"Open-Ended Hospitality" - A Sermon Discussion on Luke 14:15-24

Introduction

This parable is told by Jesus in the midst of a dinner at the house of a Pharisee. Jesus had already conversed at this dinner about the need for humility in life lest one be brought down, and that hospitality should be offered on the basis of basic kindness rather than what could be received in return. Jesus had most probably detected in this particular host on this day, a very preferential mindset behind the invitation list; perhaps even a real reticence to expand his social contacts toward the more needy in his community.

At least one guest was impressed enough with Jesus’ words to speak up (v.15), although we are not sure how well he understood what he was saying, or whether he was only sharing a platitude. “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God”, seems like a bit of a beattitude like those in Matthew 5. You might understand this to mean that there is eternal spiritual fulfillment for those who accept God’s hospitality. Yet Jesus would want to emphasise that feasting with God did not so much require the right words and upbringing, but far more so the right attitudes of kindness, humility and compassion. However well this guest understood what he was saying, Jesus decided further elaboration was required … he would tell a story to give a little more understanding about God’s style of hospitality and how it might (or might not) be received.

The Original Invitees (v.16-21)

Sometimes it is easy to take God for granted. This is often when life is going well, and we can find excuses for not attending to the spiritual side of life. And often these excuses are pretty empty. Take this story for instance and the excuses given. Would not the new landowner have gone to see the land before he bought it! What’s the urgency about now? If there was any need to check on this land, then surely it could have waited a bit (given the commitment that had already been made).

Would not the new owner of the five oxen have tried out these animals before he invested in them! To have not done so would be like buying a second-hand car over the phone without seeing it and trying it first. What’s this really about? Perhaps this guy placed a higher priority on his business interests in putting the oxen to work than attending the dinner. In these cases, was the comfort of ownership and/or the lure of financial gain more important than responding to an important invitation? Were such concerns more pressing than following through on earlier commitments that were made to attend? Following through with an earlier arrangement was obviously now seen as inconvenient.

The customary practice of the time would have been for the invitations to have gone out some weeks beforehand (though without specific details) and been accepted at that time. Then when the dinner drew close, a messenger was sent out to tell all those who had previously accepted that all was ready … they were ready to be received … now was the time to come. Thus within this scenario, an earlier invitation must have been accepted, but now when the announcement of readiness came, something must have changed with these invited guests; yet all that is reported seem to be pretty ordinary excuses. To refuse having previously accepted, culturally speaking, was a very serious insult, for it was a great honour to be invited; this was the breaking of a deeply binding arrangement – the host would inevitably feel snubbed.

We then turn to the third reason/excuse for non-attendance, that of having been married (v.20). Surely this person would have known of their upcoming marriage when the original invitation was accepted. In such circumstances where there may have been some uncertainty about the timing of this dinner, someone preparing to marry could have put some provisos on their acceptance; yet this excuse seems to come out of left field. This has led one commentator to suggest that this was possibly a casual last-minute liasion rather than a real marriage (and if such was the case this would be really problematical decision-making)!

If indeed this was a real marriage, this person may have been relying on the statement in Deuteronomy 24:5 which says a married man should stay at home with his wife for the first year of marriage. Yet this was brought in to excuse such a man from military service, not social interaction. So, was there something about this marriage that made this guest change their plans? Could it have been that the person this intended guest married was not interested in the sort of hospitality being offered, and was pulling their new spouse in a different direction!

“I cannot come” should really be read: “I choose not to come”! For any who would say this, there just must be something about the invitation that no longer suits … something about the host, or the venue, or maybe the other guests, or more probably what would have to be left behind or given a different level of priority.

So each of these invited guests, for whatever real reason, had ‘gone cold’ on the idea of going, which of course ultimately shows careless unconcern toward the host! It’s then totally understandable that the host was angry at this turn of events. The host had provided an open invitation, received a great deal of interest, had spared no expense in preparing for the party, and then been presented with lame excuses. Clearly these ones will miss the blessing or the spiritual peace and joy associated with God’s hospitality, because in their own minds they were just too successful and too busy and too distracted to bother. The host’s immediate thoughts concerning them are reflected in verses 21 and 24.

Jesus would be drawing here from the sad history of Israel’s 'on again off again' type relationship with Yahweh – crying out to God in bad times, but ignoring God when they felt secure. God’s people had never really proven to be wholly open to the presence and purposes of God. Again and again the words of God’s true prophets concerning faithfulness and justice were rejected. This is also seen in the religious leadership of Jesus’ day not being prepared to see Jesus in his true identity. Luke then uses this teaching from Jesus’ life to challenge his readers about whether they are going all the way in following and living for Jesus.

The New Guests (v.21-23)

The provisions that God has made should not, cannot and will not be wasted. So the host’s servant is sent out to look for and gather other people who may have missed out on the invitation previously but might still be agreeable to come. Here we are talking about what God has offered through the very expensive gift of Jesus’ life on the cross. I don’t think God would be angry about those who have never had the opportunity to respond to such an invitation before; only with those who have toyed with the idea of following Jesus and then thrown the invitation back in God’s face.

And this anger would have more to do with opportunities and relationships than anything else. We know that God soon turns from anger to compassion, and the rainbow in the sky is a reminder of that. So dearly does God desire prodigal people to return to him, that if any of those original guests came to their senses, I’m sure the host would find a seat for them anyway. Yet we would have to concede that certain blessing has been missed in the meantime.

Like the Gentiles of new testament times, there are many today, across the world, and in our streets, who have never heard of Jesus as we know him. The host of this feast sent his servant out into the “streets and lanes” to sound out the non-discriminating, all-encompassing invitation to come join in. And many came! Yet there was still more room! This is the thought process under which we should always have plenty of extra chairs out and plenty of spare communion cups available and a warm welcome ready, because God is continually sending out invitations to people everywhere.

So the servant was sent out again, perhaps even further afield, with even a higher degree of urgency. The way this story is told probably suggests that the further the servant ventured, the more he encountered society’s less favoured citizens and the seemingly less likely to respond positively. This servant was to “compel” people to come to the feast. Now isn’t that interesting!

This of course wouldn’t mean to make this compulsory [for God decided in creation that free-will and human responsibility was the ‘go’], yet perhaps suggests that God’s servants had to really show how important this invitation was. We could understand this to mean: to implore people, to not take ‘no’ for an answer, to convince them, to provide some gentle insistence; the invitation was to be presented attractively and persuasively with integrity and sincerity.

No doubt for a lot of these people, this invitation would come right out of ‘left field’, and as such would likely express surprise and possibly suspicion or maybe even ridicule (because noone has cared for them much in the past), yet the servants of the host were not to be deterred.

Conclusion

If the first part of this parable challenges us about what we have done with our particular invitation – have we really followed through in fully accepting it, then the second part reminds us that there is indeed an open invitation for each one of us, and also all those others in the human community around the world.

Or put another way … participation in the Kingdom of God and our discipleship journey with Jesus is not something to be taken lightly (as was exposed in the first part of the parable), yet God will continue to actively and (com)passionately seek those who will respond to an invitation to receive divine hospitality – those who are ready to go on a really special Spirit-led journey with Jesus.