article43

§37 Election Parables (Luke 14:7–24)

Although the three parables of Luke 14:7–24 are closely related, the connection with the preceding unit (14:1–6) is not nearly as close. In the Lucan context the reader, one should suppose, is to imagine the three parables of vv. 7–24 as being uttered at the same house to which Jesus had been invited and at which he had healed the man afflicted with dropsy. Originally, however, the incidents of vv. 1–6 and 7–24 were probably separate.

By combining the healing episode and the three parables, Luke has produced a larger section that deals with the theme of God’s mercy, a mercy that extends far beyond the limits to which those who are most religious usually restrict it. In the healing episode we see a man whose pitiful physical condition may very well have been viewed as resulting from divine punishment. In contrast to the religiously significant man, called a “prominent Pharisee” (14:1), this religiously insignificant man is the one who experienced God’s gracious healing power. Similarly, in the parable that follows (vv. 7–11) it is the unassuming man that is honored, while in the remaining parables (vv. 12–14, 15–24) the invitation to dine at the (messianic) table is to be extended to those considered by many religious notables of Jesus’ day to be unworthy. The net effect of this section is to proclaim loudly and clearly that those least expected to share in the blessings of the kingdom of God will in fact share in them, while in contrast, and surprisingly, those most expected to be participants may very well be among those who will be excluded.

14:7–11 / The saying of vv. 8–10 reflects the advice of Prov. 25:6–7, while the summarizing saying in v. 11 apparently alludes to Ezek. 21:26. Ironically, by their behavior, the guests (probably meant to be understood as the Pharisees and experts in the “law” mentioned above in v. 3) have not only ignored the wise counsel of Proverbs (and Sirach), but they have failed to heed the various warnings against arrogance and presumption throughout the OT (Isa. 13:11; Jer. 13:15; 50:29–32; Prov. 15:25; Sir. 3:17–20). (Jesus also criticizes the Pharisees for their pride in Luke 11:43; 20:45–47.)

Jesus’ parable is simple enough on the face of it. Guests at a wedding feast would be wise not to assume that the host considers them to be as important as they may be in their own eyes. But Jesus intends far more than mere advice for proper behavior at dinner parties. In view of the meaning of the Parable of the Great Banquet that follows in vv. 15–24, it seems reasonable to interpret the wedding feast as a veiled reference to the kingdom banquet of the last times. Invitation to attend this banquet means that one has been graciously chosen to enter the kingdom. The response, however, is to be one of humility, not one of self-exaltation. The Pharisees presume upon their invitation and find in it a cause for arrogance and pride. They are to be reminded, however, that the proud are humbled and the humble are exalted (Ezek. 21:26). Luke quite possibly sees in this parable a further application for his own community. Those who have been invited into the kingdom of God should enter with all humility, assuming that they are worthy of nothing more than the lowly positions. For there will be some (perhaps the Gentiles) who enter the kingdom later and yet receive positions of greater honor. Thus, the lesson that Jesus intended for his fellow countrymen becomes a lesson for the church as well.

14:12–14 / Just as it is like human nature to seek places of honor, so it is a human tendency to do good things for one’s friends (or those whom one hopes to make a friend) in anticipation of having the favors returned. Jesus advises his host that kindness shown to those who will repay with kindness does not impress God. Again, when seen in the broader context of Luke 14, it is probable that an allusion to the concern over the question of who will enter the kingdom of God (thought of as a dinner or feast) is intended. Jesus’ advice not to invite one’s friends, brothers, relatives, or rich neighbors probably implies that one cannot assume that only those whom we respect (or envy) are also respected by God. Others, such as the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind, are valued and respected by God and will be among those invited to the great feast of the last days. If one is to be like God, one should extend one’s kindness and mercy to those people as well. But Jesus’ immediate point is in v. 14. If one invites those who by religious standards of the day are viewed as outcasts from the kingdom, one will be blessed (truly happy) and accordingly will receive a reward from God at the resurrection of the righteous.

Such advice would have sounded quite strange to the ears of many of Jesus’ contemporaries. To their way of thinking the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind are those from whom God has withheld his blessing. In all likelihood, it was thought that their afflictions were the result of sin. These people, along with the Gentiles, would be the last people to enter the kingdom of God. Why should anyone invite them to a feast? To eat with such people could result in religious defilement. Therefore, the pious Israelite would quite naturally desire table fellowship with others of similar piety. Jesus, however, does not share this narrow, self-righteous view. His proclamation of the Good News declares that even the lowly and outcast may be included in the kingdom of God. Nowhere is this idea seen more vividly than in the parable that follows.

14:15–24 / Jesus’ advice on inviting the lowly to one’s feast leads one of the guests to pronounce a beatitude (blessed) upon those who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God. For Luke this beatitude surely strikes at the very heart of the question with which he is most concerned. Who really are those who will be included in the kingdom of God? To those surrounding Jesus at table the answer probably seemed clear enough. Those virtually guaranteed admission would be those in whose lives God’s blessing seemed most apparent: one’s friends, relatives and rich neighbors (v. 12 above), the very sort of people with whom anyone would most wish to associate. However, Jesus’ Parable of the Great Banquet (vv. 16–24) suggests that those who enter the kingdom and enjoy the great banquet may be more like those usually not invited to feasts (cf. list in v. 13 with that of v. 21).

In a recent study James A. Sanders (“Banquet Parable”; see Introduction, pp. 10ff.) suggested that the Parable of the Great Banquet represents the theological high-point in Luke’s Central Section (10:1–18:14), a lengthy section which apparently has been composed so as to correspond to Deuteronomy 1–26 (see commentary on 10:1–24 above). Sanders (“Banquet Parable,” pp. 255, 258, 265) points out that certain religious assumptions concerning election (i.e., who is acceptable before God and on what grounds) were founded upon a distortion of the biblical teaching on the subject. The distortion ran as follows: Since Deuteronomy promises blessings (such as health and wealth) for those who are obedient (as seen by their religious devotion) and curses (such as sickness and poverty) for those who are disobedient (as seen by their lack of religious devotion), then it may be assumed that those who are healthy and wealthy are righteous and so are enjoying God’s blessings, while those who are sick and poor are sinners and so are suffering God’s curses. This distortion is in effect an “inversion” of Deuteronomy’s teaching and is questionable on at least four grounds: (1) It assumes that health and wealth are always signs of God’s favor and that sickness and poverty are always signs of God’s wrath; (2) it assumes that health/wealth and sickness/poverty correspond to righteousness and sinfulness; (3) it inverts Deuteronomy’s promises and warnings; and (4) it particularizes the general, that is, it applies Deuteronomy’s nationally directed promises and warnings to individuals.

This distortion and its attendant faulty assumptions Jesus has challenged. And nowhere is Jesus’ challenge to these popular beliefs more dramatic and forceful. In the Parable of the Great Banquet those who end up enjoying the feast are the very persons not expected to participate. The parable thus refers to the great eschatological banquet when the righteous (or elect) enjoy God’s fullest blessing and reward. The man who was preparing a great banquet equals God himself. The banquet alludes to the eschatological (or messianic) banquet. The invited (guests) represent those of Jesus’ contemporaries who assumed that their election (“invitation”) was secure (i.e., the “relatives,” “rich neighbors,” etc.). Quite unexpectedly, however, the guests decline the summons to come to the banquet. It is not that they are uninterested in the feast (or in the awaited kingdom); they are simply too busy with worldly concerns to respond promptly and with commitment when the invitation is given. These worldly concerns are very similar to three of the conditions that disqualify an Israelite from participation in holy war, as seen in Deuteronomy 20 (Evans, pp. 47–48; James A. Sanders, “Banquet Parable,” pp. 256–58). Deuteronomy 20:5–7 gives three reasons why one should not go to war, reasons which roughly approximate the three excuses of Luke 14:18–20 (cf. the excuses in Luke 9:57–62). (The fourth excuse, cited in Deut. 20:8, is fear. This excuse, however, presupposes one’s initial willingness to answer the call to battle and thus a Lucan parallel to it would scarcely fit the banquet parable. That Luke was aware of the holy war context of Deuteronomy is possibly indicated in 14:31–32.) James A. Sanders argues (“Banquet Parable,” pp. 257–58) that there is a very close relationship between the idea of preparation for holy war and the preparation to enter the great feast celebrated when the kingdom of God finally comes, for those qualified to participate in the war are the very ones qualified to enjoy the feast. But the relationship between the holy war stipulations of Deuteronomy 20 and the persons invited to the great banquet runs even deeper. In the Lucan parable, those who finally enter the banquet hall are the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame (v. 21; see also v. 13). According to Lev. 21:17–23, however, these people could never be qualified for priestly service (even if they were Levites). The list in Leviticus 21, as Sanders (“Banquet Parable,” p. 262) has shown, inspired the stipulations in at least two of the writings of Qumran, which prohibited such “defective” persons from participation in the final great holy war (1QM 7.4–6) and the feast (1QSa 2.5–22). Sanders correctly suspects that Jesus (or Luke at the very least) has intentionally contradicted this popular, but strict, interpretation. Jesus’ parable suggests that the very persons thought to be disqualified (basically according to the stipulations of Lev. 21:17–23) from the final holy battle of the last days and from the messianic feast that follows would end up being the very people who will participate in this celebration, while ironically and tragically none of those people who were invited will get a taste of my banquet. A closer examination of related texts from Qumran also reveals that the members of Qumran believed that seats of honor would be assigned to the most holy and zealous of the community (1QSa 2.11–21). This idea is also challenged by Jesus’ advice regarding choosing one’s seat at a dinner (Luke 14:7–10).

Thus, Luke 14:7–24 forms a unified section that sharply contrasts popular views, including those held by many Pharisees and, in their extremest forms, those of members of the wilderness community of Qumran. Jesus’ parable teaches that the invited (see note below) may miss the opportunity of entering the kingdom, while the seemingly “uninvited” will be given the opportunity. It is interesting to note that after the poor, crippled, the blind and the lame enter the banquet hall (vv. 21–22) the master commanded his servant to go out to the roads and country lanes and make more people come in. This additional invitation to enter the feast was evidently meant to be understood as the summons to the Gentiles to enter the kingdom. Such a thought, of course, would be utterly contrary to popular Jewish assumptions about kingdom membership (see commentary on 4:16–30 above).

In Luke 14:7–24 it would seem that Luke’s election theology has reached its clearest and most forceful expression. Whereas earlier passages depicting Jesus’ compassion for the poor, the sick, the needy, and the sinner have suggested all along that the kingdom of God is meant for these people as well as for those of more obvious and more impressive religious qualifications, in Luke 14:7–24 the messianic invitation to those thought unqualified is made explicit. There can be no mistaking Jesus’ message now. In the concluding words of the Central Section: Jesus has come to seek and to save the lost (see 19:10).