Posted by Jason on: 06.23.2008 /
Last week I tried a little experiment on the Friendly Christian site. I took a parable from the bible and put my atheist take on it. I don’t think there was much surprise that I got the same sort of idea about what was written as the Christian reader or the ex-Christian. It was the first time that I’d ever read it though. I usually gain a slightly different perspective when I give it a second reading.
This is my second interpretation of the Parable of the Guests.
Luke 14:7-15 (New King James Version)
7 So He told a parable to those who were invited, when He noted how they chose the best places, saying to them:
8 “When you are invited by anyone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in the best place, lest one more honorable than you be invited by him;
9 and he who invited you and him come and say to you, ‘Give place to this man,’ and then you begin with shame to take the lowest place.
10 But when you are invited, go and sit down in the lowest place, so that when he who invited you comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, go up higher.’ Then you will have glory in the presence of those who sit at the table with you.
11 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
12 Then He also said to him who invited Him, “When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. 13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.
14 And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.
15 Now when one of those who sat at the table with Him heard these things, he said to Him, “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!”
First some context. Jesus in this story is a guest at the home of one of the rulers of the Pharisees. He’s been invited to have dinner with some of the lawyers and Pharisees who we can all assume are important figures. I think a modern equivalent is a district attorney inviting lawyers and legal experts to his home. Of course the law and religion was much more integrated in biblical times so it doesn’t translate across that well. Extending the metaphor though the figure of Jesus could certainly take the place of a modern day social reformer or idiolistic law professor. Let me know if this seems like an unfair comparision.
These men took the best seats. If the DA invites you to dinner you’ll naturally want to sit near your host. Without proper seating plans the places will be taken on a first come, first served basis. It’s hardly their fault that Jesus was late. Yet the first thing he does is berate them. It’s as if he’s putting his own importance ahead of these learned men. That might seem reasonable to a Christian today, there isn’t a New Testament character who is more important. It isn’t a stance that one would take when expressing humility though. It isn’t consistent with the idea of the man who washed the feet of his hosts in another story or who refused a crown. It seems to me to be the words of a self important man who is arrogant enough anger his host because he hasn’t got a good place to sit. He’s telling them to be humble before him. The very epitome of “Don’t you know who I am?”
I think he goes even further when he says “When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.”. Here the worst interpretation is that he’s saying that these men are so unimportant that only the poor, maimed and blind are worthy enough to share their tables. Furthermore they’ll never receive this back except in heaven after they’re all dead.
Finally one of the guests is recorded as saying this to Jesus: “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!” which I take to be a sarcastic retort.
OK, I realise that this is a bit of a stretch in places and I know that I’m being deliberately provokative but is this negative interpretation actually inaccurate at all? Is my Friendly Christian interpretation or my eBay atheist interpretation the right one? Setting aside the cultural rose tinted lens that we view the figure of Jesus through how can you tell? The only way I know to resolve this is to defer final judgment and continue to investigate. I’m sure that other parables will be able to provide further insight into the mind of the myth.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
1Jason wrote:
That’s why Christians keep coming back to the same book - because they see different things each time.
It could be. To me it comes across as someone trying to say the right thing to suck up to Jesus.
Jason, I love how you’re willing to go there and suggest a negative interpretation. In my experience Christians never did that with anything about Jesus, which limited the discussion.
Whereas you would investigate further, they start with Jesus being sinless and perfect.
If your further investigation brought you to that conclusion then you’d end up in the same place as them: throwing out the negative interpretation because of information from outside the passage that you bring to bear as you interpret it.
I don’t agree with your interpretation because what Jesus seems to be saying is ‘Be people of good character. Make your dinner invitations compassionate rather than political. Don’t be so arrogant that you assume the best seats belong to you - let the host decide.
Jesus would be contradicting his own advice if the point of what he was saying what “take a lower seat so I can take a higher one”. His advice means he too takes a lower seat unless the host gives him a higher one.
A principle of interpretation is to make sure the interpretation does agree with what’s actually said. I don’t think yours does - that’s why I disagree with it. (But maybe I’m wrong)
I like that you took a creative approach to the passage and considered whether Jesus’ words could be interpreted in a negative light. I wish there were Christian Bible studies where people were free to throw out suggestions like yours and they’d be responded to based on whether they fit rather than thrown out because they conflict with a priori assumptions about Jesus.
Comment by: Chris Kirk
2I agree, Helen. I’ve often said that if “heresy” is not spoken at some point, it’s not a true, intellectually honest dialogue. What is heresy if not a violation of those “a priori assumptions”? While I doubt we can remove those, I believe we can peel back the layers to a point where true discussion can occur.
I like the way you’re thinking outside of the box here, Jason. While my conclusion would be different from yours, it is very helpful to see something presented in a non-traditional way.
Comment by: Mike O
3Correct me if I’m wrong, Jason, but you’re just throwing this out there for disucssion purposes, right? Or do you really think that’s what Jesus was doing?
I like what Chris and Helen said, though, that it would be nice if Christians had the ability to at least consider the possibility. To me, considering the alternatives is a valuable tool in assuring that the one you’ve chosen is correct.
But back to your interpretation, Jesus never said he should be given the higher seats, he just noticed how people were elevating themselves. so I don’t see why that would imply that Jesus thought he should be elevated.
Secondly, it was the pattern of Jesus to not worry about upsetting the right people. In other stories, why do you suppose Jesus did so many of his miracles on the sabbath? BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WANT HIM TO! I think he liked to use people’s own behaviours (notice the British spelling!) and attitudes to illustrate his points - which almost alwyas ran counter to the culture.
Comment by: Jason
4Helen said:
I’d missed the sucking up idea completely. I had sarcasm or sincerity. Those are my two options in life usually. :) Not that they’re mutually exclusive.
Which, although hypocritical, would be consistent with someone who saw themselves as the son of God.
I’m at a loss here having never attended a Christian Bible Study. One teaching technique that I am familiar with is to propose something that is clearly wrong and then let the students pick it apart and find all the errors.
@Chris, I get the advantage of not being traditional by not really knowing the traditions. I mean I’ve got a vague idea but I’ve certainly not had classes in religious interpretation.
@Mike, yes I’m throwing it out for discussion purposes. You already know that I don’t think that Jesus existed as an individual as portrayed in the bible. From that perspective it’s nothing more than an interesting topic for me.
I’m implying that Jesus had subtext for being elevated because he wasn’t. The act of not elevating him implies that he might have had a gripe about it if he were the sort of person to bemoan his state. Obviously I’d have to read more to confirm or deny that assumption and I’m almost completely certain that a Christian, any Christian, would say that he wasn’t like that as a person.
As for the Sabbath being used as a political tool to decry the temple leaders and civilian leaders I have to reserve judgment. I’ve never heard that he chose particular days before. Is there a list of miracles and the days they were performed on for quick reference? Statistically I’d expect a pretty even distribution with a slight increase to account for public events where the miracle would be more visible. I would hazard a guess at 35% of miracles being performed on the Sabbath without deliberate thought for the day of the week.
How do Americans spell “behaviours”?
Comment by: Stephan
5It is typical American behavior to exclude “u” (wow, I liked the pun).
One common tool for interpreting anyone’s words is to compare them to other things they have said. It if is too far out of character then you are probably misinterpreting it. I don’t recall Jesus every talking about short term elevation of himself, although in the long term he certainly saw himself as God and knew where he would end up.
He rarely talked about himself at all, really. He talked mostly about how we should treat each other. Interpreted in that light it’s hard to see this parable as Jesus trying to get others to recognize his authority and supremacy.
Comment by: Jason
6Stephan, do you have any evidence to counter my claim? An instance where Jesus was self-depreciating or put others not just before him but above him? I’m not saying what you say isn’t true, I’d just like to see it backed up.
I’m thinking of the feet washing episode but even then I can see a political motive for it. I’d need to read it to make a better judgment though.
Comment by: Mike O
7If you go to biblegateway.com and do a search on “sabbath,” you’ll find several references to Jesus healing, or “doing work” (which was technically the issue for the religious leaders.
I’m not saying he only healed on the sabbath, but he did heal on the sabbath - I think disproportionately, but that doesn’t really matter. According to them, he wasn’t supposed to do it at all. This example comes to mind - he kind of gets in their face about it.
Luke 6:6-11
behavio
ursComment by: Ir (Helen)
8Jason, the gospel accounts don’t portray Jesus as expecting special treatment because he’s the son of God. Like someone mentioned (you?), he washed his disciples’ feet which is what servants do. And one time he said “The son of man came to serve, not to be served”. Can you find anywhere in the gospels where Jesus demonstrably expects special treatment? I can’t think of any places. That’s why I’m inclined to reject your theory about this passage, thoughtful though it is :)
Nice technique. But one Christians are unlikely to use if it portrays Jesus negatively. Just like you probably wouldn’t say “My Mom was a horrible human being. Prove me wrong.” Sometimes you don’t go there because it’s too personal. Christian views of Jesus are personal in a similar way. They don’t want to go there. After all he’s listening… :)
Mike has already addressed this - it seems to me that the gospels make a point of how Jesus visibly broke Jewish rules about the Sabbath, seemingly to provoke complaints about it, which he then dismissed as invalid. Like in the passage Mike quoted.
Ironically there’s another example in the six verses immediately preceding the passage under discussion :)
colours - colors
behaviours - behaviors
flavour - flavor
etc.
Comment by: Ace
9Jason, you are to be commended in your attempt to analyze the motive of the characters involved in the passage (both Jesus and the Pharisees) and at your understanding that to do so accurately requires more thorough investigation.
To get at motive we must be more familiar with other episodes and the rivalry that becomes increasingly intense between Jesus and the Pharisees which ultimate culminates in the (successful) conspiracy of the Pharisees to murder Jesus.
No doubt, the context of this parable which is told to a party of primarily religous leaders (yes, lawyers of the day) is keenly taken as an insult by the Pharisees who were apparently jockeying for the “power seats” of pole position (much the same way people do today). Jesus, exposes their power-mongering by revealing to them the way the “political structure” is set up in the kingdom of heaven (the one they purportedly represent) by saying it’s the outcasts, the ones needing compassion and mercy that will find the best seats due to the kindness and elevation by the Host of hosts.
There are numerous other relevant passages and examples where Jesus illustrates the hypocrisy of the religious (and legal) community leaders which led to their ever increasing hatred of Jesus. Here are a few noteworthy ones: Matthew 6:2-4; 23:6-7; 13-15, 23-28. Luke 18:9-14. 22:24-30.
The passage from Luke 22 where Christ is teaching his disciples about what is “true greatness” occurs just after he washes his disciples feet (not the hosts of the home where they dined as Jason mistakenly inferred earlier). Many of the disciples at the Last Supper were themselves jockeying for positions of power for what they thought were going to be their imminent installments in the new political dynasty they thought Jesus was about to innaugurate in Jerusalem. Jesus is saying don’t be like the Gentiles (or Pharisees) who abuse power and don’t see it the way it will be in eternity. Take the long-sighted approach and invest for the long haul Jesus always seemed to be saying. Jason, the world needs atheists like you to keep stirring up the pot of disucussion. Thanks!
Comment by: Jason
10Mike, what does it tell you about the demeanor of Jesus, the man, that he would openly defy temple law? Is he choosing to be provocative to incite debate and reform? Is he doing it through arrogance? He is denying the authority of the leaders because they are wrong or because he sees them as corrupt?
Helen, isn’t the lack of retribution (till later anyway) by the temples an expectation of special treatment? Shouldn’t they have told him to stop? Isn’t he given a special treatment with expensive oil and perfumes at some point? Weren’t palm leaves laid before his steed (humble as it was) as he entered a city?
I suppose though that being given special treatment isn’t the same as expecting it so I may have to abandon this line without something more substantial to support it.
I find it interesting and a little difficult to get my head around that Christians speak of Jesus both as an historical figure and as a presence that is with them. It’s different than speaking about my dear old ma, more like speaking about Great (Great times something) Grandfather Horton who came to England with William the Conqueror. It’s also different from speaking about a great leader who you might admire. Say that nice Barack Obama chap if that’s your politics.
I mean I could criticise my mother but then I really knew her. I could criticise a great teacher or leader. Rather I could critique them. Why can’t Christians do the same for Jesus? It’s not as if he’d mind, is it?
–
Dropping the ‘u’ is reducing the French influence on our shared language. It makes the words easier to spell and more consistent with non-French derived words but it loses part of the flavour of the language. Or is that flavor? Some people get really bothered by it but language is a dynamic process so I’m happy for you to spell a word in any way that you like as long as I can read it. ;)
Comment by: Jason
11Ace, to be honest the rivalry between Jesus and the Pharisees in the stories that I was taught at school was skipped over. It’s only looking at it now that I’m starting to get an idea of the background.
I do have a question though and it’s about works. If the outcasts, as you say, are the ones elevated to the highest seats because of their need for compassion and mercy then doesn’t that seem upside down to you. Shouldn’t those who genuinely provide compassion and mercy to the needy be elevated. Everybody needs a bit of compassion from time to time, some people obviously more than others, but it is those who provide the compassion that most seem to live in line with the biblical teachings. Indeed that seems to be what Jesus is trying to encourage although not in the Pharisees who he targets as figures of scorn and examples of behaviour to avoid.
Thanks for all the compliments but I’m really just investigating this for fun.
Comment by: Mike O
12I would peg him as quiet, but strong. He knew who he was and didn’t need to go around making sure everyone knew it. I think that one definition of humility - just a quiet ‘knowing’ of who you are, good and bad, and not needing to elevate yourself even though you could.
One dynamic that hasn’t been mentioned is authority. IF Jesus was the Son of God, he had real authority by God. But the religious leaders had a sort of ‘pretend’ or self-imposed authority. They thought they spoke for God, while Jesus really did.
Have you ever got into an argument with someone, and you don’t really need to say much because it’s clear to everyone (but them) that they’re wrong? I think in some way, Jesus did that - he provoked it, but he let them show their own fallacies. He could have made a long biblical retort about the sabbath, or he could just let them explain away their own inconsistencies.
Back to the demeanor of Jesus - I think he had an authority that didn’t require snottiness or a lot of loud shouting. He just ‘had it’ and he used it quietly, but provocatively.
Comment by: Stephan
13Sorry I’ve been out of it for a few days. Work and baseball are all I have had time for recently.
Others have answered Jasoun’s questioun about Jesus expecting to be treated differently, so I’ll leave that aloune.
I’ll address what he said about outcasts. Much of what Jesus said regarding the Pharisees was that they already thought they had it all figured out without him, so they would not follow him. It was the people who were lost and knew that they were lost that would seek him and find him. It’s not that these people are more deserving of mercy, but that they are more willing and ready to seek it and accept it.
Comment by: Jason
14Thank u Stephan.