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?

Luke 13:10-21 Commentary

Jesus Heals a Crippled Woman on the Sabbath
10 On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, 11 and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. 12 When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, "Woman, [a] you are set free from your infirmity." 13 Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.
14 Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath."

15 The Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?"

17 When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing.

The Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Yeast
18 Then Jesus asked, "What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? 19 It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds perched in its branches."
20 Again he asked, "What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? 21 It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds [b] of flour until it worked all through the dough."


Dig Deeper
One of my favorite things to do in the whole world is to take my wife and kids shopping at Sam’s Club on Saturday mornings. It’s not that I really enjoy shopping that much, mind you, although if I do have to shop anywhere I’ll take Sam’s Club every time. It’s not about the shopping at all really. What I love about Sam’s Club on Saturday morning are the samples. It seems that virtually every aisle in these rather large warehouse-type stores has some nice older lady giving out free food samples. They offer samples on everything from cake and juice to steak and pizza. Oh, it’s absolutely wonderful. On a good day you can almost get a lunch’s worth of food just from walking around and sampling the many different items throughout the store. The question that is interesting, though, is why would the store give out samples like that? It’s got to be fairly expensive to give out that many samples, so why do it at all? The reason that they do it is because there is a point to giving out samples that goes beyond just the samples themselves. The store doesn’t give out that sample just so I can enjoy it and have a slightly better shopping experience. They give out the sample hoping that it will help me to see that I need to actually but that product. That’s the purpose of the sample. It is a small little portion given out that points me to my need for the full product.

It’s important to remember that, as incredible as the miracles of Jesus could be, they had a point beyond just the miraculous action itself. Jesus just didn’t go around healing people so that their lives would be more comfortable and to show how powerful he was. The miracles were like little samples of the kingdom of God. They were intended to be small bits that pointed people to the larger thing that God would bring to those who would embrace his kingdom. The miracles were small little portions intended to point others to their need for the full kingdom of God.

As this scene opens up, Luke tells us that Jesus was teaching in a synagogue. We don’t know enough facts about how individual synagogues went about their normal business in the first century to say for sure how the situation would have come about that Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, and Luke doesn’t tell us. It doesn’t take much speculation, however, to realize that this would have been an uncomfortable situation for the synagogue leader. He would have been, presumably, under a fair amount of pressure to deal with this “Jesus situation.”

Jesus certainly valued teaching as a central component of his kingdom announcing vocation, but as Jesus was teaching, he was interrupted by the sight of a crippled woman. As committed as Jesus was to his teaching, he was never more committed to that than to the people to whom he was teaching. Jesus knew that the needs of those he was teaching came first, but he also knew that this was a teachable moment. He could verbally teach the people of Israel about the nature of the kingdom of God and what God wanted to do for them as a people or he could stop and show them by giving this woman a sample of the kingdom of God itself.

Luke doesn’t give us all of the details concerning this woman’s sickness that we might like but we do know that it had crippled her for nearly two decades. This is no short-term illness. This was a debilitating problem that kept her from living a full life. The mention of the detail that she was crippled by a spirit does not infer that Luke saw her as being demon-possessed, but instead points to the fact that her crippled state was grounded in some sort of satanic bondage that extended beyond a mere physical ailment. Many theories have been put forth as to what exactly her ailment was but the reality is we don’t know and never will, but that’s not the point that Luke wants us to see. This is yet another occasion to remind ourselves as biblical readers that if the text doesn’t answer the questions we are asking, we are probably asking the wrong questions.

As she slowly approached Jesus, he freed her from her bondage instantly by the authority of his word and touch. She did not have to do anything more than come to Jesus in faith and she was freed and healed. Her immediate and appropriate response was to praise God for surely she at least understood that Jesus was the agent of God at the very least.

Her instinct to praise God as a result of this amazing act of liberation was fitting and we might expect that the response of the synagogue leader would be equally appropriate, but we would be wrong. Rather than praising God as the woman did, he found something wrong with what Jesus’ was doing. He points out that this could have been done on any day but not on the Sabbath, a day that was to see no work, so as to honor God. He appealed to Deuteronomy 5:13 to make his case that there are six other days in which to work, but not on the Sabbath.

Jesus’ response is sharp and to the point. If he wants to refer to Deuteronomy 5:13, then Jesus will go right there with him but show him his error in that he neglected to consider Deuteronomy 5:14. The prohibition on work extended to animals too, not just human beings. Yet, they had no problem with untying their ox or donkey on the Sabbath to lead it to a drink of water. Their animal’s lives were not in danger, but they found it okay to untie them them just the same. If that was acceptable behavior under the law why would he be opposed to a daughter of Abraham, who had been bound up for eighteen years under Satan’s dominion, being set free. How could he possibly be opposed to this woman being unbound from satanic oppression? If people were ready to show compassion to animals on the Sabbath, why would they deny compassion to this woman?

The fact was, said Jesus, that they were hypocrites, not in the sense of saying one thing while doing something else but in the sense that they were completely unable to discern the purposes of God. They were missing the nature of God, the point of the law, and even what Jesus was doing right there in front of them. He wasn’t just healing this woman. He was offering samples of the kingdom of God. He was showing them all that God longed to do for Israel and for all human beings what Jesus was doing for this woman. Jesus desired to free them from their satanic bondage, but ironically, they were so beholden to their version of God and his law that they were unable to see what Jesus was really doing. They had so tightly gripped their own expectations that they were unable to grab hold to the kingdom vision that Jesus was offering to the nation of Israel.

That Luke is showing us something about the kingdom of God is made clear by the fact that verse 18 begins with a linking word “therefore” (which is somewhat obscured by the TNIV’s “then”). Jesus had given them a sample of the kingdom of God and now he was going to return to teaching to drive the point home. To what could he compare the kingdom of God? From one angle the kingdom is like a mustard seed. It is a tiny and insignificant seed when put to the ground, but in time it becomes so large and treelike that birds can perch in it. The imagery likely comes from Ezekiel 17:22-24, where the Messiah would be the source of rest for his own people and for birds of every kind, meaning people of all nations. Another source of the imagery probably comes from the contrast of Daniel 4:10-12 where the Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom starts with the promise of being a tree where the birds of all nations could rest but it ultimately ended in ruin as a stump.

From another angle, the kingdom of God is like a small amount of yeast that can be mixed into enough dough to feed 150 people and will work its way through the entire batch and change it.

That’s what the kingdom of God is like. It starts out seemingly small and insignificant. In fact it is perhaps somewhat shocking that when Jesus wanted to compare the kingdom to something he didn’t grab something royal and impressive but talked of ordinary, everyday things. Yes it starts out hardly noteworthy, but it doesn’t stay that way for long. The kingdom of God can break forth even through seemingly inconsequential acts like the making whole of a stooped, little old lady. It can come through tiny things like that but it would continue to grow to become the family tree in whose branches the people of all nations could perch. It would be small and hidden but pervasively work it’s way through the whole batch.

Now, if they would but take the sample and realize that the restoring wholeness that had just been poured out on this woman, was exactly what Jesus wanted to do for the whole nation of Israel. It is, in fact, precisely what Jesus wants to do for us, for our friends, our neighbors, our communities, and for the whole world one day.


Devotional Thought
How are you at giving out samples of God’s kingdom? Do you tend to limit yourself to just talking about God’s kingdom or do you make efforts to give out small little samples to those around you of what God’s kingdom looks like when it breaks into our present age? Spend some time considering how you can give out samples of God’s kingdom to those around you.

Luke 13:1-9 Commentary

Repent or Perish
1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
6 Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

8 " 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' "


Dig Deeper
I think we all have songs that we are slightly embarrassed to admit that we like because they’re just not cool in the eyes of others. As I sit here and type this, I am listening to one of my favorite songs that would fall in that category. The song is none other than “The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald” by Gordon Lightfoot. The song is written about a boat that sank in a terrible storm and killed all 29 people on board, and it happened not too awfully far from where I live. I love that song and it always causes me to ponder about our lives and how quickly they can come to an end. This morning though, as I listened to this song and read this passage in Luke one more time, my thoughts turned to the Titanic. Here was a ship that was the wonder of its day. People were on board going around enjoying some of the greatest luxuries that could be offered at that time, and were completely unaware that they were hurtling towards their own impending deaths. The captain of the ship had made the decision to try to impress everyone in the world with how fast this brand new ship was by arriving at port a day early, so he continued to go as fast as they could even though they were cutting through iceberg infested waters. The simple fact was that the leader of that ship had made a decision and everyone on that ship was going to die. If they stayed on that ship, they were going to sink and die because the only place the Titanic was heading was the bottom of the ocean. Of course no one knew that but what if they had? What if someone had come and warned them days before the crash that this was the fate of the ship and everyone on it? What would we think then of those who dismissed those warnings and stayed?

We often think of Jesus’ long and intentional march towards Jerusalem and his own death as a strangely wonderful thing, and for us it is a wonderful thing in many ways. But it is easy to forget that this was also a national tragedy. It was the time when God’s long awaited promise to return to his people was being fulfilled. Yet, the very people who were waiting for his return failed to see that this was it. Jesus’ march towards Jerusalem was the return of YHWH (the personal name for God in the Old Testament as it was revealed to the nation of Israel) to Zion. This was an incredibly wonderful event for those that embraced Jesus. But it was incredibly tragic for the nation of Israel that was on the verge of rejecting Jesus. He and his followers were furiously trying to warn them that the nation of Israel was sinking fast and they needed to get on the lifeboat that Jesus was offering. It was such a tragic scene that when Jesus stands with Jerusalem in his sights, he feels nothing but anguish over the whole situation and the fate of the people that were rejecting their own God (Lk. 13:34-35).

Many commentators over the years have reduced verses 1-5 to being nothing more than a moral warning from Jesus concerning those who think that only evil meet bad ends in the present age. Jesus was, they argue, trying to correct the perception that only bad things happen to bad people while good things happen to good people. Although the principles of that argument are certainly contained within these sayings of Jesus, it would be, I believe, a mistake to simply limit Jesus’ words to just that. Not to mention, to do so is to not really consider the context of this passage and the larger context of Luke 9-19. That Jesus is speaking of things larger than just the individual is made clear by Jesus’ parable in verses 6-7, which clearly have to do with Israel.

The topic brought up to Jesus concerning the Galileans is deeply ironic when we consider that Jesus and his band of Galileans are themselves on the road to Jerusalem. The topic of the Galileans, though, concerned a recent event in which a group of Galileans were on pilgrimage to offer sacrifices at the Temple and were slaughtered at the orders of Pilate, presumably for suspicion of starting a rebellion or riot of some kind against the authorities. Jesus had been speaking of the judgment that would come upon those who spurned his call to abandon the desire to join the nationalistic fervor and desire to defeat Rome and expel them from the land of Israel and to embrace the way of the kingdom of God which called for a defeat of the true enemies of sin and death rather than Rome. In light of this horrible end for the Galileans, would Jesus continue to Jerusalem? Was this a sign that those Galilean pilgrims were the ones that Jesus had spoken of? Were they being judged for rejecting Jesus’ teaching and embracing their own way? Were they being punished by God for continuing along the path of rebellion and violence?

Jesus’ answer is pointed. The problem was not that they were any worse than any other Galilean, or any other Jew for that matter. The problem was not that they had distinguished themselves within Israel as being particularly worthy of God’s wrath. The real problem was that all of Israel was heading down the path of confrontation with Rome, a confrontation that was not part of Jesus’ kingdom agenda. It wouldn’t be enough to simply sit back and not engage in overt acts of violence or rebellion because the leaders of Israel had already set the course for the nation. They were streaming through an iceberg field and had no intention of turning the other way and embracing God’s will.

In the same way, those who were crushed when the tower in the small section of Jerusalem known as Siloam (just South of the Temple) crashed upon them, were no worse than any other Israelite. They had not done anything to distinguish themselves as worthy above all others of God’s wrath. Pilate had the Galilean pilgrims killed but they were no different from any other Galilean pilgrims. The people who died under the falling rubble at Siloam were no different than any other citizens in Jerusalem. The point was that unless they repented from the path set for Israel by her leaders, then everyone was going to die in the same way. This was a dire warning about the fate of Jerusalem and her inhabitants unless they turned from their preconceived notions of how they wanted God to work and quickly followed Jesus’ path of what it really meant to be part of God’s family.

To make his point clear, Jesus told a parable using the familiar symbol of a fig tree growing in a vineyard. The fig tree and vineyard were common Old Testament images for the nation of Israel, but it seems rather likely that Jesus drew upon Micah 7 as the primary source for his imagery, considering not only the contexts of this passage and Micah 7, which has to do God looking for the fruit of covenant faithfulness (cf. Isa. 5:1-7) and finding none in Israel, as well as the fact that Jesus already strongly alluded to Micah 7 in Luke 12:49-53.

It is possible that the imagery of looking for fruitfulness for three years comes from Deuteronomy 14:28-29, according to commentator C.F. Evans, who believed that Luke would have seen that there should be special evidence of fruitfulness on the third year. It is doubtful that Luke was making a direct correlation to the traditional view that Jesus had three years of ministry, but rather saw the three years as a sufficient amount of time for the tree to bear fruit if it was ever going to do so.

The point of the parable, however, was that there was no fruitfulness as far as the fig tree was concerned. There was, in fact, no evidence that Israel was repenting of her wholesale rejection of Jesus’ kingdom announcement. It was time to cut down the tree. Yet, the man who was in the vineyard day-in and day-out, taking care of it, asked for just a little more time. Israel had been given more than enough time to bear fruit and deserved to be cut down, but Jesus hints, perhaps she would be given just a little more time to repent before being cut down completely. It gives the reader pause, though, to know that Jesus has already made clear that he is going to Jerusalem to die, so we are left to wonder about the connection between that fact and the impending fate of the city that is alluded to here. It also should cause us to stop and think about the sad fact that Israel did not repent. The nation did not stop its course of fruitlessness and rejection of the Messiah and would indeed feel the full brunt of the ax as the fig tree was cut down.

At the same time, passages like this always leave us wondering what we can take away from this for our own Christian communities right now. The principle is actually fairly clear. Jesus had laid out a plan of what it meant to follow him and be God’s people, a plan which relied on joining God’s family as defined by the Christ and taking part in his reconciling project throughout the whole world. In rejecting that plan for their own ideas, Israel found themselves outside of the purposes of God, outside of the family of God, and ignoring the dire warnings of what would happen if they put themselves in such a position. This should be just as clear a warning to us of the consequences of rejecting a similar call to be part of God’s people and partner with him in his great reconciliation project. If we reject God’s kingdom and go our own path we too will find the same judgment awaits us as everyone else. It is also a stern reminder that God will not wait forever for repentance. He is patient and loving but he is also just. We must be patient with those who have yet to accept Jesus’ family and constantly try to keep fertilizing it, while at the same time giving them the clear warning that the master may return at any moment to cut down the fruitless trees.


Devotional Thought
What does God want to do in your church family and your community right now? How does he want to use you and your entire church to go about that? Are you truly embracing his plan with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength or do you spend an awful lot of time taking care of your agenda? What would happen if you and those around you really grabbed hold of God’s dream and the project that he is up to in your community right now? How might you go about doing that today?