The Great Banquet - JHV
This is a follow-up to my previous post, "The Plan Bs". Some of my readers felt that the details of the story which I take issue with may not have been intended to be so closely examined. They suggested that we're meant to focus only on the major point of the story - seemingly that the Jews rejected Jesus - and not the details, such as which guests the host seems to prefer, and his motivation for "dragging in" his B-list guests. I think this position is valid, particularly in the light of other, more popular Bible stories, but in my view the distateful elements of this story are quite central, and it seems pretty unlikely that they would have been tossed in just to flesh out the story, particularly if the theology they insinuate was as abhorrent to the teller as it is to us.
To demonstrate how easily these ugly details could have been left out of the story or altered, I've re-written the parable:
For there was once a man who threw a great dinner party and invited everyone in town - rich and poor, old friends and strangers alike. When it was time for dinner, he sent out his servant to the invited guests, saying, "Come on in; the food's on the table."Like any metaphor, this one surely has it's flaws and limitations, but I think it manages not to suggest anything seriously problematic about God or salvation. Would it have been so hard for Jesus to tell the story this way, instead of making salvation for the gentiles (or whoever are represented by the replacements) seem like an afterthought or a less-than-ideal plan B, only made possible by the rejection of the favored guests?
Many hungry people came, many outcasts, and many who had never met the host before. But few (not none) of his wealthy friends showed up.
Some made excuses. One said, "I bought a piece of property and need to look it over. Send my regrets."
Another said, "I just bought five teams of oxen, and I really need to check them out. Send my regrets."
And yet another said, "I just got married and need to get home to my wife."
Others expressed their indignation that the host would invite screw-ups, paupers and whores to a great banquet. They wouldn't be caught dead in the company of such people.
The master was saddened to hear that his friends had turned him down, but delighted to see the poor and the outcasts flocking in.
"Very well," he told his servant, "let the rejects be welcomed, let the hungry be filled, and let the snobs go without."- Luke 14:16-24 (Jacob Heretical Version)
Post a Comment
10 comments:
I think one thing to keep in mind regarding Jesus' parable is the original audience. He was speaking to people who considered themselves to be God's chosen ones. That's what makes the parable work: It was spoken to people who would have identified with the original invited guests. Jesus was telling his listeners, essentially, that they were being left out of the kingdom of God, that others would take their place.
It's not that Jesus did not care about the "B-list" guests; it's that the societal and religious leaders of the day did not care about them. And those very people who were pushed to the margins were the ones who would be replacing the people to whom Jesus was speaking. The parable was a warning.
If we don't identify with the "A-list" guests who ultimately get left out, the story doesn't have the same impact. Is there a way we can apply the warning to ourselves?
A good point. To me this seems like the best way of explaining the parable. It just strikes me as strange that Jesus would challange his audience's beliefs about their favored status with a story that to some extend indulges and affirms these same beliefs. If Jesus' point was that there were no VIP passes to the kingdom, why not just say this? Jesus seems to be saying "you're not the only invitees, just the favorites" when in reality (we think) he embraces all equally. Isn't that unlike him? Jesus didn't make apologies for hanging out with prostitutes, tax collectors and Samaritans, he didn't water down his moral teachings, and he didn't pull punches when confronting self-righteous legalists. Why would he hold back the truth here? Why imply that acceptance of outsiders comes at the expense of insiders? Why use the extension of grace to others as a warning or a threat?
good point Jacob. I like your version a lot better. IT's true. (I wonder if the powers that be would concede to replace the original version with yours?)
Anyhow, this sucks. I wish the bible was easy to take down, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised when it isn't. IT's like bad medicine sometimes.
I will have to give some serious thought to this passage.
thanks
Why imply that acceptance of outsiders comes at the expense of insiders? Why use the extension of grace to others as a warning or a threat?
I think the point was that their "insider" status was coming to an end.
Beyond that, there's always the possibility that part of this parable does not go back to Jesus' own words, but is the product of the early church -- which saw itself as a replacement for Israel.
The gospel writers were not above taking liberties with the wording of Jesus' teaching: Compare Mark 13:1-37, Matthew 24:1-44, and Luke 21:5-36, for example. These are ostensibly the same speech, given only a few days before Jesus was crucified. But notice how each author adds details -- or subtracts them.
It is possible that the details about the original invited guests being excluded is Luke's addition to the text.
Finally, Luke's style is to include pairs of stories on the same subject. This one in 14:16-24 is paired with a previous banquet story in 14:8-14. In the first parable, the consequences are far less dramatic. Maybe the ultimate lesson here is simply that we shouldn't rely on our favored status to save us.
Or perhaps I'm way off base.
I like to think that the words of Jesus as recorded in the gospels are pretty accurate. Otherwise there's a temptation to create my own Jesus who only says what I want him to. It does bother me a bit that the gospel writers got to choose what Jesus says to us, but they're better qualified than me.
I didn't notice any significant differences in the passages you mentioned. Can you point them out?
Differences in Mark 13:1-37, Matthew 24:1-44, and Luke 21:5-36 --
The passages all begin with Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple. But they diverge almost immediately. Luke simply says, "They asked him..." while Matthew and Mark add the detail that it was the disciples who asked, privately. Significant? Does it matter who asked? Apparently it did to two gospel writers but not to the other.
And the question they asked: "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?" according to Mark. Luke has something similar. But Matthew changes it: "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
Matthew's version fits better with what follows ("Many will come in my name...", so perhaps it would be better to say that Luke and Mark omitted this phrase. But why? Is the omission significant?
And what does Matthew mean by the "end of the age?" The age of the temple? That's what the context suggests, although many Christians have interpreted this passage in terms of the end of the world.
Skip ahead just a few verses and you'll find in Mark: "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs. As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations. When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved."
Matthew expands a little: "For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs. Then they will hand you over to be tortured and will put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name. Then many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come."
What's this about falling away? Isn't that the same sort of "who's in/who's out" issue that you're objecting to in Luke's banquet parable? Couldn't this passage have been told without the "falling away", the betrayal, the "love growing cold"? The answer is obvious: Yes. Mark told it without those elements.
Luke expands, too: "Then he said to them, 'Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and plagues; and there will be dreadful portents and great signs from heaven. But before all this occurs, they will arrest you and persecute you; they will hand you over to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors because of my name. This will give you an opportunity to testify. So make up your minds not to prepare your defense in advance; for I will give you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents and brothers, by relatives and friends; and they will put some of you to death. You will be hated by all because of my name. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your souls.'"
What is a warning in Mark and Matthew becomes words of comfort in Luke. Furthermore, Luke sees the persecution as more an opportunity than a danger. Luke's addition "but not a hair of your head will perish" directly contradicts Matthew's addition "[they] will put you to death."
I could go on, but I think this is sufficient to show that the gospel writers did, in fact, change Jesus's words when they saw the necessity.
In fact, Luke's statement "but not a hair of your head will perish" contradicts his own statement just previous, "they will put some of you to death."
Luke also adds the phrase, "for I will give you words and a wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to withstand or contradict," further changing this from a warning about persecution into words of comfort and opportunity.
Interesting. I don't see this as an example of the disciples changing Jesus' words so much as choosing which ones to include/emphasize. We can hardly fault them for including some teachings and not others, based on what they considered important, nor for slight variations in wording. That Luke doesn't mention the disciples asking privately, that Matthew phrases their question differently, and so forth, don't seem significant to me. Unless each of the writers copied from the others, such minor variations are to be expected.
It's true that the Jesus' remarks about the end of the age are slightly different in each account, but I think the major elements are the same: wars/famines/plagues, persecution, the spreading of the gospel, and betrayal/falling away.
I don't see "falling away" here as the same issue as is raised in the parable. In this case Jesus is saying individual people will choose to give up when faced with persecution, whereas the parable suggests that there are (or were) essentially two groups of people: God's first choices and his seconds. One speaks of personal failure; the other suggests divine favoritism.
Luke's statement that "not a hair of your head will perish" is clearly a figure of speech (Jesus is not suggesting that Christians are exempt from baldness). It's true that conventionally this metaphor would be understood to mean that we'll suffer no physical harm whatsoever, but in this case, this interpretation is clearly absurd (and not just because of its immediate context - we're talking about the guy who wrote Acts, which extensively documents the physical suffering of contemporary Christians). Luke must be thinking of the spiritual safety of those who endure.
The bit about "words of wisdom" is very close in spirit to what Mark says about being given words to say. Matthew omits this encouragement (I'm sure all the gospel writers trim Jesus' speeches as they see fit, and leave the great majority of them out entirely) but he is not wholly pessimistic.
I'm sure that the writers' biases significantly effected what they included, what they left out, what they emphasized and even what they remembered of Jesus' words and actions. But I don't believe they intentionally twisted or misquoted his words, that is, I believe they were at least as sincere in their desire to accurately convey Jesus' message (as they understood it) as I am, and probably a great deal more so. If we don't trust the Gospel writers (to the extent that we trust any fallible, human historian) who can say what Jesus really taught?
Let me clarify: I am not doubting the gospel writers' sincerity, or suggesting that they deliberately misquoted or twisted his words. I agree with you that their desire was to accurately convey Jesus's message.
Maybe another example will help illustrate what I am saying. In the verses immediately following my previous example, Mark has, "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand)," Matthew says virtually the same thing, "So when you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place, as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand)," but Luke paraphrases it: "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know its desolation has come near." Luke, writing to Gentiles, did not assume the reader would understand, so he changed the words to something that might be more clear to his audience. It seems pretty clear to me that, in doing so, Luke has chosen different words than Jesus chose. But that's OK. Sometimes a paraphrase is the best way to translate the overall message.
Now, going back to my example from my previous comment:
First, upon reflection I think you're right about "not a hair of your head will perish" being a metaphor for spiritual safety.
But that doesn't remove the tension between Matthew and Luke. Whereas you say that the major elements are all the same in these parallel passages, I see one important difference: In Luke, there is nothing about falling away. This changes the whole tone of the message.
Jesus's message according to Matthew is, essentially, Be on guard, because persecutions will come and many will fall away. Jesus's message according to a straightforward reading of Luke is, essentially, Don't worry even though persecutions will come, because you'll be OK in the end.
Maybe, because these two gospels were written to different groups of people, each contained the message the target audience needed to hear. That wouldn't be without precedent: The apostle Paul noted in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 that he tailored the details of his preaching to the audience.
But in that tailoring, sometimes words have to be left out (as you pointed out), or rephrased. In that rephrasing, new words can be introduced. It's a simple fact that the gospel writers sometimes put words in Jesus's mouth that he did not originally say. I'm not saying this out of a desire to create my own Jesus, nor do I believe the writers were being devious, disloyal, or unfaithful to Jesus's teachings as they understood them.
So, back to the banquet parable, it's possible that the detail about some being left out might have been introduced by Luke to warn the readers that they couldn't rest on their (supposed) superiority. If they did, they would end up being left out.
I'm not saying that's the right interpretation, or even the most likely. I'm just not willing to exclude the possibility just yet.
Ah. I see your point.
Luke does say "By your endurance you will gain your souls", but your right that he doesn't speak explicitly about people falling away.
I'm not sure why Luke, a gentile writing to a gentile, would want to add in a warning to smug Jews, and the inclusion of a similar (not identical, and much darker) story in Matthew 22 suggest to me that the basic points of the story, including the prefered guests, are original. But I agree that we can't be sure.
Post a Comment