In the area of food specifically, we know that the same types of culinary items would not be prepared for all guests, but that those considered more noble would receive better food than those who weighed in somewhat lower on the scale of nobility. In addition to that, by sending the representative out into the community in order to make the invitations, the host would be able to ascertain if there were any other banquets planned for that particular day or time, and therefore be able to adjust accordingly. One would not want to go to all of the trouble to throw a banquet and end up not having the type of people in attendance that would advance one’s own honor, and in exchange, also offer invitations to their own banquets (a point that has been earlier addressed by Jesus). These things, of course, would be understood as commonplace by Jesus’ hearers and Luke’s readers, though based upon what we have already seen and what follows, the man (God) throwing this banquet does not share these particular types of concerns.
The parable presumes this basic knowledge and moves quickly. The slave has been sent to gather the guests. Unexpectedly, for both the slave and those who are listening to Jesus, “one after another they all began to make excuses” (14:18a). This does not portend well, and Jesus’ hearers would sense that something is wrong. We also, as we bear in mind that the underlying reference is the messianic banquet, that the host is the God of Israel, and that the slave sent out into the community with invitations is the messiah, need to understand that something is dreadfully wrong. One does not confirm attendance at a banquet, and then cancel at the last minute, unless there is a really good excuse. So what are the excuses? “The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it.’” (14:18b) “Another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going out to examine them.’” (14:19) “Another said, ‘I just got married, and I cannot come.’” (14:20)
On the surface these will seem like reasonable and legitimate excuses, especially to twenty-first century eyes and ears. However, they are extraordinarily flimsy and entirely untenable. The slave knows this, and of course, the host knows it as well. One would not, especially in that day, buy a field without knowing everything about it and entering into the purchase very carefully, nor would anyone purchase a team of oxen without first carefully examining the oxen to make sure that they would work together. Such important purchases, especially in an agrarian society, would be entered into with extreme care and with as much information as could possibly be gathered.
There are multiple layers to the final excuse. One of those layers demonstrates the near impossibility that this was the case. Marriages were important events for a community, and regardless of social status, they would usually entail a marriage feast. This fact presents a number of problems for the viability of the excuse. One such problem would be that careful arrangements would have been made to make sure that banquets would not overlap, so as not to force potential guests to choose between functions. This potential issue would have been diffused when the initial invitations were proffered. Another problem would be that, if the excuse is true and a marriage has taken place, then the man throwing the banquet has been left uninvited to a marriage celebration, though he has offered an invitation to his own banquet. Thirdly, the host might be left to wonder if the previously confirmed guests have made arrangements to attend a different banquet on that day---one that has been kept secret from him, if in fact this excuse is legitimate and this man has gotten himself a bride. Fourthly, there is a subtle implication that the man cannot come to the banquet because now was the time to enter into the bridal chamber so as to consummate the marriage. However, in that culture, both then and now, one did not speak about a wife is such an undignified manner.
Obviously, there is much to be considered. This issue of the marriage, taken together with the implausibility of the excuses on offer, represent a significant slap in the face to the host that has taken care to plan and execute his banquet. It appears to be a possibility that there has been a concerted and organized attempt to shut down this particular banquet. Jesus’ hearers would know this instinctively, and they would also be prepared for the initial response of the spurned host when “the slave came back and reported this to his master” (14:21a).
No comments:
Post a Comment