Along the Way

Recollections of Our Trip Through Samaria

The Wedding Crashers

 8-23-09

Text: Luke 14:7-24

● It’s important to understand that in the ancient Near East, hospitality was considered a sacred obligation and it was, in many instances, a matter of life or death. As you traveled in the heat and the desolation, subject to dehydration robbery, one thing worked in your favor--- any one or any home you approached would gladly provide you with food, water, and shelter.

            In fact, to accept someone’s offer of hospitality meant that you trusted them; that you actually came under their care and protection. As long as you were “at their table”, so to speak, they were bound to protect you.

● Table not only represented protection, but peace. It signified that the relationship had been reconciled; where there was once distance and animosity, there was now restoration and a place to belong.

Now, think about Psalm 23 in light of those cultural implications. God was like a divine host, sheltering him and protecting him; inviting him to eat at his table.

            In John 21, what do you think it would have meant to Peter that Jesus prepared a meal for them to share on the heals of his denial?

● Jesus is under tight scrutiny, to say the least. He had been touching lepers, telling stories which put Samaritans in a favorable light, including non-Jews as if they were equals. For the Pharisees, this was certainly no way to form a “righteous community”; these people were the problem; they were why Messiah had not yet come.

Many were offended by the dinner invitations that Jesus accepted. Jesus was always seen with all the wrong people (generally referred to as “tax collectors and sinners”… tax collectors and all other sinners”).

● Once again, Jesus uses the context as the text for his teaching. As he pans the room, he notices the “positioning and posturing” that’s so prevalent in social settings.

            There was a type of cultural “pecking order” that was clearly evident. They were “ranking themselves” as those worthy of the places of honor.

They were “ranking themselves” as those worthy of the places of honor. But Jesus was saying that there’s something flawed about a personal ranking system that always finds yourself at the top of the list.

● We’re not exempt from such behavior. What’s the first thing we do once we identify our spot at a specific table? We start checking the name plates of the others seated with us, right?

● Our tendency would be to get the best seats, right? But, Jesus invites his followers to do something counter-cultural; something that breaks with accepted protocol: to automatically take the least conspicuous spot; the one that’s unassuming.

It means that we see ourselves as those without any claim on the host except that we have been invited and we accepted the invitation.

● Jesus directs his challenge not only to the guests but to the host. As Jesus looks around, he’s not as much struck by those who are in attendance, the “A-listers”, but by those who have seemingly been intentionally excluded.

The presumption one could make as you scanned the room? The crippled, lame, blind, poor… were “unwelcome”. These were all people that not even God had favored; not even God would invite these people for dinner (actually says something about their distorted view of God).

Where else have we heard such language? Luke 4:16-21 where Luke records Jesus’ reading of the scroll (Isaiah 61). Lame walking, blind seeing, deaf hearing were all signs of a great inversion; a great reversal taking place. All signs of God’s Kingdom breaking into our world and restoring all setting to right all that went wrong [Luke 7:18-23 when John the Baptist sends his followers on a recon trip concerning Jesus].

● The atmosphere by this point is, at the very least, tense and awkward. It’s obvious that if you were looking for etiquette tips for entertaining, Martha Stewart would be your best bet, but Jesus was more concerned with hospitality.

● First century Jewish culture had elaborate laws concerning not only the foods you ate, but with whom you ate them and where those people were to be located around the table. Who you ate with revealed something about who you were and with whom you belonged.

You weren’t just “doing lunch”, you were “doing theology”; you were enacting your views of God and others with whom you dined.

Jesus’ choice of dinner partners was not just some social courtesy that he extended, but a profound metaphor for the shalom that God desired to bring.

Jesus was being viewed with suspicion, to say the least. They’d seen how he’d been touching lepers, telling stories which put Samaritans in a favorable light, including non-Jews as if they were equals. For the Pharisees, this was certainly no way to form a “righteous community”; these people were the problem. They were why Messiah had not come.

● It was customary to send (2) invitations:

            - The first one was to announce that the party was going to take place (certain place and date).

            - The second one involved the servant being sent out to announce that “it’s time… everything is ready now”.

● Jesus was telling them that “now is the time”; everything was ready so they could “come”. It was not just about some future event, but a present reality… the Kingdom was breaking in and available now!

● Jesus was actually playing a role in the parable. He was actually living out (embodying) the story. For (3) years, he has been announcing the feast of God (Rev.19:9) and welcoming all to participate. His invitation has been met with varied responses from humble acceptance to arrogant dismissal to feeble excuse making.

Jesus intends to break with accepted norms and extend the boundaries of welcome.

The inclusion of those labeled “sinners” to the table with Jesus was actually one of the most profound expressions of the welcome of the Kingdom.

It was a profound image of restoration; restoring things to their original condition and design. In order to restore something, you first have to have a vision of what the original looked like (Gen.1 and 2).

It starts with the ‘invitation’.

            All of us know the joy of receiving a warm welcome from a host. As invited guests, we’re all dependent upon the generosity of the host.

I still have vivid memories of my grandma Strong greeting us on the front porch as we arrived (apron on, dusted with flour, smell of fresh baked hand-pies on the table).

Although the house was bustling with people, her welcome made it seem as if “you” were the one she had been waiting for. She wasn’t really great at entertaining, but she was                    highly-skilled in welcoming!

We ‘set the table’- meaning that we identify one who will occupy that space; we ‘set a place’ for them.

Often while we are busy “sorting people out”, Jesus is intent on  welcoming them in.

The ongoing controversy that Jesus seems to have with the Pharisees pertains to establishing “boundary markers”… ways of identifying who was “in” and who was “out”. Who was really a part of God’s family?

            There were certain boundary markers that helped answer that question: what you ate, how you handled the Torah, Sabbath-keeping, with whom you ate (only other Torah-observant Jews) demonstrated whether you were “in” or “out”.

● We all utilize boundary markers, don’t we? Jesus often indicated that the lines weren’t always so clear. Jesus was always helping people “in”, not trying to keep them “out”.

While we are often preoccupied with religious place settings and name tags and preferred seating and “Which side does the knife go on?”, Jesus is expanding the guest list and ushering in people right past our “check-points”.

Often while we are busy “sorting people out”, Jesus is intent on  welcoming them in.

In many ways, and in many instances, Jesus is redefining the boundaries (“Who are my mother and my brothers… whoever does the will of God…”). He was saying, “race” is out, “ethnicity” is out, “socio-economic status” is out; a heart connected to God is the only requirement.

● The ongoing controversy that Jesus seems to have with the Pharisees pertains to establishing “boundary markers”… ways of identifying who was “in” and who was “out”. Who was really a part of God’s family?

There were certain boundary markers that helped answer that question: what you ate, how you handled the Torah, Sabbath-keeping, with whom you ate (only other Torah-observant Jews) demonstrated whether you were “in” or “out”. Jesus often indicated that the lines weren’t always so clear.

● Jesus’ followers were to continue to “expand the guest list” to include all that God loves (i.e. Peter’s vision).

They were fulfilling ancient promise of Isaiah 25:6-8…

“On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine-- the best of meats and the finest of wines. On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth.”

● The NT often uses language that seemingly clarifies or establishes boundaries (near/far, life/death, darkness/light, for me/against me).

            But Jesus also realized that all relationships are dynamic and not static. We are always either intentionally moving toward one another in loving pursuit or drifting away from one another in passivity.

Jesus was always helping people “in”, not trying to keep them “out”.

Jesus was saying that the religious leaders were actually “slamming the door of the Kingdom in men’s faces” (Matt. 23). While they were often preoccupied with religious place settings and name tags and preferred seating, Jesus is expanding the guest list and ushering in people right past their “check-points”.

● Historically, some have interpreted Jesus’ words as narrow and exclusive. But, far from being restrictive and intolerant, his words and message were always wonderfully inclusive. He was always determined to eliminate any man-made obstacles (boundary markers) that might keep people away and making sure that no one who pursued him would be denied accessibility.

Matthew 20:28 “… [I] did not come to be served, but to serve and to give my life in exchange for the many who needed rescue”.

John 6:37 “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life…”

John 3:16- “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish…”

            Jesus serving, touching the untouchable, washing feet, laying down his life… does that sound arrogant or limiting to you?

● The Pharisees, although presumably close to God in their zeal for Torah (the Law) and purity were far from God in their rigid exclusivity. The “sinners”, on the other hand”, although far away from God in their apparent lack of compliance and “religious etiquette” were moving closer to God as they were exposed to the welcome of the Kingdom (relationships are never static).

If I could pick a word that best describes Jesus’ life and mission it would be “welcoming”.

The poor, lame, blind, crippled would be thrilled to attend such an event, a bit hesitant and a bit self-conscious, but nonetheless pleased to have been shown such reckless (indiscriminate) favor. They would need to be “compelled”. Why? They probably wouldn’t have taken the invitation seriously at first because they have never felt comfortable with God; never felt welcomed by those claiming to speak for God.

As invited guests at the table, we bring only ourselves and our appetite. The only requirement is that you come hungry and thirsty, because that’s all we have to give; that’s all that Father desires.

“How do you know that the person you presume is “out” is not moving toward Christ/the Kingdom? How do you know that you haven’t spent the last decade slowly moving away from him? What if the people who surround you on a daily basis have actually been extended an invitation from God which is not limited by your systems and theological etiquette?

            What if they wind up sitting next to you at the “eternal shindig”?! Ever think you’ll get to God’s table, glance at the person next to you and say, “What are you doing here?” (they may respond similarly or say, “I was invited”).

The story is a bittersweet reminder that the Kingdom, although available to all, will be refused by many and accepted by relatively few.

With such a long history of exclusion and judgmentalism, many feel that the church has now over-reacted; that in an attempt to counteract the harsh, judgmental presentations, we have made the kingdom available to all with no distinctions whatsoever. We’ve made it too easy for them!

I’m convinced that neither harsh judgmentalism nor passive inclusion seem to best characterize the kingdom. Both seem, at least to me, misrepresentations of grace.

● Judgmentalism seems too harsh; my inspection of others tends toward “erecting boundary markers” which leads to exclusion. Passivity, on the other hand, (universalism) seems to make no distinctions at all. It doesn’t fit the story!

I am daily reminded that my only call is to “love”, and love always re-aligns the boundaries… it is always extending them to create a greater sense of welcome.

I am discovering that it’s a much more courageous approach to life; much more demanding than exclusion. My role is to announce the welcome of the Kingdom (making it available and attractive)- the invitation of our gracious host, God, and ensure that I am responding to others in such a way that does not suggest that they need to R.S.V.P. through me!