Sermon: Group Project

Lectionary: Proper 25(C)
Text: Luke 18:9-14

Pharisee and the Publican
Millais, John Everett, 1829-1896

Over the past several months, we have considered several parables. In those examinations I have suggested that the traditional interpretations, while not necessarily wrong, are often inadequate. I have explained that the point of parables is to provoke thought and to cause discomfort regarding traditional ways of thinking and living. I have explained that what we hear from the parables is colored by our culture and traditions, which are quite different from that of the original audience, and as a result heard things quite differently. I have also pointed out that many parables have a starting frame that is added by the editor which has the effect of guiding the reading and interpretation down one path while discouraging others, and that interpretations are often added as a closing frame to further restrict interpretation.

These observations also apply to today’s parable. Luke, or the gospel account’s editor, adds commentary in verses 9 and 14 as opening and closing frames to guide the reading and interpretation of the enclosed parable. Consequently the traditional reading and interpretation of this parable rarely deviates from the supplied editorial framework.

In the dozen or so commentaries I glanced through during preparation, nearly all followed the same interpretation. In this interpretation the Pharisee is turned into a villain and the tax collector into the hero. The Pharisee is interpreted as exhibiting arrogance, pride and hypocrisy, whereas the tax collector shows humility and acknowledges his shortcomings. Not all, but many interpretations suggest that ritual purity was involved in some way within the parable. And some interpretations suggest that the Temple and its religious structures, to which the Pharisee was allegedly a part, was itself part of the problem which the parable speaks out against.

Keeping the above in mind, let’s revisit today’s reading and the parable contained within to see if we can discover anything different.[1]

The frame or the bookends read as follows:

⁹ He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt… ¹⁴ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other, for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9, 14 NRSVue)

From this we can see how the parable ends up vilifying the Pharisee and speaking out against his prayer. After all, who are the ones who trust in themselves that they are righteous and regard others with contempt? Who is the one who exalts themselves? Clearly, it must be the Pharisee.

But wait. Is the audience of this parable the Pharisees or any of the privileged among the Jews? If we go back over the preceding couple of chapters of Luke, it becomes clear Jesus is addressing his disciples. The “some” that Jesus is speaking to then, the “some who trusted in themselves,” are the disciples, not the Pharisees.

We will revisit verse 14 toward the end of today’s sermon with a suggested alternate translation of a small word, but which changes the meaning of the entire parable.

But we continue on.

¹⁰ “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. (Luke 18:10)

This introduces the setting and characters. Christians have been handed down a tradition where we tend to regard the Jewish temple and Pharisees as corrupt and evil. The disciples, the audience, would not have seen them in that light. They saw the temple as a place where they could approach their holy God, where they could offer their prayers and sacrifices, and be restored to right relationship with God and with fellow human beings. They saw Pharisees, not as power hungry hypocrites, but leaders who genuinely wanted their people and nation to follow God’s commands. Pharisees were respected.

Many of the negative views of the temple and Pharisees which Christians hold today can be traced to anti-Jewish sentiments developed through two millennia of Christian history. Many of the seeds of these negative views, when examined closely, have no basis in history. This is something that we need to be acutely aware of, confess, and repent.

¹¹ The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ¹² I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ (Luke 18:11-12)

We hear this and object to its tone. We jump to the conclusion that because of this the Pharisee must be self-righteous and prideful. However, there are several things we should note about this prayer. First is that in ancient times, people did not pray or read silently. Praying and reading only in one’s mind was something the ancient people did not even consider as possible. The prayer of the Pharisee may have been expressing what today would be only thoughts directed silently. Secondly, do we ever say or think, “There but for the grace go I?” The Pharisee’s prayer is akin to that saying.

A third point to note is that in the ancient Near East boasting was not frowned upon but was expected. A key example in the New Testament is of the Apostle Paul who boasts about his credentials as both a Pharisee and an Apostle. Among other things, to the Philippians, he wrote, “… as to righteousness under the law, blameless.” (Philippians 3:6b)

In Deuteronomy 26, Moses instructs the Israelites that when they offer prayers of thanksgiving that they are to thank God that they are Israelites, and to enumerate the ways in which they have been faithful in following the law. The Pharisee’s prayer is like that. He is expressing gratitude for who he is. Therefore, to fault the prayer as expressing pride is to miss the point. In listing some of the other people categories, the Pharisee is giving thanks to God that he has been given the opportunity to be more faithful to God than they.

However, there is a problem with the Pharisee’s prayer, and that is when he prays, “… or even like this tax collector.” Here he turns from gratitude to judgment. He lists the ways in which he could be seen as super-righteous (or supererogatory to use a fancy term for “going beyond”). He goes beyond what is required by the law by fasting more and giving tithes of everything, even those things that were normally considered small enough that tithing was not required. Surely, if righteousness was the basis of merit, he had it far over the tax collector.

Tax collectors were agents of Rome and therefore considered traitors. Traditional Christian view of tax collectors is that due to their occupation they were perhaps considered ritually unclean. However, note that he is in the temple grounds, meaning that introducing ritual purity is not appropriate to the interpretation of this parable.

If the parable was a melodrama, the audience would be booing and hissing at this point.

¹³ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ (Luke 18:13)

The audience of the parable would not have liked to hear the tax collector utter this prayer. They knew that God’s mercy did extend to the tax collector. They had to consider the possibility that the tax collector could be forgiven and made righteous. They had to consider that both the Pharisee and the tax collector could be equally righteous under God.

We now come to verse 14 which is traditionally translated something like,

¹⁴ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other, for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Luke 18:14)

Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, in Short Stories by Jesus, discusses how the phrase “rather than” is one of several possible translations, one that has been traditionally chosen to fit with the earlier verse 9.

She, however, suggests a different translation. She translates verse 14 as follows:

To you I say, descending to his house, this one is justified, alongside that one. Because everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.[2]

She also writes that when we accept the traditional interpretation where the Pharisee is vilified, we are tempted to say, “Thank you, God, that I am not like that Pharisee.” And when we say or think that, we have sprung a trap on ourselves. We have made ourselves the Pharisee.

In Western Christianity, and especially in American Christianity, justification and salvation are considered something granted to individuals. However, in ancient Jewish and in the earliest Christian communities, justification and salvation was bestowed to and through community. The Jews also believed that supererogatory acts of ancestors could trickle down into their descendants. Hence the Jews believed that the supererogatory faith of Abraham continued to offer benefits to them.

Lest we think that as an odd way of thinking about things, we Christians accept that the supererogatory faith of Jesus in his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension grant justification and salvation to those who trust in that work of Jesus Christ.

When we pray the Lord’s Prayer, we don’t pray “My Father… Give me my daily bread… Forgive my debts.” No, we pray “Our Father… Give us our daily bread… Forgive out debts.”

We are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. What one member does to hurt the community hurts all of us. What one member does to help and maintain the community blesses all of us. Together. Christianity and seeking God is not a solo project. It is a group project.

Dr. Levine, in the chapter where she discusses today’s parable offers an updated version that we might understand better.

The story of the tax collector’s ability to tap into the merit of the Pharisee and the encompassing, communal grace of the Temple system is the ancient version of the middle-school group project. This assignment, perhaps now more familiar through reality television, puts together, in classical terms, the smart one, the one who is good at art, the one who is able to provide provisions (e.g., coffee, donuts, Scotch), and the one who both literally and figuratively brings nothing to the table. Three do their fair share, and more, since they cover the fourth’s work as well. The project receives an excellent grade. The fourth, who may show up at the meetings with all sincerity but who contributes nothing, benefits from the work of others. In middle school, where I was the “smart one,” I found this system unfair. I was justified (I got the “A”), but alongside me, indeed because of me, so was the slacker.

My sense of justice then was too narrow, my sense of generosity too constrained, my sense of self-import too great. But that fourth person believed in the system; that fourth person, whom we dismissed as lazy, as stupid, or as unable to contribute, may well have done what he could. He may have felt himself unworthy; indeed, we three others may have signaled to him that we were disappointed he was assigned to our group. He trusted in us; he trusted in the system. Had we been more generous with him rather than resentful, we would have learned more as well.

And what if he didn’t care at all? What if he depended on us, even thought we were fools for doing his work for him? What we do is still worthwhile. We can afford to be generous. There are other systems of justice (e.g., test grades, a final judgment) in which his contributions or sins will be assessed.

We are all our brother’s, and sister’s, keeper, and living in a community is another form of group work. We all have something to contribute, even if what we give is the opportunity for someone else to provide us a benefit. If we take more seriously this necessary interrelationship, we might be more inclined to consider others, because our actions, whether for ill or for good, will impact them. And if our good deeds aid someone else, rather than begrudge them, why not celebrate all who are justified?

In the name of God who creates,

In the name of God who is always faithful,

And in the name of God who discomforts the comfortable, Amen.

Bibliography

Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Levine, A.-J. (2014). Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Levine, A.-J., & Brettler, M. Z. (2011, 2017). The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd ed. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Richards, E. R., & James, R. (2020). Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Sievers, J., & Levin, A.-J. (2021). The Pharisees. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

 

 

---

[1] I am indebted to Dr. Levin’s discussion of this parable in Short Stories by Jesus in putting together this sermon.

[2] (Levine, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi, 2014)

Sermon: Like Yeast

Lectionary: Proper 12A

Text: Matthew 13:31-33, 44-52; (not in week's lection) Genesis 18:1-15

A Brief History of “Leaven”

Among one of the many unusual activities that became popular during the early days of the pandemic was making sourdough bread, and more specifically, making your own sourdough starter. I did not participate in this activity, but I did try making my own sourdough starter once before. The success of sourdough depends on the ability to successfully inoculate the flour-and-water mixture with wild yeast. Once that happens, it becomes a matter of maintaining the starter by using or discarding portions and providing it with new sources of nutrients for the yeast to continue growing.

In our present day, most yeast baking we do uses dry yeast that comes in little packets, a jar, or a block. When we hear the parable of the yeast that was included in today’s reading, that is probably what we most likely visualize first.

But isolated, dry yeast is a relatively recent invention, the first attempts dating back to the 1700s. Before then yeast or leaven, at least when it came to baking, was what we now call sourdough starter.

Our Mental Picture of the Parable of the Yeast

As you might be suspecting by now, I am focusing today solely on this one little parable of the yeast. You might wonder how much there could be to extract from such a short parable, after all it is just one sentence:

He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.” (Matthew 13:33 NRSVue)

What most of us picture is a woman in a kitchen, taking a bunch of flour, adding yeast and water, and then mixing the result until they are all combined. It seems ordinary and obvious. Except it isn’t.

I already noted that yeast or leaven (both are found in English translations) is not just a small bit of dry yeast, but a good amount of starter. What is being added is not something that could easily be overlooked, but it is a good amount and quite intentional.

The next point where our imagination differs from the text is where the woman “mixes” the yeast into the flour. The actual word is “hid” and it is found in multiple English translations as well. But “hiding” yeast in flour doesn’t make much sense to us, whereas mixing it into the dough makes more sense, so many translators have opted to use “mix” instead. And our imagined picture follows this translation choice.

An aside here regards the use of “yeast” in scripture. In Christian tradition, yeast is often assumed to be negative. In fact, this very parable has some interpretations where the entire premise is based on yeast being something evil and sinful, which then permeates the dough. But is that a good interpretation? Although many uses of the yeast metaphor in the New Testament often has negative connotations, it is the context around the yeast that determines whether or not the yeast and its behavior should be understood as negative or positive. The metaphor itself is neutral.[1]

The final point where we need to break through our imagined kitchen scene is where the text reads “three measures of flour”. We probably imagine an amount that is reasonable for regular, domestic baking – say three cups of flour. But that is not what is in the text. Three measures of flour is about 47 pounds of flour. Imagine adding water and yeast to it and then trying to mix the whole thing so that the yeast is distributed throughout the dough. Now you see why “mix” doesn’t make any sense in this parable. First, the amount would be way too much for a single person to accomplish. Second, it would take a huge amount of starter to make any difference in the short run. Therefore, “hid” is the proper word, rather than “mix”.

What we have then, is a new picture of this parable. A woman has 47 pounds of flour, presumably with sufficient water added to let it soak and permeate all of the flour, and then a portion of sourdough starter that she places deep into the dough, somewhere. And then she lets time pass. The yeast in the starter feeds and multiplies at this immense amount of food. It grows until it spreads to the entire dough.

Interpretations of the Parable

The yeast is “planted” into the dough, just as the seeds from earlier parables in Mathew 13 are sown into the field. Time passes until the harvest is revealed. For the dough, time passes until the yeast is found throughout the dough. Each of the parables in Matthew 13 contains a surprise that is found: surprising abundance, unexpected weeds, surprising treasure, and so on. That a small amount of starter can permeate such an enormous amount of dough is also a surprise.

Dr. Amy-Jill Levine writes in Short Stories by Jesus, “Whatever the woman is doing, its results will come to light. What is hidden is only hidden so that it can be brought forth, and in the revelation the original is somehow transformed…”[2]

Connections with Story of Abraham and the Three Strangers

But there is even more. The words and the images of this parable have a strong connection to the story of Abraham, Sarah, and the three strangers that is found in Genesis 18:1-15.

The first connection between Abraham’s story and the parable is quite easy to make. It is the “three measures” of flour that are used in both stories. Both describe bread baking that is far more than would be needed for a small household, or even a larger, extended family. Sixty dozen biscuits[3] could literally feed a small army. Never mind the amount of time and work it would take to bake them all from scratch.

The second connection is not nearly so obvious, especially when working only with English translations. I will get a bit nerdy and into the weeds with a quick study of a couple of key Greek terms that are found in these texts.

The word for “hid” is enkrypto in Greek, from which we get words such as encrypt, cryptography, and crypts. When Abraham calls for Sarah to make cakes, the Hebrew word used there is ugot. That in itself is uninteresting and no connection is found, but in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew, the word used for “cake” is enkrypsias, a cognate (i.e., derived from same root) of enkrypto. Why might the root “to hide” apply to a baked bread? It seems to be that it was because the dough was “hidden” in the ashes of the oven for it to bake.

The third connection is that of a woman and her involvement in the process of baking. Sarah is asked to bake cakes; the woman in the parable hides the yeast in the flour.

The connection between the two texts appears to be intentional. Therefore, we might do well to see how the two stories together might bring us new understandings from the parable. For these, I continue to borrow from Dr. Levine’s work on this parable.

The first connected interpretation suggested by Dr. Levine is that of pregnancy and the Messianic age. The story of Abraham is quite explicit in its statement of Sarah’s insemination by Abraham,[4] a subsequent pregnancy, and then the birth of a miraculous child. In ancient times (and perhaps even in fairly modern times) women’s bodies were seen as fields to be plowed and sowed, the women’s bodies, like the earth, providing nurturing and a place for growth. Back then as well as today there is also a phrase, “She’s got a bun in the oven,” conveying a similar analogy, but reducing the woman to merely an appliance.

Several Suggested Interpretations

The parable of the yeast is about a miraculous growing of something that is planted into it. The growth of the dough could be compared to a pregnancy. Second Esdras 4:39-40 and Romans 8:22 describe the end of the Present Age as a pregnancy coming to term.

Dr. Levine suggests, “Perhaps the parable tells us that, like dough that has been carefully prepared with sourdough starter or a child growing in the womb, the kingdom will come if we nurture it.”[5]

A second suggested interpretation is about the abundance of the kingdom. Perhaps the parable is telling us that when it comes to the kingdom, extravagance and generosity is the norm. Is the parable telling us that what might seem wasteful, is in fact, not? That sometimes our well-intentioned stewardship of resources might be getting in the way of the growth of the kingdom? Or is it an indirect reminder that as we pray, “Give us this day our daily bread,” some of us have way more than we need, while others really mean the prayer?

And a third suggested message from the parable is that the kingdom springs up and grows in the mundane, whenever and wherever peoples’ needs are being met. That through our everyday, ordinary lives, when we strive to do the best we can to be neighbors to our neighbors, the yeast of the gospel and God’s kingdom is being hidden where it will multiple and grow in its own time, to be revealed at the end of present history.

Conclusion: Reading Parables Well

Today’s gospel reading ended with the following words.

“Have you understood all this?” They answered, “Yes.” And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” (Matthew 13:51-52 NRSV)

My hope and prayers and desires for us, including myself, is that what I have offered this week and last, will be seeds and yeast that give us new spiritual eyes and minds as we read familiar parables. And in that way, we will be better equipped to be like the scribe of the kingdom of heaven that Jesus describes as the summary of his parables.

---

[1] Levine, Amy-Jill. Short Stories by Jesus, p. 124, 129. “The term ‘yeast,’ used metaphorically in the New Testament, has a negative connotation. Yet at least in the Gospels, it is particular leaven that is the problem… Yeast need not have a negative connotation, but it might have one.”

[2] Ibid., p. 132.

[3] Ibid., p. 133.

[4] Genesis 18:12. “After I have grown old, and my husband is old, shall I have pleasure?” Many English translations try to skirt around the quite obvious statement that Sarah is wondering if she will experience sexual pleasure again.

[5] Levine, p. 136.

Book Review: Short Stories by Jesus

Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi by Amy-Jill Levine
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Parables told by Jesus are meant to provoke. In this volume by Amy-Jill Levine, she seeks to reopen the readers' eyes to the provocation they contain.

Christian tradition has too often resorted to allegory (or worse) to read and interpret the parables. In that process the parables have been used to disparage and attack Judaism and Jews. They have been used to claim for Christianity purity and holiness that Judaism supposedly had lost and corrupted. They have been used to drive a wedge between Judaism and Christianity, to paint an us-vs-them picture of what following the God of the Bible means. Levine, writing as a Jew, brings a broad Jewish perspective and corrective to traditional Christian interpretations and suppositions.

On the other hand, perhaps modern Christians shouldn't be judged too harshly for perpetuating traditions. Levine writes that as early as the gospel writers recording the parables, and likely even earlier, the parables had already begun their "domestication" to try to tame their provocative natures and to support an exclusive Christian theology. What cannot be forgiven is that with the amount of scholarship and knowledge available to Christians today, that they continue to perpetuate traditions and interpretations that are questionable and may not have any basis in the original telling.

Levine goes through a selection of parables, one per chapter, first offering a translation of the text that adheres very literally to the Greek. She then addresses the traditional Christian interpretations, and offers critiques and counterpoints. She ends each chapter with a different, and based on her scholarship, what she would say is a more accurate reading and understanding of the parables.

The re-imagining and re-reading of the parables will definitely provoke thought, especially among those of us who grew up understanding the parables in another way, where parables were supposed to provide some kind of model answer to a problem or a picture of the kingdom of God. In Levine's interpretations, the parables are open-ended; they ask troubling questions, and the reader must come up with how to respond to them.

The final chapter is both a summary and an invitation for the reader to continue exploring the parables. She gives brief overviews of another handful of parables and suggests some directions that the reader might take in following the pattern she has provided in her book.

Don't read this book if you don't want your comfortable Christian hermeneutics disturbed. Read it if you are genuinely interested in discovering what the original hearers of the parables likely heard from Jesus.

View all my reviews

Another Look at the Upper Room—Part 2—Lucan Parable of the Serving Master

Before I explore John 13 in more detail, I'd like to take a look at a parable recorded in Luke 12:35-38. Why this parable? Because in it the master of the house is depicted serving his slaves/servants. This post is based on chapter 29 of Kenneth E. Bailey's Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, in which he discusses this parable.

 

[Luke 12:35] "Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, [36] and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. [37] Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. [38] If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! (ESV)

 

Without going into a large amount of detail, the literary structure supports ending the parable with verse 38. Luke 12:39-48 is a new unit. (For those so inclined, compare parables in Matthew chapters 24 and 25, and also see Dr. Bailey's discussion of corresponding text in Poet and Peasant dealing with the "Jerusalem Document" and parable boundaries, p. 80-81, 108-109).

 

From Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, Figure 29.1

1-a	Let your waist be girded	Servant (prepared)
b	And your lamps burning,	Servant (prepared)
2-a	And be like people who are expecting their master	Servant (alert)
b	when he withdraws from the wedding banquet,	Master (comes)
b'	so that when he comes and knocks,	Master (comes)
a'	Immediately they may open to him.	Servant (alert)
3-a	Blessed are those slaves	Slaves - blessed
b	who coming, the master finds awake.	Master - comes/finds
c	Amen, I say to you, he will gird himself	Master - serves
d	and cause them to recline [to eat],	"               "
c'	and come to them and serve them.	"               "
b'	If (in the second or third watch),     he comes and finds thus,	Master - comes/finds
a'	Blessed are those slaves.	Slaves - blessed

 

The choice of English words used to translate the passage and the phrase ordering become important so I have reproduced Dr. Bailey's translation in the table above.

 

The rhetorical style is important in identifying the main point of the parable. What we can see is that the parable consists of three stanzas. The first stanza sets the scene. The second stanza expands on the first by incorporating new material in the middle two lines. The third stanza repeats the motifs of the first two stanzas but expands the parable with an astonishing climax in its center.

 

A brief outline of the parable's rhetorical structure is as follows (from Bailey, c.f., third column of above table):

 

Stanza 1

Servants prepared

Servants prepared

Stanza 2

Servants alert

Master comes

Master comes

Servants alert

Stanza 3

Servants blessed

Master comes/finds

Master serves the servants

Master comes/finds

Servants blessed

 

Stanza One sets the initial scene. Girding one's waist with a belt indicates that the person is ready to work and/or travel. It tightens the loose-fitting robes around one's self so that it does not get in the way of strenuous activity. A directive to keep lamps burning places the scene in the evening, as darkness begins to fall.

 

Stanza Two adds more details. We learn why the servants are directed to be ready for activity. We also note two key translation differences between common English translations and the words Dr. Bailey has selected.

 

The first alternate translation is found in the first line of stanza two. The difference may appear trivial but it connotes a significant change in feeling. The ESV reads, "And be like men who are waiting for their master." Bailey translates this as, "And be like people who are expecting their master." Waiting conveys a passive feeling, something that is simply routine and ho-hum, a sense that the servants are sitting around looking at the clock. Expecting conveys a much more active feeling, a sense of great anticipation, and the servants are preparing for an imminent return.

 

The second alternate translation is found in the second line of stanza two. The ESV reads, "The master to come home from the wedding feast." Bailey translates this line as, "When he withdraws from the wedding banquet." The ESV translation conveys the image that the wedding feast is done and as a result the master is returning home. Bailey's translation (based on Syriac and Arabic texts) paints a picture where the wedding feast is still in progress and the master has temporarily and quietly taken leave of the feast to come to the servants. Bailey writes,

 

"I find this translation more authentic to the larger world of New Testament images into which this parable must be placed. This often-neglected option [to use "withdraw" rather than "come home"] brings added nuances to the story. If the master returns home after the party is over, then the reason for his return is obvious. The party is over -- of course he returns home. But if he withdraws from the party while it is in full swing, the reader wants to know why is he doing so?" (370)

 

We get to the third line in stanza two where the master comes and knocks. Bailey writes that in the Middle Eastern culture, only strangers knock on doors at night. Normally a person known to the house would vocally announce their presence. Those inside, upon hearing a familiar voice would open the door. They generally would not open the door to a stranger knocking.

 

Here again our images of the parable are challenged. We have typically interpreted the wedding feast occurring at some other location, separate from the master's house. But what is actually happening is that the wedding feast is taking place at the master's house. The master is knocking on an inside door. The servants are in a secure location. It is not a stranger on the outside coming unannounced. They can safely open the door. The master knocks (quietly) rather than announcing himself because he does not want to alert the other party-goers to his temporary withdrawal.

 

The third stanza reveals why the master has withdrawn from the feast to come to the servants, now identified as slaves (in the first two stanzas, the precise standing of the 'servants' are still unclear). So the master has come to the lowest of the low (according to the social standings of the time).

 

First it is said that the servants are blessed. The word 'blessed' is makarios (most famously in the Beatitudes), a state that is not in the future, but a condition that is already present. In other words these slaves are not blessed because they have kept awake, lamps burning, and opened the door. The slaves do these things because they are already in a state of makarios. They are expecting their master to come to them, even in the middle of the night, even while the wedding feast is going on in another part of the house.

 

The surprise and the main point of this parable is found in the center of this third stanza (3-cdc'). The servants/slaves are expecting to serve the master upon his return, but in a dramatic twist the master immediately girds up his robes in preparation for doing work -- lowly work such as scrubbing the floor. Bailey writes, "Only lower-class servants and slaves, belt their robes [in preparation for work]." (372)

 

The master commands the servants to recline at the table [triclenium]. They cannot refuse. The slave is no longer a slave. There is only one reason why they have been ordered to recline at the table. It is for a meal. But from where is the food to come? It is the duty of the slaves to prepare the food, but the master had been at the feast. The slaves had no reason to expect the need to prepare food.

 

We now discover the reason the master slipped away from the wedding feast. Amid the celebration he thought about his servants, allocated portions from the feast itself, and took these portions to them. He then proceeded to serve the servants. The master did not call upon another servant to take the food out, but he himself did all the work, even going so far as to do it quietly so as to not draw attention to himself. Such an action would be utterly inconceivable and against the entire culture of social hierarchy and honor.

 

Why did I choose to spend so much space discussing this Lucan parable? Because I believe it informs and provides details that can guide our interpretation of the Upper Room event of John 13.

 

In the Upper Room event Jesus girds himself just as in the parable. Jesus is making himself a slave, one lower than the lowest disciple. The astonishment of the disciples (exemplified by Peter's protest) at Jesus' action is understandable. Jesus does not order angels or other human beings to do his work, but comes to the disciples himself, just as the master did in the parable. The disciples are called blessed (makarios) in John 13:17, as were the servants in the parable. The Upper Room event is a taste of the wedding feast that is going on now. We are already blessed. Jesus' actions changes our standing. We are no longer slaves, but partners and friends of Jesus (John 15:15). We do not know precisely when Jesus will return, but we know that he will return. And so we wait, not sitting around and staring at the clock, but in expectant activity.

 

The gospel writers are different, but the parallels between the parable and the Upper Room event are far too many and related to be given over to mere coincidence. Jesus taking on the position of a slave in order to serve and elevate the standing of his disciples (even knowing the ones who would betray and deny him) appears to be the theme of the Upper Room story.