Jean’s Gospel: The Great Banquet
The Great Banquet
“When one of [the Pharisees] who reclined at table with [Jesus] heard these things, he said to him, ‘Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!’ ” (Luke 14:15)
Jesus and the Pharisees disagreed on many points of theology, but they did agree that God had promised a great feast in the kingdom of God. The problem for the Pharisees was they did not want the kind of meal the King was offering them. Jesus, therefore, used a parable to show the Pharisees the tragic consequences of their stubborn rejection of His invitation.
“But he said to him, A man once gave a great banquet and invited many.” (Luke 14:16)
Jesus likens the kingdom of God to a great banquet. It is great not only because of the host, who is Christ himself, but because the food being served is immeasurably great and costly.
At this banquet, Jesus serves His guests His body and blood. This meal is the Gospel which Jesus offers to everyone. Jesus refers to himself as the “bread of life” (John 6:35), who made satisfaction by his death for our sins and has redeemed us from the wrath of God, sin and eternal condemnation. Whoever believes that our Lord Jesus Christ was born for us of the Virgin Mary and crucified for our sins under Pontius Pilate, died, rose again from the dead, is seated at the right hand of God the Father, etc., partakes of inexhaustible food and everlasting drink.
Jesus feeds and sanctifies His guests through His Holy Baptism, and comforts and strengthens them through the Sacrament of his body and blood, so that nothing is lacking and all become satisfied. No words can adequately describe, and no heart can sufficiently grasp, this meal. This eternal food and eternal drink strengthens a person so that he or she endures forever and receives eternal life. Jesus prepared this banquet not for a few people, but for the whole world.
“And at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.’ ” (Luke 14:17:20)
Jesus issues invitations to the banquet through His preachers: “Come, for everything is now ready.” The Pharisees had received invitations from John the Baptist, Jesus and His apostles. Wherever the Gospel is preached, an invitation is issued.
But the Pharisees would not accept Jesus’ teaching. They preferred to remain in their kingdom, with their Law, priesthood, government, wealth and status. The Pharisees wanted to control their own kingdom, focus on temporal affairs and earn a reward for their labor. So they excused themselves and forfeited both the temporal and eternal blessings given at the banquet.
“So the servant came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house became angry and said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ And the servant said, ‘Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’ ” (Luke 14:22)
Although it makes Him quite angry, God accepts rejection from those who excuse themselves from the banquet. But the banquet is being held, with or without the Jewish rulers, and God will fill the hall.
Therefore, Jesus issues invitations to the poor, crippled, blind and lame. These are folks who have no experience with banquets and feasts. They have no temporal kingdoms, wealth or prestige to which they cling. So they come. Imagine the salvation which came to the woman, who had anointed Jesus’ feet with ointment in the Pharisee’s house, when Jesus fed her His body and blood, saying: “Your sins are forgiven.” (Luke 7:48). Or the salvation which came to the paralytic, who had been brought into Jesus’ presence through an opening in a roof, when Jesus fed him the bread of life, saying: “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” (Luke 5:20)
“And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.’ ” (Luke 14:23-24)
This last group provides us with a marvelous picture of people streaming to the banquet hall from the four corners of the earth. Jesus compels the world to come through the invitation, which sets before the world God’s Law and Gospel: “For there is no distinction [between Jew and Gentile]: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.” (Rom 3:22b-25) If we believe His invitation, the meal is ours. If, however, we reject His invitation, then we will not taste the salvation served at the banquet.
It would be convenient to ignore the first group of invitees and view ourselves only in the third category of people in this parable. However, we are no better people than were the Jewish Sanhedrin; and we are just as capable of creating our own distorted vision of the kingdom of God as they were. Therefore, we might ask ourselves:
- Are we too busy for the banquet? Why do we excuse ourselves?
- Are we willing to enter the hall by His grace alone? What part do we want to play?
- Are we willing to eat and be satisfied with only what He has prepared for us? Is the menu too restrictive?
- Are we willing to share the meal with all His guests? For which seats at the table do we pine?
Previously, Jesus had said the banquet hall has a “narrow door” (Luke 13:24). Why is the door narrow? Did God make entry difficult? To the contrary, God offers entry to the banquet to everyone through the Gospel and entirely as a free gift for the sake of His Son who gave His life for our sins and now offers us His body and blood as heavenly food. We, on the other hand, view the door as narrow because we cling to our own false kingdom building ideas and/or want input into the guest list or banquet menu.
But here’s the thing: There is only one Host and one banquet and everything has been prepared for us. Therefore, let us repent of unbelief and trust that the banquet which Jesus has prepared for us truly is a great and perfect meal just the way He provides it. May we never tire of this great banquet nor lose our hunger and thirst for the inexhaustible food and drink with which Jesus feeds us, both now and forever. Amen.
“On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined. And he will swallow up on this mountain the covering that is cast over all peoples, the veil that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death forever; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth, for the Lord has spoken.” (Isa 25:6-8) Amen.
Interesting to compare this passage with Matthew 22:1-14.
Hi Josh,
If I were doing a comparison of the two parables, I would treat them as two different parables, with two different points. I definitely would not try to harmonize them.
Thanks for reading.
Not something I’d really though about. Was just studying through the Matthew passage and read this. Seems to be a different point of view on the same story, at first glance. All good. I appreciate your point of view.
I agree with Jean. I am sure that as Jesus traveled from town to town he told several versions of similar stories, parables or whatever to make a point without trying to harmonize them. The sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plains are good examples.
Jean
Any additional thoughts on “compel people to come in”? Not sure that I see the direct link to the invitation. This is one phrase, by the way, I think Augustine was totally wrong about in his interpretation!
https://phoenixpreacher.com/?p=25966&
Same title, one year ago next week. Did you mean to do that? 🙂
many conclusion Jean draws here that i’d say ‘amen,’ but Christ’s body and blood as presented here…?… i can see why some have such an aversion to Christianity…
that said, since folks who hold this view also strongly believe that one should study and grow as a Christian, i’ll just leave it alone – and leave this comment thread alone
thank God for His mercy on us all on this pilgrim journey
Interesting timing…I just taught this text last Sunday.
Duane –
Regarding “compel,” here’s what I said to our congregation this past Sunday:
———-
How were the strangers on the highways and hedges to be brought? The servant was told to “compel them to come in.” The word translated “compel” can be misunderstood, either from it being too forceful, or too light-handed. NKJV, ESV, NASB all render it “compel;” NIV, HCSB translate it as “make them.” The NET & NLT renders it “urge,” which seems to fit this particular context far better. One dictionary says of this word, that it means “to cause or compel someone in all the varying degrees from friendly pressure to forceful compulsion.” (TDNT) In other words, it ranges from “please” to the point of a sword. Context is absolutely key. The context here is one of persuasion. (1) In this parable, the host is not a king, but a homeowner. He doesn’t have the authority to send armies out with weapons for forced compulsion. (2) If the homeowner was prone to use force, he would have forced the original invited guests. There was no reason to force strangers into his home, if he didn’t want to use force on his neighbors. Thus, when the servant was told to “compel” the strangers, it meant that he was to go out & strongly urge & persuade people to come.
———
“I can see why some have such an aversion to Christianity…”
I think Jesus made it this way… on purpose. Read John 6:51-71. Jesus makes it clear that it is his flesh he is asking people to eat and they refused, they walked away. Why? Because they knew it was not a metaphor.
The road, the gate, they are narrow for many do not believe the very words of Jesus.
#8 Tim
There is indeed ambiguity in the word… I was reading in Augustine on Church/State relations and was a bit bothered when he used this text as justification for resort to the secular authorities to deal with schismatics! I agree that context is everything. It makes me think, however, that the writer of the Gospel is “showing off” a little bit in using a Greek rhetorical devise of ascending phrases. He starts off with “invite” moves to “bring in” and reaches a crescendo with “compel them”…
Just a thought.
Hi Duane and Tim,
I think that Tim’s conclusion: “strongly urge & persuade” is very close to what I see too. I would reject idea of “force” because the Kingdom of God is not compulsory on anyone. On the other hand, it is forgiveness, life and salvation from condemnation, death and damnation, so there is certainly very high stakes and urgency (who knows when our hour will come?).
I also see this “compelling” as the work of the Holy Spirit done through preaching, which first convicts the hearer concerning sin and righteousness and judgment, and then consoles the penitent with the Gospel.
Josh at #6,
I am writing based on the Historic One Year Lectionary Gospel readings. I am doing this for two reasons. First, this lectionary has its roots beginning in Jerome (A.D. 342–420). This gives me access to a wealth of sermons and gleanings on these texts from many of the important Church Fathers. The second reason is that my congregation worships based on the Historic One Year Lectionary. This allows me to conduct my personal devotions and studies in sync with the church calendar of my personal congregation.
I knew I had already written on this topic, but decided write a completely independent article. I honestly am not sure which one I like better, but I can see that I am personally in a different place than I was a year ago, as is the world and my friends and family, so the text moved me in a different direction this year. I will admit that I don’t really like to read my previous writing. My first reaction usually is: Oh, no, what did I say?
I’m probably the only person that pays much attention to the older articles that are linked before the comments. I’m reading back through those things all the time. I love when one pops up from 2012 or 2013. SO much has changed.
Duane/Tim/Jean
While I have the utmost respect for Augustine and other Church Fathers, I also would disagree with the usage of the text to allow persecution of schismatics. But they were men of different times.
Even Calvin had this to say: Compel them to come in. “This expression means, that the master of the house would give orders to make use, as it were, of violence for compelling the attendance of the poor, and to leave out none of the lowest dregs of the people. By these words Christ declares that he would rake together all the offscourings of the world, rather than he would ever admit such ungrateful persons to his table. The allusion appears to be to the manner in which the Gospel invites us; for the grace of God is not merely offered to us, but doctrine is accompanied by exhortations fitted to arouse our minds. This is a display of the astonishing goodness of God, who, after freely inviting us, and perceiving that we give ourselves up to sleep, addresses our slothfulness by earnest entreaties, and not only arouses us by exhortations, but even compels us by threatenings to draw near to him. <b. At the same time, I do not disapprove of the use which Augustine frequently made of this passage against the Donatists , to prove that godly princes may lawfully issue edicts, for compelling obstinate and rebellious persons to worship the true God, and to maintain the unity of the faith; for, though faith is voluntary, yet we see that such methods are useful for subduing the obstinacy of those who will not yield until they are compelled.”
Again… different times indeed.
Jean,
@12, I don’t much like reading my past articles either. Too much cringing and thinking did I really write that awkward jumbled mess or, boy, did I miss on conveying what I was really trying to say.
Papias,
Thank you very much for the gleaning from Calvin. Different times indeed.
Kevin,
Yep. I definitely think most of my writing has a shelf life. But, in the moment, it can be very rewarding and illuminating.
Papias
Yes, different times. I came across this short article that I thought was good in covering the issue with regard to Augustine. When I get home, I also want to take a second look at the Retractions, but I cannot remember any real change of mind…
https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/220345/1/Augustinus+Article+PDF.pdf
Duane, on page 12 if the link:
“To avoid inauthentic conversions, Augustine opposed forced conversions. Summarizing, he recalls in Retractationes 2. 5 that he confessed the Donatists (in the lost Contra Partem Donati): “In the first of these books, I said: “I am displeased that schismatics are violently coerced to communion by the force of any secular power.” And truly, at this time, such coercion displeased me because I had not yet learned either how much evil their impunity would dare or to what extent the application of discipline could bring about their improvement.”
#19 Papias
Yes, I saw that and looked it up in the Retractions. I think with the Donatists, he was specifically looking at the more “violent” wing of the group and the civil disorder they were causing in the countryside. Still no excuse, in my opinion, but it helped me to understand his thinking a bit more. Between 400 and his death, it seems to me that Augustine became more concerned with civil order, perhaps because of the disorders in Italy that eventually made their way to North Africa. We may be having to examine such things more closely, as the more extreme of Mr. Trump’s supporters now refer to him as the “God-Emperor” (which I at first thought was some sort of sick joke) and are bent on civil disorder. Perhaps we are not in such a different time after all…
I read some of the things on reddit. I think the God-Emporer (an obvious reference to Dune) is meant to be a bit of a counter-meme to mock those who call trump Hitler. It’s kind of like how they have embraced the “Deporables” moniker. Still, we see signs of true believers. There were those on the left who felt that way about Obama. That people in modern times seem to be so quick to embrace a Messiah type political figure is what is scary to me.
“That people in modern times seem to be so quick to embrace a Messiah type political figure is what is scary to me.” … i think that this has been historically true in troubled times and i am in total agreement that it is scary … very, very scary