is also regularly linked to suffering in the Gospel).

Luke 3:22: The Father declares from heaven that Jesus is his "beloved Son".

Luke 3:23: The very next verse Luke begins his backwards genealogy by noting that many people "supposed" Jesus to be the Son of Joseph.

Luke 3:37: After running back through the line of sons Luke concludes that Adam was "the son of God".

Luke 4:3, 9: The very next episode after this declaration is the the temptation of Jesus where Satan says "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread." With his third and final temptation Satan again challenges Jesus "if you are the Son of God..." Unlike Adam, Jesus resists the temptation.

Luke 4:22: The next episode in the Gospel recounts Jesus preaching the good news of his coming, and people question "Is not this Joseph's son?" and drive him out of time. They don't think he is the Son of God.

Luke 4:41: Jesus heals casts out some demons the first of whom confesses him to be "the Holy One of God" and the other "demons also came out of many, crying, 'You are the Son of God!'"

A few refections:

• It now makes perfect sense that Luke's genealogy is not at the beginning of the book as in Matthew. If you ignore the section headings and chapter numbers it is crystal clear that in functions as a link between the Father's declaration of Jesus' Sonship with him being the perfect Son of God that Adam never was when tempted by Satan.
• No humans confess Jesus to be the Son of God. Angels do, the Father does, and demons do. Impliedly even the devil does. Why can humans not see it? (perhaps 9:35 + 10:22 provide a hint)
• Perhaps Luke's genealogy is not meant to be Jesus' genealogy at all, except as he takes it upon himself. This would solve the problem of harmonising it with Matthew's geneology. He assumes the inheritance of death that comes from Adam, even though he is a new Adam who obeys his Father in heaven.

This post is prompted by a facebook comment from Chris and is the fruit of barely any thought on my part. Please contribute any reflections you may have, particularly about the temptation (although in the other Gospels I see it more as a "new Israel" than a "new Adam" episode, it is clear that Luke sees the link primarily with Adam).

The case against Gideon

At Sunday School we would probably be taught to see Gideon as good guy to be imitated. You can see why, but there is also much to question about how he lived his life.

Gideon is both hero and antihero, both a man of faith and a man of fear [...]

The photograph of Gideon's soul reveals serious blemishes. At the time of his call he is dull to the spiritual condition of his people (i.e., he makes no attempt on his own to remove his family's altar to Baal), to salvation history (i.e., though a "mighty warrior" [6:12] he takes no initiative to save his people), and cynically expresses his disappointment with God (i.e., instead of viewing God's mighty acts in the past as an encouragement to faith, he interprets them as a discouragement to faith: 6:13). He evades God's call (6:15) and lacks faith in God's promises through one who who proves himself without reasonable doubt to be the angel of I AM (6:16-21, 36-40). I AM's sixfold promise to give Midian into the hand of Israel (6:36-38; 7:2, 7, 9, 14-15) contrasts with Israel's "fear" (7:3, 10). Gideon tears down his altar at night out of fear of his family (6:27). His request for a wet fleece in a dry field and then for a dry fleece in a wet field reveals his lack of faith in God's word from none other than the awesome angel of I AM (6:36-40). Ironically, he has more faith in the dream of an enemy soldier than in I AM's promise. The Midianite interpreter of the soldier's dream only repeats what God has been saying all along (7:14).

[...] he provokes the battle with the Midianites only because the spirit of I AM gripped him to do so (6:34). When Gideon crosses the Jordan, he takes extreme vengeance against fellow Israelites (8:16-17). Gideon is the first judge to turn the sword against his compatriots. In the Transjordan campaign instead of mentioning God, he is bent on revenge, torturing the elders at Succoth and pulling down the tower at Peniel, killing the men (8:16-17). He kills the Midianite kings as revenge for his brothers, not for any other reason (8:19). When he is contended against, he handles it with diplomacy (8:1-3; cf. 6:30-32), but when he is the contender, he tears down and kills (8:17).

[...]Gideon's refusal to be Israel's ruler is ambiguous (8:22). In chapter 24 I argue that his statement is so much poppycock and does not express the author's evaluative point of view. In any case, he leads the nation back into idolatry by using the plunder of gold to make an ephod, a divining instrument, instead of keeping covenant with I AM out of faith in God (8:22-32).

Through this antiheroic-heroic warlord, I AM brings both grace (deliverance from Midian( and judgment (death to the Transjordan cities for their neutrality in the war and to the Ephraimites for their pride). Remarkably, the New Testament remembers only Gideon's faith - meager as it is - and holds him up as an example of faith to the church (Heb. 11:32).

(pp. 602-603, Bruce K Waltke, An Old Testament Theology)

In my daily Bible reading the plan is taking me through Judges. This morning, immediately after reading about Gideon's torture of the elders of Succoth and then his killing of the men of Penuel, my plan took me to Luke 23:13-43. The brutal ripping me out of one context and plonking me in another sometimes frustrates me about Bible reading plans, but today the juxtaposition was wonderful. The passage in Luke begins:

Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him [...] what evil has he done? I have found in him no guilt deserving death.

The comparison is stark. It may be clichéd, but its also wonderfully true, the human leaders God rose up in the OT were deeply flawed. As well as good, they often did great evil. Even when much of what they did could be justified to some degree, their enemies would always have found something to say against them. However, the Gospels make clear that not one charge could be brought against Jesus!

He is a good king to have.

Thielicke on the Parable of the Soils

Helmut Thielicke makes two really important points that I think I often miss when reading this familiar parable:

1. It is a solemn parable

I wonder whether we have caught the sadness that hangs over this story. Jesus spoke this parable at a high point in his life and activity. The people were flocking to him in great numbers [and yet] the parable is really pointing out how frequently the divine seed is destroyed - destroyed in stony hearts, by the heat of the sun, by choking thorns and predatory birds - this is why there is in this parable a deep sense of grief and sorrow. And all this is seen and proclaimed while outwardly the people are coming in droves, inspired with festive enthusiasm, and the hucksters are rubbing their hands with delight over this "colossal" attraction

(p.53, The Waiting Father: Sermons on the Parables of Jesus)

2. It is meant to provoke a response

We should be misunderstanding [Jesus] disastrously if we thought that this was simply an enumeration of the forces which obstruct and choke our faith for our information or even for self-examination. This is more than "analysis." Jesus is never interested in counting and statistics; he always puts us to work. He says: Weed out the thorns; see to it that the seed does not fall on the path; be careful lest you be people so shallow that the Word cannot take root. Jesus says: Be good soil.

(p. 59f, ibid)

The Good Samaritans

During the reign of Ahaz the northern kingdom of Israel defeated Judah and took 200,000 people captive. They intended to make them slaves but some of the men of Ephraim took it upon themselves to do something different:

'the men who have been mentioned by name rose and took the captives, and with the spoil they clothed all who were naked among them. They clothed them, gave them sandals, provided them with food and drink, and anointed them, and carrying all the feeble among them on donkeys, they brought them to their kinsfolk at Jericho, the city of palm trees. Then they returned to Samaria.' (2 Chronicles 28:15)

Remind you of anything?

Samaritans, Jericho, donkeys, anointing (with oil/wine?), provision of food... sounds like Luke 10 to me.

All credit to my pastor who pointed out the connection.

Empire-building

Not the reactions you would expect:

'Now two men remained in the camp, one named Eldad, and the other named Medad, and the Spirit rested on them. They were among those registered, but they had not gone out to the tent, and so they prophesied in the camp. And a young man ran and told Moses, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." And Joshua the son of Nun, the assistant of Moses from his youth, said, "My lord Moses, stop them." But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!"' (Numbers 11:26-29)

'John answered, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us." But Jesus said to him, "Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you."' (Luke 9:49-50)

'Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.' (Philippians 1:15-18)

I think I'm more inclined to have the attitude of Joshua and John than Moses, Jesus and Paul sometimes.

A Centurion for a guide

Trinitarian theology causes me a lot of head scratching. Particularly difficult for me to understand is how 'It is in the Son that God is presented to us in a human life, but through his Trinitarian perichoresis that human life images both the Father and the Spirit so that the specificities of their functions and their relationships come into focus' (p. 105f, Tom Smail, Life Father like Son). However, it is in 'the gospel story where God reveals himself' (p.82, ibid), and it is here, rather than abstractions that things become clearer for me. Tom Smail points to the Centurions's comments in Luke 7 for an example of how Jesus reveals his Father:

"Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come,' and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him, and turning to the crowd that followed him, said, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith."

Tom Smail comments that:

What that Gentile faith grasps is that, through the exercise of what is proper to his Sonship, namely his obedience to the Father, in which he is a man under authority, he participates in what is proper to his Father - the power to utter a sovereign word that can take the initiative to break savingly into a situation - and becomes a man with authority to issue orders to illnesses.

(p. 105, ibid)

The parable of the prodigal son as incomplete gospel

The parable of the prodigal son is receiving a lot of attention at the moment. So I thought I'd share a taster of PT Forsyth on the passage:

There are those who say you have the whole of the gospel really in the parable of the prodigal son, that that was the culmination of Christ's grand revelation of God...But you have not the whole gospel in the parable of the prodigal son...

Now the one ruling idea in the parable of the prodigal son is the idea of the centrality, the completeness, the unreservedness, the freeness, fullness, whole-heartedness of God's grace - the absolute fullness of it, rather that the method of its action. But however a parable might preach that fullness, it took the Cross and all its train to give it effect, to put it into action, life, and history, to charge it with the Spirit...Hence as to the method of God's free and flowing grace the parable has nothing to say. It does not even say that the father was seeking the prodigal. The seeking grace of God we find there as little as the redeeming grace....

[The prodigal can only be sure of the father's forgiveness if] the father not only says but pays. His mere repentance could not make him sure, could not place him at home again, could not put him where he set out. His mere repentance could turn his heart to his father, but it could not break the bar and fill him with certainty of his father's love and forgiveness. And that is what the sinner wants, and what the great and classic penitents find it so hard to believe. Now, the parable tells us of the freeness of God's grace, and its fullness, but the Cross enacts it and inserts it in real history. It shows to what length that grace could go in dealing with a difficulty otherwise insuperable when we turn from a single prodigal to a world...the act of Christ's Cross - is not simply to produce individual repentance, but it has its great effect upon the relation of the whole world to God. And the judgment, the payment, was on that scale. (The Work of Christ, pp.106-111)

Anointing of Jesus

"I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her." (Matthew 26:13)

I think I ought to do a list of episodes which appear in every single one of the four gospels. I don't think there can be many and arguably this one isn't one as the four accounts of Jesus being anointed do not all tally nicely and there seems to be more than one event described in the NT. But anyhow, I have always found this phrase in Matthew's account weird. But I think the sermon I heard at church on Sunday has hinted at a reason behind it.

Of course the anointing is to burial and that is explicit in 3 of the 4 accounts. However could it not also be an anointing of Jesus as King? It is like David and Saul but as different as he is different yet similar to them. It is an anointing to death, through which comes glory; an anointing by a lowly woman and not a mighty prophet or priest.

I don't know, I'm just musing.