The Parable of the Great Banquet.
Excuses Excuses
Luke 14: 1-24
In our text, the entire section is centered around a meal table. A prominent Pharisee asked Jesus to eat at his home. A number of things took place at this table, but none of them were very pleasant. All-in-all, it was a most unpleasant occasion. It was not a time of friendly conversation and warm hospitality. It was a time of silent sullenness, of treachery, and of self-seeking on the part of those Pharisees who were present. It was a time of rebuke and sober warning from the lips of our Lord. It was not a pleasant meal.
The meal took place on the Sabbath. The Pharisees laid a trap for Jesus. The Pharisees silently and sullenly watched as Jesus healed a man of dropsy. This started off a confrontation over the legality of healing a man on the Sabbath (vss 1-6). They remained silent when Jesus asked them whether or not healing was permitted on a Sabbath. And they were even more so when Jesus unveiled their own hypocrisy as to the keeping of the Sabbath.
When the guests jockeyed for position at the table, Jesus spoke to this evil as well (vv. 7-11). While they believed that “getting ahead” socially required self-assertion and status-seeking, Jesus told them that the way to get ahead was to take the place of less honor and status. Status was gained by giving it up. One is exalted by humbling himself, Jesus said.
Jesus then went on to direct a word specifically to the host (vv. 12-14). He had apparently invited all the prominent people to his table on this occasion. Jesus told him that while men might seem to get more in return from inviting their friends, family, and prominent people to a meal, in heaven’s currency men were rewarded by God when they invited those who could not give anything in return—the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.
The final words of our Lord in this section would have been the most disturbing to those present at the meal (vv. 15-24). By this time, I believe that things were so tense you could have cut the atmosphere with a knife. It was exceedingly uncomfortable and to break the silence resulting from Jesus’ last words (and partly in response to His mention of “the resurrection of the righteous,” v. 14), a man called out, “Blessed is everyone who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!” (v. 14, NASB). Jesus’ response was even more unnerving. He went on to tell a parable which informed His listeners that while feasting at the banquet of heaven (that is, the kingdom of God) would be a blessing, it was one that they would not experience. Indeed, Jesus indicated that the prominent people would turn down the invitation given them and that the guests would be those they would never have anticipated, indeed, that they would never have invited to their own banquets.
The title of this message is “Excuses, Excuses” for these are not friendly, casual, “talks between friends” they are stinging words of rebuke to those who have not received Jesus as Israel’s Messiah. They are a shocking statement to those who viewed themselves as those who would be prominent in the kingdom of God .
These words of our Lord are, once again, directed specifically to Israelites. This does not mean, however, that they have no relevance to us.
We read from Luke chapter 14:1 to verse 24.
We will start our discussion from verse 1. It was the Sabbath day, in some unnamed town of Israel. Undoubtedly Jesus had been in the synagogue that day, teaching. The “preacher” was invited to the home of one of the prominent Pharisees for dinner. It is my impression that the atmosphere was hostile and the mood unpleasant from the very beginning. Jesus did not, in my opinion, sour the mealtime conversation by saying something unpopular. Jesus does not seem to be invited for the hospitality of it, but for the hostility of it. I believe that word of Jesus had already come to these Pharisees, and they knew Him to be at odds with them, their beliefs and their practices. It seems that He was invited so that some specific charge could be leveled against Him. Luke simply tells us, “they were watching Him closely” (Luke 14:1, NASB).
It appears that the guest list was made up of all the prominent Pharisees, Jesus and just one other person—the man who was afflicted with a strange-sounding ailment known as “dropsy” (verse 2). He seems hardly to have been there by chance. I think that the inference is clearly that this man was placed here, knowing that his ailment was obvious, and that Jesus’ compassion was so predictable, he would surely not be overlooked by Him.
I can visualize the stiff silence as they all watched Jesus' eyes fix on the pathetic sight of this man, suffering from his sickness. Their eyes perhaps met those of their colleagues, knowing that the trap was working. Before healing the man, He turned to these silent skeptics and asked them whether or not the law permitted healing on the Sabbath (verse 3).
Here was a touchy matter. Their traditions, their teachings, clearly forbade such healing. The Law of Moses, however, did not forbid healing on the Sabbath. Indeed, if the Sabbath was made for man, for his benefit and blessing, how could one refrain from healing on the Sabbath, if he had the ability to do so?
They would not answer the question. Perhaps they would not discuss the matter because they had heard that Jesus could easily show the folly of their position. Surely they did not want to discuss the matter in order to learn from Him, and thus to change their minds. Keeping silent, they thought, would perhaps result in His healing the man, and if they thought this they were right.
The man was healed, and then unceremoniously sent away (verse 4). But why was the man sent away? The meal does not yet seem to have been served (cf. verses 7ff.). He hadn’t eaten yet. Often, those who have been healed by our Lord want to stay with Him, to worship and adore Him. Why is this man not left to do so here? I think that it is because the man was never brought here to eat in the first place, but only as “bait” by which to trap Jesus. Knowing this, Jesus sent the man away immediately. He had played his role and served his function, at least so far as the Pharisees were concerned.
Jesus may have had other reasons for sending him away, after Jesus graciously healed the him, and He would not leave him there to be humiliated. But how would he be humiliated? Jesus had already drawn attention to the error of the teaching of the Pharisees as it related to healing on the Sabbath. Jesus was now about to show them their hypocrisy in terms of their own practice. I believe that Jesus did not want this man to be among those who were about to be rebuked, and perhaps even shamed for using one who was infirmed, and so He sent him away. This is an act of mercy and grace, just as the healing had been.
With the man gone, Jesus now asked a second question of the Pharisees. The first was a matter of principle; the second was a matter of practice. It would be one thing for Jesus and His critics to differ over principle. It was another when these critics differed in what they professed (and demanded of others) and what they practiced. And so Jesus exposes their hypocrisy (inconsistency) with these words:
“If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?”
No matter what these Pharisees taught and demanded of others, they made exceptions for themselves. Let one of their sons, or even one of their oxen fall into a well on the Sabbath and they would “work” to get it out. They would do so immediately, without any hesitation or agonizing reflection. If, then, they would come to the aid of their son or their cattle, why should Jesus not be allowed to heal the infirm? Their hypocrisy was showing, again. The silence which results is the silence of sullen willfulness. If there was no willingness to discuss the matter, neither is their any intention of acknowledging their hypocrisy. Silence is the passive form of rebellion, but it is rebellion none the less.
Continuing from verse : 7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. 11 For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
In Israel, the meal table played a very important role, not only in the family, but in society as well. When an Israelite provided a meal for a guest, even a stranger, it assured him not only of the host’s hospitality, but of his protection. Lot, you will recall (Genesis 19), invited the angels of God into his home and provided them with a meal. When the men of Sodom wanted to do these guests harm, Lot offered his daughters to the men to sexually abuse, in an attempt to prevent harm from coming to his guests. This is shocking to us, but it tells us the meaning of a meal and the Israeli concept of hospitality.
Also in Israel (as elsewhere), the meal table was closely tied to one’s social standing. “Pecking order” was reflected in the position one held at the table. The Pharisees who attended this meal seemed to think that one’s table position not only reflected one’s position, but may indeed create it. Thus, people jockeyed for position at meal time, so that they could end up in a seat of honor. It was like musical chairs, except there was no music.
Can you imagine the humorous antics which Jesus must have observed as all the guests tried their own techniques at getting to sit in the best seats? It was nearly time to eat. The guests would soon be seated. Everyone began milling about, just happening to be standing beside a chair of honor. How subtle it was all supposed to be. Jesus saw it all, and spoke to it.
Now where did Jesus end up sitting? Was He sitting in the seat of the host? It would appear that while the others jockeyed for position, Jesus sat back, watching. When He finally arrived at the table, there would only have been one place left—the seat of lowest honor.
Jesus did not deal directly with the position-seeking. Instead, He told a parable. He told them that they should avoid seeking the place of honor, for in so doing they actually set themselves up for humiliation. Suppose that a more important person came, after they had seated themselves in that individual’s chair. The host would have to ask them to sit elsewhere, and the only place left would be (thanks to the other self-seekers) the place of lowest position. How humiliating it would be, in front of all the rest, to be unseated in such fashion!
On the other hand, if one were to take the lowest place, then the only way to move would be up. The host might then come to you and move you up higher, in front of all. What a blessing this would be, to be honored publicly before all.
In verse 11, Jesus moved from the parable to a principle which underlies His teaching:
“For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Here is a paradox indeed. The way up is down. To try to “work up” is to risk being “put down.” Those who wish to be honored must be humble and seek the lowly place. Those who strive to attain the place of honor will be humiliated. The ways of our Lord and His kingdom are not man’s ways.
12 Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”
Our Lord’s words in verses 7-11 were directed towards the guests, who were jockeying for position at the table. The host, however, had no need of doing this, for his chair was guaranteed. He had the only reserved seat. It is not just where one sits at the table that gives one status, but also whom one is sitting with at that table.
When planning a banquet, the temptation is to invite those who are most likely to do us some good in return. Thus, one thinks first of inviting family members or rich friends, who will reciprocate in kind. We are tempted to give in order to get. Jesus taught that this practice should not only be revised, but reversed. In this world, men invite their friends and the rich, in order to gain from their reciprocal invitations and hospitality. In God’s economy, men are gracious to the helpless and to those who cannot pay them back, so that when the kingdom of God is established on the earth (at the resurrection of the righteous), God may reward them. Thus, Jesus advocated inviting as “guests” at our next banquet the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind (verse 13). Doing so assures us of God’s blessings in heaven.
While the words of our Lord in verses 7-14 should be seriously taken and applied in a literal way, let us take note of the fact that Jesus was speaking a parable (verse 7, cf. v. 12). The parable and its principle is thus to be much more broadly applied.
15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.” 16 Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ 18 “But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’ 19 “Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’ 20 “Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’ 21 “The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’ 22 “‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’ 23 “Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’”
The Pharisees were concerned with their position at the table, not only the dinner table of their host, but also the table of the kingdom of God. The disciples had also become infected with this preoccupation with position, as we know from the gospel accounts. Jesus’ words must have caused all of those present at the meal great discomfort. Jesus had effectively exposed and rebuked their sinful ambition. Hearing the mention of the “resurrection of the righteous,” a clear reference to the coming kingdom of God, one man saw a way to defuse the situation, and so he called out, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.”
There was one thing greatly wrong with this man’s statement: he spoke from the vantage point of one who would be sitting at that table. This man, like the other Pharisees, assumed that if anyone were to be at this messianic meal, this banquet of the kingdom of God, it would be him.
Jesus speaks a word of warning to this man and those like him with another parable in verses 16-24. He tells of a certain man who plans a great feast, and who sends out invitations, well in advance, to all those guests He desires to attend.
One would assume that all the invited guests implied by their deeds and words that they were going to be a part of God’s promised kingdom. It is only when the announcement is made that the feast is ready that the invited guests “decline.” They all have their excuses, of course. One man excuses himself to look at land he has just purchased, which apparently he had not inspected before the purchase. Another declines to “try out” his oxen, which he bought untested. A third has to stay at home with his wife, whom he has just married.
These invited guests—Israelites—whom God invited and who appeared to be planning on participation in the kingdom of God, failed to accept the invitation when it actually arrived. They had other, more important things to do. In response, God now offers the blessings of participation in His kingdom to those who would not have been considered acceptable guests, the very ones (the poor, crippled, blind, and lame (verse 21)) whom Jesus told His host to consider inviting to a feast (verse 13). But not just the rejected, lower, classes of Israel are invited, but even those unsuitable people along the by-ways are compelled to come. God will not take “no” for an answer from them. It is not that they have chosen to be a part of God’s kingdom, but that God has chosen to make them a part of that kingdom. It is God’s sovereign purpose that has prevailed, not some superior wisdom on the part of Gentiles. Thus, there is no basis for pride.
What a word this is for Luke’s Gentile readers, the audience to and for whom he has written. This explains to Gentiles how it is that the blessings of the Jews can be experienced by the Gentiles, and how the majority of the Jews can fail (at this time) to grasp what God is doing or to accept it.
What a lesson the words of our Lord in this text conveyed to the Jews of that day. They assumed that they had a place at the “table,” that is in the kingdom of God, and their only concern was which place that would be. These Jews were not atheists, nor great “sinners” in any outward way (such as the tax gatherers and the prostitutes were, in the minds of some), they were very religious people, in fact leaders of their religion. They thought they were saved, but they were wrong. The last section of our passage is a solemn warning to the Jews that they will miss out of that which they presumed they had.
For the Gentile readers of this gospel, they find an explanation of the reason why the Gentiles have been privileged to enter into the blessings which God promised His chosen people, Israel. It is, however, not a flattering text, one which ridicules the Jews for their unbelief and which praises the Gentiles for their greater discernment, as evidenced by their faith in Israel’s Messiah for salvation. The Gentiles are those who are compelled to come, from the highways and byways.
Note, too, the insight which we gain from this passage on the interplay between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Our text attributes the failure of Israelites to enter into the blessings of the kingdom of God to their rejection of the invitation given to them. Luke does not tell us that the Jews –the chosen ones - were kept from the kingdom by God’s choice , but by their own choice. On the other hand, the salvation of the Gentiles is not attributed to their choice, but to divine compulsion. The sovereignty of God is thus emphasized with respect to salvation; the responsibility of man with respect to condemnation. Both doctrines are true, though they must be held in tension. Let us keep the perspective and the emphasis which we find in Luke’s account. Luke does not trade of God’s sovereignty for man’s free will, nor vice-versa. Indeed, he holds both in tension (cf. Acts 2:23).
Let me pause right here for a moment. The reason why the Jews lost out on the kingdom of God was because they rejected God’s clear invitation, in the person of Jesus Christ, the King of Israel. Christ is still the key to man’s salvation, or may I say, more bluntly, your salvation. The only way men go to heaven (get into the kingdom of God—sit at the banquet table, as our text symbolically portrays it) is by receiving Jesus Christ as the Son of God, God’s King, God’s Savior.
Now back to the parable:
"At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, 'Come, for everything is now ready.' " (14:17)
While it may seem strange in light of invitation practices in the Twenty-First Century, in First Century world the invitation was two-fold: (1) the initial invitation some time ahead, and (2) the actual summons to the meal when it is ready, and is attested both in Jewish and Roman settings
The three excuses that those invited to the party give boil down to two general issues: the first two people have just taken new property, and the third person has taken a new wife. The fact that they are citing these issues specifically as reasons to be excused from tasting God’s banquet are very deliberately chosen, because the Old Testament Law gives these exact excuses as two of the possible excuses for an Israelite’s not going to war.
In Deuteronomy 20, we read the following:
1“When you go out to war against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and an army larger than your own, you shall not be afraid of them, for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. 2And when you draw near to the battle, the priest shall come forward and speak to the people 3and shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel, today you are drawing near for battle against your enemies: let not your heart faint. Do not fear or panic or be in dread of them, 4for the Lord your God is he who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies, to give you the victory.’ 5Then the officers shall speak to the people, saying, ‘Is there any man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it. 6And is there any man who has planted a vineyard and has not enjoyed its fruit? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man enjoy its fruit. 7And is there any man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her.’” (Deuteronomy 20:1-7)
In this passage, God gives two reasons for an Israelite not to go to war. Either he has new property (v. 5-6), or he has a new wife (v. 7). For what it’s worth, v. 8 also allows those who are too afraid to go to war stay back, lest they become a liability on the battlefield—but this issue doesn’t arise in Jesus’ parable, so we’ll leave it aside for the moment.
So, what’s the connection between Jesus’ banquet and ancient Israelite warfare? Well, it’s critical to understand that Israel went to war only for one purpose: claiming/defending their inheritance. By eliminating the evil nations who were occupying the land of promise. They marched into the Promise Land to lay hold to what God had promised them, and they fought off other peoples who tried to take the Promised Land away from them, or to subjugate them in the land.
The inheritance was a critical piece of Israelite identity, so inheritance-related war was an extremely important event. But, God was gracious enough to provide major exceptions to limit those who had to go to war at any given time. Even claiming their inheritance was not so important for them to neglect taking a new piece of property, a new wife, or avoiding pure terror.
In the New Testament, though, the inheritance of God’s people is no longer a small sliver of land in the Middle East. Instead, the New Testament people of God get a much better inheritance: Christ himself, along with all of creation. Paul writes in Ephesians 1:11 that “In him we have obtained an inheritance”; Christ himself is our inheritance. Then, in Romans 8:15-17, Paul explains that by the Spirit of adoption (through whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”) we have been made children of God, “and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ.” Our inheritance is that we gain Christ himself, and that we inherit the whole world as a fellow heir with Christ.
If you wanted a share of the inheritance, there were still excuses that you could use that would get you out of the war. But now that Jesus has come, and now that “everything is now ready”—now that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh—there are no more excuses. Even the very legitimate escape clauses of the law no longer apply here. No one who turns down an offer of Christ will taste God’s banquet.
You see, Jesus was telling this parable to Israelites, to whom “belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). And as such, they were the first to receive invitations to the banquet. Jesus was issuing them a warning not to turn down his offer of himself. But they did. And not only did they reject him, but they orchestrated his execution. And even when he rose from the dead, vindicating himself as the Son of the Most High, they still rejected the gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sins proclaimed in Jesus’ name.
And so the invitation was then extended to the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame—those in the hedges, the highways, and the byways. In other words, the gospel was then extended to all the nations of the earth, so that Gentiles like us could come in to taste God’s banquet.
Continuing with our Parable The servant came back and reported that those who were invited refused to come . Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.' " (14:21)
You can't blame the host for being angry when he hears of this rude affront and unanimous rejection by his social peers. He is livid! So he tells his servant to do what would have been social suicide according to the customs of that day -- invite the lower classes. The host will not have an empty house at his feast. He will have guests!
The list of guests to be invited from the streets and alleys of the town is identical to the list Jesus had suggested to his Pharisee host in verse 13 -- those who could not repay him by inviting him in return -- the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.
But the servant knows his master and has anticipated his command" 'Sir,' the servant said, 'what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.'
Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full.' " (14:22-23)
The first sweep was in the town, and included "broad, main streets or public squares" and "narrow streets, lanes, alleys" The second sweep was outside the town in the rural areas, the, "road, highway" and "fences, hedges" Inside the town would be the poor, the beggars, the indigent. But outside the town would be the vagabonds and sojourners, those who were shunned and unwelcome in the towns.
Such people would have felt very uncomfortable at the feast of a rich man, they would be socially out of place. The rich man hasn't sent out soldiers to sweep the area, round up everyone, and march them to his house. On the other hand the servants were to encourage and strongly urge everyone they meet to accept this invitation.
The host's house must be full. He will have a full house!
Jesus closes the parable in a curious way.
"I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet." (14:24)
So, do you want to taste God’s banquet, or not?
