Luke 15:11-32, part 3 Commentary

The Parable of the Lost Son
11 Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.

13 "Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

17 "When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.' 20 So he got up and went to his father.

"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21 "The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

22 "But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.

25 "Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

28 "The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

31 " 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "



Dig Deeper
Human beings are creatures that enjoy and connect with stories. We love stories whether they are in written form, in a movie, or even recounted verbally to us. Stories are not just entertaining either, they are powerful. We have all, I’m sure, been moved by the power or emotional connection of a story at one time or another in a way that hearing the same information in a straightforward but non-story format simply could not accomplish. We can identify with stories and put ourselves in the situation in ways that any other medium just cannot achieve. In fact, if you have something monumentally difficult for someone to accept, one of the most effective ways to get them to hear what you have to say is through the timeless medium of a story. They will often be able to connect with the emotional themes of the story and open up to the moral behind it, or even the rebuke behind the story before they realize that you have aimed the story at them. That is the ideal, although not always the case. Because stories do tend to stir our emotions so powerfully, there is always the risk of a person violently rejecting the technique of using story in this way.

2 Samuel 12 is a powerful example of the effect of story. It takes place shortly after David had taken a married woman, Bathsheba, into his own bed and arranged for her husband to be killed. Nathan knew that he could not simply come in and accuse the King of blatant sin. He would not be heard and would likely be punished before he could finish. So he told a story of a rich man who stole the sheep of a poor man rather than killing one of his own flock. The story connected with David deeply and enraged him that someone would do such a thing. David had so completely bought into the emotional connection of the story that he demanded to know who the man was so that he could punish the evildoer. It was then that Nathan gave him the shocking detail that the man was him. The point of the story was a rebuke aimed at David’s own actions. The connection was so powerful for David that he immediately confessed and humbled himself before Nathan.

As chapter 15 opened Jesus was asked why his ministry and table fellowship were so open to the types of sinners that would normally be excluded from inclusion in a religious group. He has responded with three important stories that have demonstrated why he was teaching that the kingdom of God was open to those types of people and why it was such a celebration everywhere he went. But he also had some hard things to say to those who asked him those questions and to the leadership and direction of Israel as a whole. Throughout his ministry, Jesus communicated these hard things in many different ways, but none is more pointed and powerful than the story of the lost son. This wasn’t just a story, after all. This was a story about Jesus’ ministry, about the kingdom of God, and about how the Jewish nation was receiving it. The question was “would they connect with the story and let if effect them humbly or would it enrage them and cause them to sink even further into their morass of rejection?”

When it comes down to it, the Pharisees and other critics of Jesus were concerned about his doctrine of sin and what it would take to be part of God’s family. Why was he acting like sinful people were welcome into God’s family? He was hanging around sinners and this concerned them because they saw sinners as the problem. Sinners were, in their eyes, the very reason that the new Exodus, for which they were all waiting, had not yet come. God would return and purify ethnic Israel, defeat her enemies, and exalt his people to rule over God’s age to come only when Israel was cleansed of the very people that Jesus seemed so ready to have around. The response of the Pharisees to sin, then, was to urge people to cling tighter to the observances of the law like purity, food, circumcision, and the Sabbath to show themselves to be the true people of God that were not like the sinners.

But Jesus’ response was bold and decisive. He is basically saying, “You think my doctrine of sin is shallow. You’re wrong. I think rebelling against God is so disgusting that it is like a young Jewish boy who demands his father’s inheritance while his father is still in good health. He sells the estate while his father is still living on it, goes away from the holy land and loses the money to Gentiles. He ends up feeding the pigs of Gentiles and even longs to become a pig so that he may eat their food. That’s how disturbing I think sin is.” The likely response from the Pharisees would have been to applaud this doctrine of sin. They couldn’t have said it any better themselves. Sin was the problem. Those who were not following God’s laws were indeed as offensive as Jesus’ wayward son in his parable. Sin against God, for Jesus, was to desire the death of God. It was to want the gifts without any reference or respect to the giver. The Pharisees would have agreed with that in principle.

But then, as he so often did, Jesus turned this all on its head. The father was not someone they would have respected. He was full of grace and mercy and took this sinner back with no pre-conditions. Not to be missed throughout this story is that Jesus was doing something quite common in his day. He was basically re-telling the broad narrative of Jacob and Esau. This was so common in his day that the Pharisees almost assuredly would have understood this to be the case. But we must not forget that Jesus was answering questions about his ministry. What this means is that he has clearly put himself in the position of the father. Usually the father role was a symbol for God himself, so Jesus was being outrageously bold in casting himself in the role of Yahweh himself. This meant that the younger brother, the Jacob of this narrative, were those sinners that came to Jesus in humility and repentance (or, as the story made clear, they often come for their own reasons only to be overwhelmed by the genuine grace and mercy of God). The shocking part, then, was that Jesus clearly cast folks like the Pharisees (ones who had “never left” God, at least not in their own eyes, and who held tightly to the law as the marker of God’s people) in the role of the older brother, the Esau of this story.

The point was that they were being like the older brother. In holding so tightly to the laws, they were not honoring the father, they were actually working against him. They were opposing and dishonoring the work of the father every bit as much as they thought the “sinners” were doing. That they were being like Esau is what they would have clearly understood Jesus’ point to be. Esau was the ancestor of the Edomite people, and Edom became, throughout the Old Testament, a common symbol for sinners. Malachi 1 contrasts the Edomites, the descendants of Esau, as being hated (which meant severed or rejected as the inheritance people) by God. Jesus was turning everything upside down. Yes, he was saying, sin is horrendous and it wounds God deeply. But they had God all wrong. He wasn’t an angry and vengeful God waiting to strike down the sinners and the pagan hordes so that he could finally show off his faithful son to them. No, Jesus’ ministry was the perfect embodiment of what God was doing. He was the expectant father that was closely looking for his lost son, the one that was dead to him, so that he could run out and find him and restore him to to the life that he wanted for his son all along. The people that the Jewish religious leaders thought were the problem were the very people that Jesus was now saying were being welcomed into God’s kingdom and celebrated over. But they were the ones that were opposed to all that. Everything was upside down. The son who thought himself so faithful was the one that actually was opposing what God wanted to do.

One of the most striking aspects of this narrative is that the end is missing. It is not that there was an ending and it has been sadly lost to the cruel waves of history. No, Jesus never ended this story properly. A story like this would have been typically balanced in equal stanzas for easy remembering. In this story, in the Greek, the first half has seven stanzas but the second part has only six. The ending is missing. Where is the ending and does it matter? It actually makes all the difference in the world.

The exclusion of an ending is signal from Jesus that this was the path down which they were heading, but that the final decision had not yet been made. It was a warning and a plea. The end was up to them. We can read this and hope that the parable would end with the older son entering the house, joining in the festive banquet, and reconciling with his brother and father. Then the father could rejoice with the two sons that he had found and brought to life. But in the case of the nation of Israel, we sadly know that this was not the ending. Instead, the older brother picked up a wooden stick and beat the father to death. He was so angry that he could just never accept that this is how the father was going to handle things. The older son beat the father to death, or should we say more appropriately, they hung him on a cross.

As with all of Jesus’ parables and other teachings, though, we need not leave this story in the first century and chalk it up as something that is quite irrelevant for us. The principles of this story continue to apply to all lost men and women throughout the ages. We must recognize where we have gotten ourselves in our rebellion against God, whether we have wandered off from him or grew up considering ourselves to be “faithful” to him. We must all realize at some point in our life, that we are lost. We must understand that we often come to God and try to hustle him for our own advantage or for the things that we want. We cannot through our own understanding or repentance reconcile to God. It is his kindness, love and grace that make reconciliation a possibility. All we need to do is to humbly accept that offer. If we do so and recognize that we really were lost, the father will wrap the robe around us and put sandals on our feet and a ring on our finger. He will bring what was once dead to life and restore us to the family of God. What was once dead is now alive. What was once lost is now found. And the party in God’s presence will strike up.

There is also a stern warning in this story for us. We must recognize our tendency as “religious” people to begin to think and act like the older brother. We can ever-so-subtly begin to think that we deserve certain things. Or we can start to get angry when God’s grace of love is shown to sinners. Of course, we don’t like to think that we would do such a thing, but what about some young sinner who comes into God’s family and suddenly seems to be changing much faster than you ever did or being put in positions of leadership quicker than you have? Then our true older-brother-like-tendencies can come out if we’re not careful. Or what about the uneasiness we feel when someone who is in the throes of their lost state comes into church and plops down right next to us? If we ever start to think this way, let us return to this story and challenge us just as surely as it challenged its first hearers. And may we add on an ending of reconciliation to the story.



Devotional Thought
There are so many points within this story on which we can reflect. Spend some time today and over the next few days reflecting on this story and what it means for you. How is God challenging you through this parable?

Luke 15:11-32, part 2 Commentary

The Parable of the Lost Son
11 Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.

13 "Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

17 "When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.' 20 So he got up and went to his father.

"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21 "The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

22 "But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.

25 "Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

28 "The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

31 " 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "



Dig Deeper
Years ago now, when I was still a young Christian, and an extremely immature one at that, I was playing in a basketball league that was organized by our church and that consisted of disciples from within our church. As great and fun as that league was, one of the hallmarks of that Saturday morning league was that the refereeing was not of top quality. Of course I look back now and realize that there should have been no such expectation and it didn’t need to be “top of the line.” It was a bunch of brothers having a good time together and the referees consisted of other brothers that were playing in the league that weren’t playing in a particular game. I should have been understanding and patient with that as well as grateful but I wasn’t. Anything that I felt like was not a good call (and I’m sure a lot of calls that I thought were bad were actually just fine) would elicit an extremely negative and vocal response from me. After one such call, I really blew up and screamed and hollered. After getting a well-deserved technical foul, I screamed some more and stomped out of the gym, telling everyone just what I thought of all of them. It was brash, arrogant, and downright sinful, not to mention that what I said was more rooted in emotion and was not at all how I really felt.

But that didn’t matter. I stormed out of the gym and went to my car, only to find out that I had left the lights on and run my battery down. The car wouldn’t start. You just cannot convince me that God doesn’t have a sense of humor. I tried quietly to go to the woman at the front desk of the facility where we were playing and ask her if there were any jumper cables available. She said she would check and I was hoping desperately that she would hurry before any disciples came out and saw me there. She came through the door and said “good news, this gentleman will help you.” I didn’t want to look up because I was sick with the thought that she might have went and found a disciple. Sure enough, it was George. He was a wonderfully mature Christian who had studied the Bible with me and was one of the guys who I had just stomped past and screamed at. I seriously felt like turning around and running out but George walked up to me quickly, put his arms around me, and said “I love you buddy.” That did it. Nothing else he could have said would have broken me down in that moment but his incredible mercy and love that he had just shown were enough. I humbly apologized and made amends as best I could. Looking back now, I’m so glad that day happened because I learned more from George’s love and patience than I ever could have had I not made the glaring mistakes that I did.

Undeserved patience and love like that have the ability to break someone down and show them their need for repentance perhaps more than anything else in the world. As we have already seen, the actions of the son were aggressive, hurtful, shameful, and ultimately selfish. Everything he did was for himself with no consideration of the father. Even his return to the father was for his own advantage. But he then encountered the lavish and unselfish love of the father who saw him at a distance and ran to his son with peace in his heart (echoing the language from Isa. 57:19). The father demonstrated costly love and grace that was given freely. It was not (as some translations imply) because the son had “come to his senses.” The son was still coming back for his own benefit and according to his own plan. But he was stopped in his tracks but the father’s incredible grace that had not one bit of self-seeking behavior to it. His grace was given before the son could say anything, confess anything, or present his plan. And that grace and love caused true repentance on the part of the son who was left with only words of true sorrow and repentance with not hint of his plan to restore his own status and honor.

For the first time, as the son declares himself to be a sinner that was unworthy of the father’s family, he no longer is seeking to gain his own advantage. He no longer has a solution because he now sees that the real problem is not his lost inheritance or honor but the ruptured relationship between he and his loving father. He surrenders his plan and lets his father find him. The only condition that the son needed was to realize that he was lost and needed to be found. He was truly transformed by his father’s costly demonstration of love, not by his own realization of his situation or his own plan.

The father’s response to his son’s humility is nothing short of complete restoration and reconciliation. There is no grilling about what happened to the inheritance. There is no lecture and no demand that the son prove himself. The father quickly called for the best robe that would show that he was once again the rightful recipient of the family inheritance. He demanded that the servants put a ring on his finger which would have had the family insignia and shown that he was restored as a member of the family. And he put sandals on his feet, for it was servants who went around barefoot. Sons wore sandals and this was his son.

Not only that, but the father wanted to have a great celebration. The fattened calf would have been prepared for some major event and the father could not think of something more worthy of a celebration than this one. He would have a feast and invite the entire town to celebrate in his joy. The banquet would be had not just because he had come home but because he was lost and had now been found. He was still dead even at the edge of the village until he accepted that he could not enact reconciliation and would accept being found. That is what brought life back to the son.

As the older brother approached he noticed that an unusual party was going on. He asks the young servant and asked him what was going on. The servant answers from the perspective of the village. The party is going on because the father had received the son with peace and reconciliation. The party was for the father, not the son. It is for the father who had lost and had now found his son. Rather than going through a “Kezahah,” (the shaming ceremony for a son that lost his inheritance) the son was participating in the joy of restoration that was achieved at the great cost of the father. It was the older brother, according to verse 30 that, in his own anger, took the position that the feast was for the younger brother. Even though that was not the case at all, it is often the position that we take. It is important to get the details of Jesus’ parable correct. The banquet was not in honor of the boy but was in honor of the father’s efforts in creating peace, reconciliation, and wholeness in the relationship. It was a lost and found party not a welcome home gala. It was the father, not the son that should be congratulated. We have saved any comment to this point on the meaning of this passage, but it is worth a reminder here that Jesus is using this story to explain the celebrations that was his ministry and why sinners are always welcomed.

As the story moves into the second act, the younger son fades into the background and the older son takes center stage with the father. The older son must have been quite angered and shamed by the actions of the younger son. All that he could see was that money was lost, inheritance had been squandered, and that now he was being reconciled back fully without having to pay back what he shamefully lost. Grace had been offered and accepted rather than the brother meeting the requirements of the law and of societal standards. How could this prodigal be accepted back into the family without making some sort of amends for his behavior? Why, in the eyes of the older brother, this acceptance was more scandalous than the shady behavior of the son.

He was so sure that the younger brother had acted inappropriately and should be dealt with harshly. But the older brother failed to see something rather important. He thought that he was the one in the right. He felt that if the younger brother was reconciled with, through nothing but the grace and love of the father, that he was somehow injured by this. What he failed to see was that he had so set up expectations for how he thought the father should act that he was in very real danger of breaking relationship with the father himself. He started by refusing to go into the banquet. This would have been a major insult to the father but the older brother wanted nothing to do with a father that was going to act like this. The older brother was willing to rupture their relationship not because the father had harmed him in anyway but because of the great patience and love that he was showing to that sinner and the fact that he just could not tolerate a father that would act like that.

The older brother was secure and haughty about his perception that he had always done right by the father. It was the other son who had caused the father grief but not he. Yet, he failed to see that his response to the grace and love that the father was showing to his brother was just as dishonoring, just as presumptive, and just as selfish as anything his brother had done. By cultural standards, the father should have publicly ignored the elder son’s refusal to join the party and then beat him later privately for his insolence, but once again, he fails to act according to cultural expectations. For the second time, the father gave costly and unexpected love. This time he showed it to the law-keeping son rather than the law-breaking son. But the father, once again, publicly shamed himself by acting outside of expectations for the benefit of his son. He went out from the party to find another lost son, the elder son that thought he was anything but lost.

The response to the father’s grace is important. The younger son acted horribly and tried to return to the father only for his own benefit, but the matchless grace and love of the father overwhelmed that desire. All he had to do was to accept being found and he did that. The elder son, however, did not. He attacked both the younger son and his father and continued to cling to the way things should be done according to his perception of the law, the law that he was himself breaking. The father should have, according to the cultural expectations, exploded and publicly lashed the son for his insolence and insults, but again he offers love. If the older son will only accept that love, he will be treated just as the younger son had. The choice was entirely his.

All the father wanted was for the older son to accept that he was as lost as his younger brother and to accept the father’s love and grace for both of them. What would be the response of the older brother? The full answer to that lies in the fact that the ending of this story is missing? We will attempt to solve that mystery in part three, the final section, tomorrow.


Devotional Thought
Do you ever feel the elder brother in this story where you get very upset at others for the way they are treating God or other people, and completely forget to notice that you can act just as reprehensibly towards God at time? What about this story helps you to keep centered on the fact that you need God’s grace as much as anyone else?

Luke 15:11-32, part 1 Commentary

The Parable of the Lost Son
11 Jesus continued: "There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, 'Father, give me my share of the estate.' So he divided his property between them.

13 "Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

17 "When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.' 20 So he got up and went to his father.

"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21 "The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

22 "But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate.

25 "Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 'Your brother has come,' he replied, 'and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.'

28 "The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

31 " 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' "



Dig Deeper
One of my favorite comedians to listen to when I was growing up was Bill Cosby. My parents had nearly all of his comedy tapes and albums and I used to love to sit around and listen to them. Even as I got older and was in college, I greatly enjoyed popping in one of his long comedy tapes on my twelve-hour drives to Oklahoma where I was going to college. In one of his tapes Cosby tells an hilarious story about he and his friends taking a life size cardboard cutout of Frankenstein and hiding it on an upper floor of a apartment building. They then convinced their childhood friend, Fat Albert, to hurry up and run up the stairs of the apartment building to watch another of their friends getting a spanking. As Fat Albert ran around the corner, they pushed out the cutout of Frankenstein and roared which greatly frightened Albert. Cosby then hilariously pointed out that he forgot that he was behind Albert who turned around, scared out of his mind, and ran over young Bill. Just when you are near tears listening to this story, Cosby calmly gathers himself and says “Now, I told you that story so that I can tell you this one,” and he goes on to tell the real story about Fat Albert that he wanted to tell. He had needed, however, to set up a few things about Albert in that first story.

As I read the first two parables that were given in response as to why Jesus would consort with sinners and welcome them into his ministry, I get the feeling that that there is almost the unstated idea that he told those first two stories in order to tell us this one. Now that we have some basic principles laid out about the true vocation and identity of Jesus and the correspondence between Jesus’ ministry and the celebration in heaven, we are ready to hear the full explanation of what Jesus is doing.

Luke lets us know that Jesus “continued” as he told this story, indicating that he is indeed still answering the initial question as to why he ate with sinners and outcasts. This story is connected with the first two and fully rounds out the answer as to the nature of his ministry. Jesus gave us here a story that is in two acts. The first part has to do with the exile and return of the younger son. The second part concerns the drama between the older son and the father.

As Jesus opens up the story, we are met with what would have been a shocking and deeply disturbing request in that culture on the part of the younger son. The son went to his father and asked for his portion of the inheritance; an inheritance that would have normally been his after the death of the father. He was basically saying to the father “I wish you were dead and I care more about this inheritance than if you are dead or alive.” It would have been an un-thinkable act in that society that would have repulsed Jesus’ hearers. The request of this son would have brought shame to the whole family and even the whole community. (Familial groups were interconnected in their status and honor in those days so when one member committed a shameful act it brought shame to the whole community.) The proper response of the father would have been to strike the son in the face and drive him out of his presence.

And we should understand that this was no small inheritance. The elements of such things throughout this story like servants, their ownership of calves and goats, and the fact that they had a banquet hall large enough for the entire community are solid indicators that the father was quite wealthy. This would have been a large inheritance. So the fact that the father granted the inheritance was not only significant, it would have been equally horrifying to the listeners as the initial request was. No father, they would have assumed, would deal with such insolent behavior. It was outrageous and enraging and would equally bring shame to the whole community to have a father look so weak and actually allow this son his request and let him leave.

Just granting the son his inheritance, though, was a little more tricky than we might imagine. Surely it would have involved money and other things that could be easily sold but a large part of the inheritance would have been land. The land would have been sold at a cut-rate because the father would still have the right to live on that portion of the land until he died. This would have heaped even further shame on the family. Every action taken by the young man in this story shows us that he only cared about himself. He was wholly disinterested in the honor of the father or the affection that the father had for him. He just wanted to get away no matter the cost to the family.

As the boy left, it would have likely involved the knowledge that he would face what was called a “Kezazah” ceremony, which meant “cutting-off.” This was a ceremony of shame that awaited any Jewish boy that lost or gave his inheritance to a Gentile. The village would gather together and fill a large pot with burned nuts and corn and then break it in front of the young young all the while yelling that he was being cut off from his people. The fear of the shame of this ceremony would have been enough for most young men but this young man leaves with little thought as to the further shame that this ceremony would bring.

When the young man left, things quickly went bad for him. He spent his money on riotous living which Jesus didn’t really define. The older brother later charges that this included prostitutes but this may have been speculation since the brother was just encountering the young man for the first time since he returned. Whatever he was doing, though, he quickly found himself the victim of spending beyond his means and at the mercy of a severe famine. He had completely lost his inheritance and the only way for him to avoid a lifetime stigma of shame would have been to recover the money and provide for himself. His first attempt was by pig herding but that clearly did not provide enough to live by.

We should not miss the point that just as Jesus had described the young man in terms that would have been repulsive in the culture of the hearers, he now describes a young man that could not sink any lower in the eyes of the Jewish audience. Here was a Jewish boy who had brought shame to his family, squandered the inheritance that was the marker of he and his family as being members of the family of God, and now he was consorting with pigs to the point that he longed for their food to fill his stomach. A young Jewish man could not possibly sink any lower in the eyes of a Jewish audience. Jesus was really piling it on as he told this story.

Verse 17 tells us that finally the young man “came to his senses.” Yet, that’s not really what the text says and it changes the story that Jesus told in an important way. It literally says that “he came to himself,” which was a figure of speech that meant simply that he was reasoning with himself. There was as of yet no repentance on the part of this young prodigal. He came up with a plan that would fix his situation at least somewhat. He would return to his father as a servant and be in a much better position than he was currently in. Jesus said that he would go to his father and say “I have sinned against heaven and against you.” It sounds nice, but these were actually words that echoed Pharaoh when he was trying to manipulate Moses for his own benefit and not truly repent (Exod. 10:16). He was still trying to determine his own fate and fix things on his own. He would save himself by earning back the money and in doing so he would keep the law and earn back his own honor. He shows no concern for the father, though. He thinks the problem is the loss of money and he gives no thought to the real problem which was the damage he did to their relationship. In addition, while his plan might bring him some benefit in the long run, he has no thought of the further shame that might be heaped on the father to have one of his own sons working for him as a servant. That would have been truly scandalous. The young man simply doesn’t care. As long as it benefits him, that’s all that he is concerned with.

As the young delinquent approaches the village, he is still doing so on his own terms. He is doing what he is doing because he is hungry. But we find a shocking detail as he comes near. The father saw him while he was still a long way off. That means that the father had been looking for him all along. He had been scanning the countryside and waiting for what he hoped would be the eventual return of his son. He knew that his son would fail from the moment that he left and had been waiting. The father had always cared more about him than what people thought. The son was willing to bring shame for his own benefit but the father was willing to endure shame for the benefit of his son. The moment he saw his son, the father began to run to him. This would have been a highly unusual and undignified thing to do for a man of his age. Patriarchs simply did not hike up their robe and run in public. It would be a social equivalent to running through town in your underwear. It wasn’t horrifying, but certainly uncouth and out of the norm. Yet, there is another important cultural detail. We might think that the primary reason the father ran to greet the son was his joy and he was certainly full of that, but the main reason that he likely ran out to greet him was to protect the son from the wrath of the community as he approached. He was filled with compassion for his wayward son.

The response of the father was all unseemly. Exuberant displays of affection like the father was showering upon him was normally the behavior of a mother not of a Middle Eastern father. As the young man begins to see the incredible love and compassion that the father is lavishing upon him, something changes. The prepared speech and plan that the son had was all swept away in the torrent of the undeserved love of the father. The son stops short his own plan as he has apparently finally come to a state of true humility and repentance. All he can muster is the fact that he has truly sinned and is no longer worthy to be called his son. There is no plan to reconcile things and restore his own status, wealth, and honor. He is no longer thinking of any of that. But how will the father respond to his genuine humility? It is to that response that we will turn tomorrow.


Devotional Thought
Do you ever get the sense that you spend a lot of time approaching God on your own terms to try to get your own way? Spend some time praying today that God will help you to see when you are doing that and to be moved by his will alone.

Luke 15:1-10 Commentary

The Parable of the Lost Sheep
1 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them."
3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn't he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.' 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

The Parable of the Lost Coin
8 "Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins [a] and loses one. Doesn't she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.' 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."


Dig Deeper
Every now and then you will see a sign up on a post advertising that someone is looking for a lost pet. Most people, when they see those, will sympathize and take a look at the sign, determined to keep their eye out for the lost companion but that is usually the extent of it. I’ve even seen a few instances where someone will walk through the neighborhood calling out their lost dog or cat’s name. The other day, while I was out working in the yard with my sons, we had a lost little dog come through. We tried to grab him, thinking that we could then go and try to find the owner once we had secured the dog. But the dog had other ideas and had little to interest in allowing himself to come under our control. As soon as we tried to get closer than arm’s reach, the dog ran off. We tried to follow him for a while but he ran into a neighbor’s yard, ran through the back and disappeared. At that point, he was beyond where we could realistically follow him and we went back to work. A few minutes later, the owner came by looking for the dog, we pointed him in the right direction and he quickly found him.

I can certainly sympathize. We have a naughty little terrier who loves to escape from the house from time to time and go explore the neighborhood. A few months ago he got out at night which is terrible because he’s a dark color so he blends in at night and once he’s out he doesn’t necessarily like to come obediently when he’s called. He likes to take advantage of his little forays and go exploring. But this was different than just a passing sympathy for a lost pet and a faint hope that he would be united with his master. This was our dog. He belonged home and we would worry about him until he was back at home and safe. I didn’t sit there with my boys and speak aimlessly about my belief that he should not have run off and that he could find his way back when he wanted to. He was in danger, as there are a lot of busy roads just a block or two away from our quiet cul-de-sac. He need to be home and be safe. So I dropped what I was doing and left my boys at home where they were safe, took a flashlight and went looking for my mischievous little dog. I went into backyards, I climbed in ditches, I would go wherever I had to, and would continue to look until I found that dog. I finally did and when he saw me he ran into my arms and I took him home.

So what was the difference in the way that I looked for him? Why was I so adamant about leaving my sons at a safe place and going out to great lengths to find him, whatever the personal effort that it cost to do that? Why would I not give that same effort to find other dogs. It’s very simple. It’s because he is mine. This is his home and it’s where he should be.

At the heart of Jesus’ two parables here stands the idea of belonging. The Pharisees were fiercely opposed to the fact that Jesus would treat sinners and undesirables as though they belonged at the same table with the righteous. Why, people might even get the idea that they would be welcomed into God’s kingdom! The Pharisees believed that to be a dangerous notion. Of course people could come to God if they repented. But in their minds that meant holding tighter to the law and putting faith that in doing so, one would become holy enough to show themselves as rightful members of God’s household. But these were people that seemed so out of touch with that as a reality, that for them to truly repent in the way that the Pharisees demanded was virtually impossible.

Jesus was presenting a vision of God’s kingdom that was sharply opposed to that. For Jesus, repentance wasn’t about adopting stricter standards of purity and the Mosaic law, but rather it consisted of nothing more than turning away from their life and completely turning themselves over to him as Lord. The way was open to all but it was still narrow.

The first parable that Jesus told was deeply rooted in a common Old Testament symbol of the shepherd and the sheep. Why would Jesus eat with sinners and welcome them into his so-called kingdom movement? Well, to answer that they must imagine that they were shepherds going out to look for a lost sheep. A good shepherd would presumably leave the ninety-nine in a safe place and they would go and look for that sheep because it belonged to them.

Would they act in such a way? Would they risk their own safety or comfort to go find one lost sheep? The point was somewhat obvious. No, they wouldn’t. They were like the shepherds of Ezekiel 34 and Jeremiah 23 that were denounced and had woes spoken against them for their failure to properly shepherd God’s people. Woe to those shepherds who cared for themselves but did not care for the flock. Interestingly, Jeremiah promised that God would send someone who would be a true shepherd to his people, but in Jeremiah, Yahweh himself promised that he would return to shepherd his people. He would bind their wounds and care for and lead them. He would be the good shepherd for his people that David celebrated in Psalm 23.

Jesus not only answered their question as to why he are with sinners, he gave a clear indication of who he was, and why his movement had so much celebration surrounding it. Rather than being a movement of somber expectation and fasting and waiting, like the Pharisees, for God to return to Jerusalem. Jesus was having a party that was open to everyone. Why would he do that? Because his ministry was a reflection of what was going on in God’s presence. These were his children, his lost sheep, that were being searched for and found. Jesus was the good shepherd of Psalm 23, the fulfillment of the promises of both Jeremiah and Ezekiel. God had sent a shepherd and he had come to shepherd his people himself. So each one of those sinners that repented and trusted in the life of Christ alone, was another child that belonged to God’s family. They belonged to Jesus and were coming home and that was a cause for celebration.

But the sting of this first parable was multi-pointed for the Pharisees. Jesus rejoiced and celebrated in his ministry about sinners who came to follow him because that was a reflection of what was going on in heaven. But more than that, heaven was rejoicing because the Good Shepherd had finally returned to look for his lost sheep. That was good for everyone except the unfaithful shepherds. The unspoken question here was, “who was acting more like the faithful shepherd?” Was it Jesus who was looking for the lost sheep and binding their wounds (cf. Isa. 40:11; 49:22) or was it these men who not only didn’t look for them, but denounced the lost sheep altogether?

The second parable was an even more relatable and common occurrence than the first. A woman who lost a coin that was worth about a day’s wages for an average worker would take considerable effort to look through her entire house for that coin. But this wouldn’t just be a cursory check. She would light a lamp so that she could see every dark corner and she would carefully sweep the entire house, under and around every nook and corner until the coin turned up. And when she did find it, she would call her neighbors over and ask them to rejoice with her and share in her joy. Again the point is clear. Why was Jesus eating in a celebratory fashion with sinners and those that were clearly undesirable? Because he was like that woman looking for her lost coin and each sinner who put their faith and trust in him alone was a reason for celebrating. They didn’t have to somehow earn God’s respect, love, or concern. They didn’t have to prove their worth to be in God’s family. They simply had to know that they were lost and allow Jesus to find them. He was more than willing to come looking for them and celebrate when he found them.

Perhaps the biggest reason, then, that the Pharisees objected to stories like these were that Jesus was pretty clear in one important aspect. They had asked him about his own ministry and he had answered with two stories that responded with what God was doing. Jesus was, in other words, stating in no uncertain terms, that what he was doing was what God was doing. His actions in their midst corresponded directly to what was going on in heaven. God had promised that he would come himself to shepherd his people and that was exactly what Jesus was doing. Jesus was the Good Shepherd (Jn. 10:11, 14) When he invited in a lost sinner, heaven celebrated. To oppose Jesus’ ministry then, would be to take up opposition against God himself. To claim that his ministry was the earthly correspondence of God’s own heavenly actions was to leave the Pharisees no middle ground at all. Either they would have to fully embrace Jesus or completely reject him.

The question that we need to ask ourselves, though, is not so much why Jesus took constant criticism for the fact that his ministry was full of joy and celebration and was so attractive to so many of the outcast and downtrodden while being such a source of concern and anger for the self-righteous and religious. The question that we need to ask ourselves is are we doing things in our churches and lives that elicit the same sorts of responses? And if we’re not, why not?



Devotional Thought
Do you actively take part in Jesus’ ministry to look for those lost sheep and coins? If their return to God was relying solely on your effort what kind of chance would they stand? What do you need to do today to have the same sort of commitment to finding the lost that Jesus did during his lifetime?

Luke 14:25-35 Commentary

The Cost of Being a Disciple
25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even life itself—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

28 "Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won't you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? 29 For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, 30 saying, 'This person began to build and wasn't able to finish.'

31 "Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won't he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

34 "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.
"Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear."


Dig Deeper
One of the most coveted positions in my high school was a spot on the boy’s varsity basketball team. It seemed like every boy on our side of town grew up wanting and hoping to be a Cougar basketball player one day and play for the legendary Coach Suiter. The team, until just recently, was consistently good and the games were incredibly well attended for high school games. One of the problems that came along with that, though, was that an enormous number of the boys would go out for the team every year. Oh sure, there were a lot of people who tried out for the team that were never going to be good enough to play but there were certainly many more guys that were good enough to make the team than there were actual spots available on the varsity team. So, what was a coach to do? Coach Suiter’s solution was to run. He spent the first week or so of try-outs for the basketball team having the guys do almost exclusively running drills and repetitions. The running was intense and seemed non-stop for those trying out and it had its desired effect. Those who weren’t real serious about playing on the team or were only partially committed quit. The try-outs were so rigorous that they had the effect of thinning out the ranks a great deal. All of this running, the coaches would promise, was just a taste of things to come. It would get worse as the team was formed and the season wore on. Anyone who wanted to continue with the try-outs had better add up the cost and make sure they were truly committed right then and there. Most weren’t but the few who were knew what they were getting into and were ready.

In the previous passages in Luke, Jesus has radically and controversially thrown open the doors of access to the kingdom of God. It wasn’t just for the right people but it was the fulfillment of the promise that God had given to Abraham of a family of his descendants that would consist of all nations. All nations of the world, God told Abraham, would be blessed through his descendant, and that time had now come. But with a message like that, there is a risk that people begin to confuse the universality of the access with the challenge of the task. The time was soon coming when God’s family would be thrown open to anyone but they should not make the mistake of thinking this would be easy. The road was dangerous and demanding and people would need to seriously add up the cost before they committed. Most wouldn’t, but those who did would need to be ready for what they were entering into.

We have already seen, because of the immediacy of the mission that Jesus is on, that many of the passages in Luke since Jesus set out for Jerusalem have Israel and her response to Jesus’ kingdom message as the primary object of Jesus’ teaching. Now though, we are told that, rather than speaking to a small group of his disciples or a specific group of Jewish religious leaders and influence-makers, Jesus has turned his attention to the large crowds that were traveling with him and following him. Although we must still consider that Jesus is on his mission to Jerusalem, the fact that he is addressing large crowds indicates that his words here are a little more directly universal in their scope as they apply to the heart of the nature of being a disciple of Jesus anywhere at any time.

Jesus begins right away by laying out the demands of what it will really mean to follow him. To truly come to Jesus one must hate their father, mother, wife, children, brothers, sisters, and yes, even their own life. This sounds, at the surface, quite harsh and even at odds with Jesus’ message of love and peace. When understood in context, though, it makes perfect sense. Jesus did, after all, say that he came not to bring peace to families but that his message would divide family members (Luke 12:51-53). This statement was part of Jesus’ systematic redefinition of family. He was brining about a new family that would replace the normal concept of family. This was the promised family that God had declared to Abraham.

But was Jesus seriously calling people to hate their families and their own lives? It is one thing to say that he was redefining family in his call for people to follow him, but to hate? Really? Many commentators have puzzled over this section over the years and concluded that Jesus was really saying that our love for Jesus must be so great that it makes our affection for our families look like hate. But, quite frankly, I don’t believe that or many similar solutions to this “hate” problem to be the answer.

The simple answer, I believe, is found in Malachi 1:2-3 where we find these words, “’I have loved you,’ says the LORD. But you ask, 'How have you loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ declares the LORD. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals." The passage goes on to make clear that when God spoke of Esau he spoke of him representatively for the people of Edom and he did likewise in speaking of Jacob as Judah’s representative. The language used was a seemingly common figure of speech that was used in reference to inheritance and the covenant. God was saying that he had “hated” or “rejected” Esau and his descendants as the people of his covenant promises. They had been severed or cut-off and would not be his people, but he had chosen Jacob’s descendants as the ones that he would love.

This was the language that Jesus was using here and his point was sharp. They must reject their family heritage as the marker that they were automatically God’s people. They must reject that concept of family and embrace Jesus’ new family as the boundary marker for God’s people. They must reject their belief and confidence that as the physical descendants of Israel they were automatically part of God’s family of free people (see John 8:31-58 where Jesus has this precise argument with a crowd of Jews). This would have been particularly demanding in a culture where loyalty to family was considered of the highest importance and your identity as a member of your Jewish family brought you identity, security, comfort, and your status as part of God’s people. That must all be surrendered, said Jesus to embrace his new family.

Following Jesus would demand a rejection of everything else as a means to identify themselves as God’s people, including their own lives (see Philippians 3:1-11 where Paul describes this exact realization in his own life). Following Jesus means the realization that we have to pick up and carry our own cross. We often reduce the meaning of that statement to simply referring to our need to sacrifice our own desires for the sake of Jesus but it is actually much richer and more demanding than that. When we talk of dying on a cross these days we tend to think of the pain and suffering of it, but for the people of Jesus’ day, the shame and stigma of dying on a cross was much more significant. The cross was Rome’s way of saying “we completely control you and we will put you to death on our terms.” To carry your cross, then, meant to die to self and to give complete control of one’s life up. It meant to recognize that you were about to surrender everything about your identity and self and embrace only the life of Christ and his new family. It meant that you were committing to no longer be true to the self of your own will but to embrace a new “you” that would begin the process of doing God’s will and turning complete control of your life over to God.

So now that they saw the true demands of following Jesus they had better carefully consider making that choice. Before building a tower it would be wise to sit down and consider whether you really were able to finish the construction. In a like manner, if you had a small army and knew that a bigger one was making its way towards you, you had better carefully consider the outcome before you make the potentially fatal decision to oppose that army rather than trying to make peace.

On a national level, these examples would have probably struck home with the nation of Israel in an obvious way. As Jesus spoke of considering whether it was worth finishing a large building project and the specter of a large army making its way towards you bent on destruction, it likely brought to mind the great construction project on the Temple that had been going on for over forty years as well as the national fervor to throw off Roman impression. Jesus was apparently challenging them on both accounts. Building a physical Temple and going to war with Rome was not going to bring back the presence of God as they hoped. If they wanted to be united with the presence of God and truly be his people then they needed to weigh out the reality that it was going to cost them a complete self-denial and a willingness to carry their cross of shame and rejection and willingly march to their own death (which for those who were deciding to follow Jesus right then and there it would have been a very real possibility to literally die for doing so).

Israel was formed by God to be his people through whom the Messiah would come. They were to show people what it looked like to be God’s people and be the salt of the earth. But if they failed to do that what good would they be? Failing to carefully consider what it meant to follow Jesus and making the right choice would mean a complete loss of purpose for the nation of Israel. But it would be an equal tragedy for any human being who was made with the purpose of being God’s image bearers. If we cling to our own lives then we are unable to bear Gods’ image, unable to be the salt of the earth that he want his people to be.


Devotional Thought
For most people today, following Jesus does not mean the same sort of rejection of family and identity that it was for the people of his day. Yet, we tend to find our security, comfort, identity, and even connection to God in our own individual selves. That is the challenge for most of us. Have you truly rejected your own self and autonomy to follow Jesus and be part of his family?

Luke 14:15-24 Commentary

The Parable of the Great Banquet
15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, "Blessed are those who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God."

16 Jesus replied: "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, 'Come, for everything is now ready.'

18 "But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, 'I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.'

19 "Another said, 'I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I'm on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.'

20 "Still another said, 'I just got married, so I can't come.'

21 "The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.'

22 " 'Sir,' the servant said, 'what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.'

23 "Then the master told his servant, 'Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.' "


Dig Deeper
When my oldest son was much younger he used to have a real problem with the boy down the street. He hated the boy down the street and got to where he couldn’t even stand to hear him being talked of. He was convinced that the boy down the street was out to get him and take his place. The problem was that the boy down the street did not exist. He was a fictitious character that my wife would reference when she was trying to make a point to our son about his attitude of ungratefulness or entitlement. If he didn’t like what we were having for supper, that was fine, she would say, “I’m sure the little boy down the street would enjoy this food,” which would cause him, of course to gobble it up. If he claimed to be bored and didn’t like any of his toys, then my wife would just mention that perhaps we could give all of his toys to the boy down the street. She was sure that he would love to play with them. Whenever he didn’t like something or tried to make an excuse for why he didn’t want to do something or go somewhere with us, a quick reference to the little boy down the street usually got him right in line. (I do offer a disclaimer that we were young Christian parents who had a lot to learn and have since learned that in this context this was not the best thing to do. I also point out that, overall, our son was a very grateful and respectful young man.) He just could not stomach the thought of the little boy down the street having his stuff and he would suddenly think much more highly of his things than he had before any mention was made of that little guy down the street.

Jesus has been warning those listening to him at this meal about the danger of thinking that they had cornered the market on the kingdom of God and had a place at God’s table regardless of anything. It was quite perilous to begin to think that they had a rightful spot in God’s future while others would surely be cut out. In fact, Jesus goes on in this section to really drive that point home. They were in danger of far more than just trying to shut others out of a party that they were already at. They were in very real danger of not coming to the party at all. And when that happened, those that they were sure would have no place at the party would be the very ones at the party enjoying their spot at the table and eating the food that they fancied belonged to them.

It’s impossible to know what was going through the mind of the guest who uttered out the blessing in verse 15 but it surely seems like it was an awkward moment to say the least. Perhaps the best explanation is that he missed the whole point of the fact that Jesus was telling them much more than just how they should behave at dinner parties and who they should invite to banquets. He was warning them that they were in very real danger of not being part of God’s family that would be part of the great banquet that was the resurrection of the righteous.

It was the resurrection age, after all, that most Jews looked forward to. That was the time when God would right the wrongs of the world and return to his people to rule eternally in the age to come. Jesus never denounced that view, in fact he confirmed it in many ways, with one very important change. He was the resurrection (Jn. 11:25) and only those who were in Christ and part of God’s family through him would take part in the resurrection. He was also the life (Jn. 11:25) which meant that the Messiah’s people could start to live by the reality of the resurrection age right now in the present.

It does appear that the man that offered up the blessing was missing the whole warning aspect of what Jesus was saying. “Blessed are those who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.” In other words, he appears to be saying something like “well, at least we know we will all be enjoying the age to come.” Based on Jesus’ response, it’s also quite probable that he was implying that they, their “brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors” (Lk. 14:12) would be the kind that would be at the great banquet (keep in mind that the banquet was merely a symbol for the age to come), while the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind might need to be taken care of now according to Jesus’ teaching, but it was highly unlikely that they would ever be at the great banquet.

Jesus’ only response to the man’s blessing was a parable about a man who was throwing a great banquet; certainly an appropriate metaphor considering the subject matter. The man prepared for a banquet by inviting many guests. This would have been an important matter because it was key to have the right kind of guests at banquets, as your guests spoke volumes in the eyes of others about who you were. In addition to that, great banquets were often viewed as symbols that pointed to the great banquet of the resurrection age, so it was important that sinners, the lame, the sick, and the unworthy were not present.

Yet, when the servant was sent out to tell the guest that the time had come for the banquet to begin he received nothing but excuses. The types of excuses given seem to draw heavily from the types of excuses that would get someone out of preparing for war in Deuteronomy 20:5-7 and 24:5. The people that fell under those categories would not have to go off to war and could stay and handle their business. Just as following Jesus in his kingdom was more demanding than following Elijah (see commentary on Lk. 9:57-62), so would preparing for the great banquet require more commitment than even the preparation for holy war.

In addition to that, Leviticus 21: 17-23 stated that no one who was poor, crippled, blind, or lame could offer bring an offering to God as a priest. No one with a defect could serve in that role. This was designed to point God’s people to the idea that they needed a high priest who was perfect and without defect but many Jews of Jesus day had instead grabbed onto the idea that those blemished individuals would be excluded altogether from the age to come (this idea is quite present in the Qumran writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls).

There might have been some good reasons to exclude oneself from a national war but those excuses would not hold up to excuse yourself from following the Messiah’s invitation to the kingdom of God. To do so would be disastrous. It would be to incur the wrath of the host who would respond not with a further plea to attend but with a determination to fill the spot of the original guest. This was what Israel was in danger of doing. They were running the very real risk of not responding to their invitation and then finding out that it was too late. The spots at the banquet were going to the very types of people that they thought would be excluded from the banquet for sure. The very people that they thought were unworthy to ever be in God’s kingdom were the ones that had shown up to a party they didn’t even know was going on.

There may be significance to the fact that the servants first went out into the streets and alleys of the town bringing in those who had been outcast. Jesus may have had in mind his own ministry as well as the early days of his disciples following his resurrection when they would go around inviting those who were last in the eyes of the Jewish society into the kingdom of God. Yet, that number was small. There were still many seats at the table. The servants were sent back out to the roads and country lanes, outside of the city (perhaps this was symbolism for Israel) to find anyone who wanted to join the party. If they wanted to join, there was plenty of room for them. Israel’s place at the table would be given not only to a remnant of sinners and outcasts from Israel but also to the pagans and Gentiles.

That’s what God’s kingdom was like, Jesus let them know in no uncertain terms. His family is not about being good enough or being the right type of person. It comes down to nothing more than accepting the invitation as it was given. Those who truly wanted to join in on the great banquet in the age to come would be those who embraced the idea that all would be welcome into the kingdom of God. It was not an exclusive club that was only open to the right people. Anyone who was humble enough to know that they needed to trust in the life of Christ rather than anything about themselves would be welcome into the great banquet of the kingdom of God.

Our challenge is to ensure that we our embracing and living out in our churches the kind of kingdom that Jesus envisioned. What does it mean in our time and in our communities to be the type of family and to share the kind of kingdom announcement that is good news to those who are at the bottom? To embrace the kingdom of God means to embrace the rich, the poor, the socially acceptable, and the social outcasts. It means to realize that we are part of a family that is open and welcome to anyone who desires the transforming power of the kingdom of God in their lives.


Devotional Thought
Have you accepted the invitation to join in on the banquet? If not, what does this passage tell us about those who make excuses rather than accepting the invitation. If you have already come to the party of the kingdom of God then are you making sure that you are one of those that are extending that invitation along the roads and country lanes and to those who have felt shut out?

Luke 14:1-14 Commentary

Jesus at a Pharisee's House
1 One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched. 2 There in front of him was a man suffering from abnormal swelling of his body. 3 Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?" 4 But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him on his way.
5 Then he asked them, "If one of you has a child [a] or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?" 6 And they had nothing to say.

7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 "When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, 'Give this person your seat.' Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, 'Friend, move up to a better place.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted."

12 Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. 13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14 and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."


Dig Deeper
When I was in college one of the biggest arguments that could develop between the guys that lived together in the dorms would take place if someone took your seat in our common living room area when you got up to go to the bathroom or get something to eat or something of that nature. To solve this problem we instituted a system called “golden chair”. It was a brilliantly simple system but one that quickly came to be recognized as one of the most important “laws” of our dormitory. Woe to the one who violated the law of the golden chair. What would happen was if you were about to get up for a temporary issue, you could simply declare “golden chair” before you stood up. This laid your claim to that chair, regardless of how good a spot it was, until you came back. Failure to honor the golden chair meant a severe bed jumping for the violator, which was the process of throwing someone down on their bed and then having five or six other guys pile on top of the offender and, while still lying on him, bouncing up and down. If, however, you got up and failed to declare golden chair, you could cry all you wanted when you returned but if your seat had been taken by someone else, it was considered to be your own fault. All you had to do was to declare “golden chair” and that seat would have been yours with no questions asked.

The whole point of golden chair was that you had a right to your own spot. If you invoked the golden chair rule then that seat would be yours regardless of what anyone else did or what you were doing. You simply had a right to that spot that could not be revoked. As strange as it might sound, this is similar to the thought behind this passage here. When it came to a spot at the table in the kingdom of God, was there anything like the golden chair? Was there something that earned someone a certain spot at the table regardless of all other factors?

Luke draws attention to the fact that, once again, we have another scene that takes place on the Sabbath. Just as Jesus was systematically redefining the meaning of the concept of family and centering things around the family of God, he was also clearly not tightening Sabbath regulations but was instead redefining them. As Jesus arrived at the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being watched closely. It is probable that he was invited by this Pharisee out of a combination of the man’s obligation of extending hospitality to a traveler, especially a prominent one, and the desire to meet Jesus up close and see what exactly he was about. Would he fit the proper Messianic expectations or would he prove himself to be an imposter in the eyes of those around him?

One mystery that Luke does not solve for us is where this man with abnormal swelling would have come from. It is highly unlikely that he would have been an invited guest, and the fact that Jesus eventually sent him on his way, seems to verify that he was not a guest. But that is not an important detail for Luke and so, as he usually does, he leaves that detail a mystery. The abnormal swelling was caused by dropsy. Dropsy is not really a disease in and of itself but is a symptom. It is, in fact, a disfiguring swelling caused by water retention as a result of a heart or kidney condition.

Before Jesus even interacts with this man, though, he turns to ask a question of the Pharisees. Jesus knew that he was being closely watched and he knew that taking an action such as healing this man on the Sabbath would be a source of contention. This is a clear indicator, then, that although Jesus certainly had compassion on this man and desired to heal him and release him from sickness, his primary motivation was to teach those at the meal about an important aspect of the kingdom of God.

What was the purpose of the Sabbath? Was it to create a bunch of rules and regulations that, in reality, drove people further from God or was the Sabbath designed to point people to God and show them his desire for people to rest in him? The book of Hebrews, of course, answers that question resoundingly, making the point that the Sabbath was intended to be a day of rest to teach God’s people of their need to rest in him and the fact that they could eventually rest in the Messiah. Jesus’ question gets right to the heart of that. There may be certain laws that kept people in line with the Sabbath expectations, but weren’t there exceptions? Could you heal on the Sabbath or not? The question is not whether work was lawful on the Sabbath, which would have been their objection to his healing of the man. The question was, was it lawful to heal or not? The answer, in Jesus’ eyes, was clearly “yes,” as he quickly healed the man and sent him on his way.

Further proof that the primary point of the healing was to teach a point was that after the man left, Jesus got down to the business of explaining the kingdom to the Pharisees that witnessed the healing. Wouldn’t they rescue a child or an ox that had fallen into a well? Of course they would do it, and that action would take a whole lot more work than his healing. If they were going to show compassion in that situation why would they deny someone being healed, Sabbath or not?

It came down to the concept that I learned long ago with the golden chair. Could they claim golden chair when it came to the kingdom of God or not? Was this their kingdom where their rules and regulations took precedence, or was this God’s kingdom where his will was primary? Could they deny the kingdom to others because they had placed their own claim on it that everyone else must bow to? To make clear that they had no such claim of primacy Jesus used a common occurrence as his tool to teach them something unfathomably important about the kingdom of God.

What Jesus offered in verses 7-11 is often reduced to some great advice about how to handle oneself humbly at a public gathering and there is absolute truth to the fact that his people should be humble and not fight for the best position. If they do that they might be humbled and moved down to a less important seat at the table. No, they shouldn’t think they have a right or a claim to any seat. Take the lowest spot, the spot of a servant even (as Jesus would do in John 13) and then allow others to move them up if they so wished, just don’t think more highly of yourself than you ought.

But, there is much more to this than just some great advice about demonstrating humility in a public setting. Verse 7 tells us that this was a parable, which meant that it was a teaching from Jesus designed to relay some truth about the kingdom of God. The deeper implications are somewhat obvious when considered in context of the larger flow of the Gospel of Luke. It was the religious leaders of Israel, like these Pharisees who would rather have denied the healing of the man with dropsy, who thought that they had a golden chair-like claim to the kingdom of God. But they should not think such a thing. That was not how God’s family acted. Jesus was humble and his people should be humble as well. Rather than scratching and clawing for the top spot in God’s kingdom as though it was owed to them, the kingdom of God had to be received with deep humility and an awareness of one’s utter lack of a rightful claim on any of it. If they continued to think that they had an everlasting claim to the best spot in God’s kingdom, Israel would very soon find themselves humbled as those from outside of God’s historic people were shown the way to the best spots at the table. The kingdom banquet would be the domain of the Gentiles rather than Israel.

They shouldn’t think that the kingdom of God was like their banquets where only the “deserving” were invited. That was to miss the whole point of the kingdom of God. It was not for those who thought they deserved to be there and it was not limited to those who the host thought were worthy of being in their presence. That might be how they operated when it came to banquets in the present age, but if they wanted to be God’s people they needed to embrace a very different way of thinking and living.

God’s people didn’t see themselves as the host or even as an entitled guest who could declare a “golden chair” claim on God’s kingdom. They were the lowest of guests. If they really wanted to be part of God’s family they had better stop thinking that there was any such thing as the “deserving” or the “undeserving.” The kingdom of God was not an exclusive banquet for the rich and self-adulating. It was an open affair that gave invitations to the sick, the needy, the sinful, and yes, the Gentiles.

How easy it is to fall into that type of mentality. Without even realizing it we can start to act as though God’s church, his family, belongs to us or that we have a certain claim to it. God forbid that we should ever start to slip into the mindset that it’s just better to have “decent” people come to church and not have to be bothered by those that are so obviously “sinful.” It is precisely when we fall into that type of thinking that we might just be moved right down the line from our seat with no claim of golden chair, or even worse, we might find that we have walked ourselves out of the banquet altogether.


Devotional Thought
Have you ever thought, although you might never had admitted it, that you were just too good, too holy, and too Christian to be around a particular person or group of people? Have you ever wished that your church could be full of decent people who were living holy lives rather than having people come around who were uncomfortably sinful at the moment? Does your attitude more often reflect the entitled heart of the Pharisees here or the healing heart of Jesus? What, specifically, is this passage challenging you to do today?

Luke 13:31-35 Commentary

Jesus' Sorrow for Jerusalem
31 At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you."
32 He replied, "Go tell that fox, 'I will keep on driving out demons and healing people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.' 33 In any case, I must press on today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

34 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 35 Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' [c]"


Dig Deeper
One of the better “guy” movies of all time is the epic action movie, “Troy.” In the beginning of that movie we meet one of the main characters, a noble figure named Hector. Hector quickly finds himself in an extremely difficult situation as he is on his way home from Greece to Troy. He discovers that his younger brother has begun an affair with the wife of the brother of the powerful Greek King Agamemnon and has tried to stow her away on the ship to bring her back to Troy. Agamemnon quickly uses that as an excuse to descend upon Troy with all of his mighty armies. Later on in the film, the brave and noble Hector finds himself in a battle against Achilles, the greatest Greek warrior of them all. After a grueling battle, Hector is killed. The tragedy is that Hector never did anything that was less than noble. He died, in effect, for the sin of his brother. There is nothing more exemplary and inspiring than someone who is willing to take the punishment of someone else who actually deserves the punishment.

Yet, as noble as this was, there is a limit to how much we can admire Hector. He was willing to fight for and defend his brother, and even possibly die, but he, no doubt, held out a great hope that he would not die. He wanted to live and made every attempt to do so in his effort to save his brother. That is a stark contrast to a video that I watched a couple of years ago.

In this video there was an artistic presentation of a young lady, created by God to enjoy his creation. There is an ongoing song and dance which depict this young lady as eventually drifting from God, swayed and persuaded away by all different kinds of temptation. These evils present themselves as attractive but the reality is that they are there to destroy her. Just at the moment when they are about to have their way and bring her to her final destruction, a figure representing Jesus steps in to try to rescue her and pull her away from those with evil intent. Eventually it becomes obvious that he will not be able to pull her to safety unless he steps in between them and her. So, he resolutely jumps in between the young lady and her captors and precedes to protect her under his arms while they beat on his head and back. The point of the drama was that Jesus knew that he was going to die for his people and he willingly did so to protect them from the punishment that they so richly deserved.

This is precisely what is at stake here in this passage. It has everything to do with Jesus continuing his journey towards Jerusalem. He set his face towards the site of his own death in Luke 9:51 and nothing has deterred him from that destination. The question is not whether Jesus will complete his mission. The question here becomes will Israel take advantage of it. He is not gong to die just for the sake of dying. He is going to come between God’s people and their rightly deserved punishment. But will they they realize it in time? Will they embrace it and allow him to protect them from the disaster that is looming over them?

But not everyone in Israel has made their choice against Jesus. At least some Pharisees, it appears, were sympathetic towards Jesus’ plight, or at least undecided. Many commentators over the years have taken the position that it just isn’t possible to view any Pharisees in a positive light so they argue that what seems like a helpful tip from some Pharisees should really be seen as a plot to force Jesus’ hand and cause him to flee right into the danger that they were warning him of. This seems like a forced interpretation, though, and one without any justification in the text itself. It seems most obvious to interpret the Pharisees’ warning as an indication that not all of them were violently opposed to Jesus. They may, like Nicodemus, been considering the implications of Jesus’ teaching of truth or they may simply have disagreed with the violent tactics of Herod and some of their fellow Pharisees. Or they might have even been of the same school of thought as Gamaliel in Acts 5, content to wait and see if Jesus really did speak for God.

Whatever the motivation, the warning had some real teeth to it. Herod had already had John the Baptist beheaded (Lk. 9:9), so this was far more than an empty threat. Herod was plotting to kill Jesus so the question is, will Jesus continue to head towards Jerusalem, as Luke has reminded that he was doing just that in verse 22. Will he he continue on or will he flee? In another indication of just how resolved Jesus was to make war with death in the city of Jerusalem (cf. Lk. 9:51), Luke makes it clear that Jesus will continue on his journey. The threat of death doesn’t cause Jesus to rethink his journey. What no one had yet grasped was the fact that his own death was the very reason that he was going. Death itself was his destination.

Jesus’ answer concerning the Herod threat can seem a bit confusing at first glance. It appears at first blush that verses 32 and 33 contradict each other in the sense that verse 32 speaks of Jesus completing his mission on the third day, while verse 33 seems to indicate that Jesus will still be pressing on when the third day arrives. So how can we reconcile this? The solution is not that difficult. The fox may want to kill him, but he will certainly not deter Jesus’ mission and purpose. Try as he might, Herod will only be a minor player in Jesus’ death and it will not happen in Galilee. Prophets, says Jesus, meet their fate in Jerusalem. That is where he will meet his death. Death will not be avoided, but death in Jerusalem will be stalked and attacked.

Hosea 6:1-2 says “Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.” This was a passage that at least some Jews of Jesus’ day saw as a Messianic prophecy. For two symbolic days God’s people would be battered but on the third day, the Messiah would come and resurrect the righteous, defeating the enemies of God’s people and ushering in the age to come. It appears, then, that the third day had become a symbol for the resurrection age. The third day with all of it’s resurrection connections and symbolism would be the day when Jesus would be vindicated. That is when he would reach his goal and Herod would not rush that, he would, as verse 33 says, continue on today, tomorrow, and the next day until he reached Jerusalem. He would die, yes, but it would be in Jerusalem on his terms. So in a literal sense, he would not be rushed but in the symbolic sense, he would reach his goal on the glorious third day.

In verse 34 we find perhaps the clearest description in the Gospels as to how Jesus viewed his impending death and how it related to Israel. He did not relish what was coming. These were God’s special people. His affection is clear as he uses the double call of their name, a pattern in the Hebrew culture to show closeness or affection. He had longed to gather them up under his wings and protect them just as a mother hen gathers up her chicks to protect them from a raging fire (see Deut. 32:11; Ruth 2:12; Ps. 17:8; Isa. 31:5 for similar language and thoughts). The blazing fire of God’s wrath and judgment was coming but Jesus wanted to bring protection for those who would put their faith in him. The sins of the people that had rebelled against God were coming home to roost but protection could be found in Jesus. But sadly Israel was not willing. They were not like the little chicks who sought refuge under their mother’s wings. In fact there have been accounts of hens doing just that during a fire and dying in the fire but keeping their chicks safe and alive under their wings. Instead they were scurrying around the yard and actually running towards the fire as though it were God’s will. They wanted confrontation with Rome because they were convinced that it was God’s will. They were convinced that God’s rescue would come through war with Rome but the reality was that God’s judgment would come through Rome not their freedom. Heading the way of violence was a rejection of God’s kingdom plan that would lead them away from any hope of having their real enemy, sin, defeated, and would end in a national disaster in the present age.

It would mean that Israel’s house would be left desolate, said Jesus, using language from Jeremiah in which God told Israel that he would leave them desolate during the painful exile. During the conquest of Israel and subsequent exile, God’s presence had left Israel. Now, if they continued to reject Jesus, the exile from God would be permanent.

Jesus then turns to the language of Psalm 118:26 where the Psalmist celebrates the coming of the Messiah and recognizes him as the light that had been sent by God. Until Israel did the same, they would suffer the way of the desolate house. The choice was clear and it was theirs to make. They could celebrate the coming of Jesus to Jerusalem as the fulfillment of the Psalms, the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel or they could suffer the terrible fate of judgment falling on the house of Israel as God would leave Israel once and for all and lave her to their own devices.

But this was much more than just a warning. It was a plea. Jesus would not just pronounce the ultimate prophetic judgment on Israel and leave them to their own devices. He would first rush into the fire himself and spread his wings. Those who would just repent and enter into his kingdom would be forgiven of their sin and would escape the coming judgment and eternal separation from the family of God. What we see here, then, is much less a fiery prophet warning people of a coming destruction and much more of a loving God who desperately wishes to save those who would come to him and trust him. That remains every bit as true today as the day that Jesus first uttered these words.


Devotional Thought
If you were trapped in a fire and there was but one spot of protection and safety, would you not do everything in your power to get everyone around you to that spot? Think of your zeal and passion in trying to convince people to come to the place of safety? Now take a moment to ask yourself one question. Are you any less zealous when it comes to telling people about the kingdom of God and the safety from God’s judgment that comes for those that are in Christ? If you do have less zeal with that message then don’t you wonder why? Why should that message be any less full of zeal and passion than the one about the coming fire?

Luke 13:22-30 Commentary

The Narrow Door
22 Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"
He said to them, 24 "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.'
"But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'

26 "Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.'

27 "But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'

28 "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."


Dig Deeper
One year while I was teaching high school we noticed that the problem of students showing up late for first hour was getting worse with each passing week. It was getting to the point that many classes that had 25 to 30 students, in theory, would start at the first hour bell with as few as 4 or 5 students in the classroom. By the end of the first hour they might have 15 to 20 (which, sadly, is actually a pretty good number for attendance at an inner-city school in Milwaukee). There really wasn’t much that the teachers could do about it and it was disruptive to have kids streaming in throughout the first hour. So difficult that it could be challenging at times to have a semblance of a class at all.

At a staff meeting one week we finally decided to do something about it. We came up with a new policy but before we implemented it we warned the students for weeks ahead of time that this new policy was coming soon. We were going to begin classes sharply at the beginning of the school day as we always had but with a major twist. There would be a five-minute grace period where students could go to the office and get a note to come into class if they had a good excuse. But after that five minutes was up, no one would be allowed into class for any reason. The door would be shut and it would be too late to come in. It did not matter what the reason or even that they were a member of that class. They would find a time when they would be shut out if they weren’t on time. The kids who showed up during that grace period without a good reason or those that came in after that time would all be sent to a study hall room to sit quietly and do their work but they would not come into class. Yet, with all of the warnings that we gave, it was amazing during that first week how many kids came in 20 to 30 minutes late and still expected to be let in. They would bypass the office and try to come straight to me and appeal to our relationship. Despite all that, though, the fact was they were late. They would not be part of the class that day. The door would be shut, so to speak, and you can believe that many of them were not happy about that all.

This is one of the many passages in Luke where we can get easily off track from what is really going on here if we don’t pay close attention to the context of the larger surrounding passages and if we don’t keep in mind that this whole section has been primarily about Jesus’ mission to the people of Israel, inviting them to join kingdom of God before it is too late for them as a nation. It was an urgent mission and the time was short. Their response needed to be swift because the grace period would not last for long and then the door would be shut. If we keep that in mind we will avoid the temptation to immediately read this passage as though it is talking about individual salvation and the final judgment. It is not. Yet, as we will discuss later, there are many direct principles from a passage like this that we can apply to our own time and situation, but only after we have understood what Jesus was saying in the context of his current situation.

As Jesus was continuing on his mission, going from town to town preaching the urgency of the coming of the kingdom and the need for Israel to accept it if they were going to continue to be counted among the family of God, an obvious question was raised. If this was indeed an impending national crisis for the people of Israel, then were only a few people going to be saved? Would most of Israel reject his message and find themselves locked out of God’s kingdom? In typical Jesus fashion, rather than answering the question directly as asked, he re-directed the question to arrive at a more appropriate answer. The issue was not about how few or many would be saved but about the fact that many who thought their place in God’s people was secure will find themselves standing on the outside looking in.

That is why they needed to make every effort. If they went along with life as usual, relying on their status as children of Abraham, their national identity as God’s people, and strictly following the law to define themselves as the family of God and members of his true kingdom, then they were in for heartache. They needed to repent from that direction and die to all of that. It would take repentance on a radical scale because it meant that they would have to completely redefine who they thought God was, how he should work, and what it meant to belong to his family.

And that’s what this passage is all about, family. The door to God’s family was Christ himself and it was narrow. The majority would reject this door and stay on their own familiar path. When the door was closed and the die was cast it would be too late for Israel as a nation. They could come to the door and make an appeal but it would not be opened. They would be like the person pounding on the door, appealing to be treated as a member of the family and be let in but the response will be a stinging one. “I don’t know you.” You are not part of this family.

Even appeals to a personal relationship would fall flat. Didn’t they sit down with Jesus and share in table fellowship with him? Weren’t they present while he taught in their very own streets. Didn’t this signify that he held a special place for them as kin in his family? But that would be to misread the situation. Jesus came to them not because they were part of his family but to warn the children of Israel that they were not. God was fulfilling his promise to create the one family of many nations through whom the whole world would be blessed that he had promised to Abraham so long ago, but the physical descendants of Abraham had no special place at the table. They would need to die to their identity and trust in the life of Christ alone, just like everyone else. But the time was short. Israel did not have long now to accept or reject this truth, but one option that they did not have was to wait and see what might happen. If they did that they would soon find themselves locked out permanently.

They would, in fact, be rejected as members of the house owner’s family, and branded as evildoers, or those who had rejected God’s will. It wasn’t really that God had rejected them; it was more a case of God confirming that they had rejected themselves as members of his family by rejecting his Messiah (This did not mean, it is important to note, that no Jews could come into the kingdom of God after this time. Paul makes clear in Romans 9-11 that individual Jews were still quite welcome and would bring glory to God every time they entered into God’s family. This shutting out referred to the nation as a whole as being synonymous with the people of God. That distinction would apply only to God’s own Messiah-shaped family). Yet, the final pronouncement that they were on the outside with no hope of coming in would cause great anger and disappointment. There would be weeping from some over the fate of Israel while others would gnash their teeth in anger and fight all the more against God’s purposes and cling to their national identity all the more.

To make matters worse, when they peeked in the window, so to speak, and looked at the great banquet of the kingdom of God going on, complete with the presence of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they would see something even more horrifying than the fact that they were not present at the table. They would see people from the east, west, north, and south (biblical symbolism for the nations from around the world) sitting at the feast table in the kingdom of God. Those who were last, who were aliens and foreigners to God’s people would now have their own place at the table alongside the Jews who had embraced their need for the Messiah (see Eph. 2:11-20), but the nation of Israel who was first, would now find themselves in the position of last.

Yes, the national crisis was coming and Israel needed national repentance or she would find herself locked out with but a small remnant that had joined the Gentiles at the great banquet that is the kingdom of God. But with this talk of national salvation, we can’t help but turn our thoughts to the implications that this might have when it comes to the issue of the resurrection and the ultimate and final judgment and salvation that is foreshadowed by the judgment that was pending for Israel.

The fact is, that we need to be quite careful to not simply pluck parts of this passage out and directly apply them to issues of our final salvation. Jesus was speaking in a specific time and place with specific hearers in mind, so we need to sort that all out before we start to ask how we can apply this to our time and salvation. Yet, it would be sloppy and short-sighted to simply throw this aside as though it only had relevance for those alive during that time. We may not be able to claim the same close association to Jesus to say that we sat and ate with him and that he taught in our streets, nor are we in the same position of Israel as people who rightly belonged to the class, but were about to find themselves locked out of that class because they had ignored the new thing that was being introduced. But certainly the narrow door of dying to self and entering into the life of Christ through faith at baptism is still just as narrow for us as it was then. It surely is just as easy for us to be so beholden to our own expectations and agenda that we ignore the open door, only to find out too late the gravity of our choice. Let us learn from Israel’s mistake and embrace God’s family while we still can so that when we do go to take our place at the great banquet, we will be embraced as sons rather than rejected as strangers.


Devotional Thought
Do you really believe that the door is narrow, not just for yourself, but for those around you? Sometimes it is harder to think of the ramifications of the narrow door for those we love than for ourselves? Think for a moment. Who do you know right now, that will find themselves on the outside of that narrow door when the time comes, that you need to unapologetically tell about their need to find that narrow door? Who can you call into a place at the banquet right now?