This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, most recently on August 28, 2022.
Summary:
At first glance, this passage seems practical moral advice with a heavenly reward. Jesus' use of δοξα (doxa) and δοξη (doxe) suggest something deeper is going on. δοξη is a fairly uncommon word meaning "banquet." In fact, in the OT, the people who throw such banquets are normally Persian kings! Also unusual is the word δοξα, or glory. Although it is a fairly common word, here it is translated unusually as "honor." This is possible, but really stretches it. The word is not really a word one would associate with mortals. In fact, the last time we heard the word in Luke's Gospel was when the angels announced Jesus birth. These two words, in other words, are fairly out of place for a typical meal. Which suggests that what is at the stake (and not steak) is hardly a common meal, but the feast of the humbled yet exalted one! He is the one to whom glory will be given.
Key Words:
δοξα (14.10; "honor"): Normally we think of δοξα as glory (Think OT and the "glory of the Lord"). Here, however, it is translated as honor...well, maybe. Luke only uses this word three other times. When Jesus is born and the angels sing (2.9 and 14) and when the people cry out during Jesus' entry in to Jerusalem. The context permits translating δοξα as "esteemed." However, it has such divine implications that it points us back to Christ, to the one to whom glory is given.
δοξη (14.13; "meal"): This word is very rare in the New Testament; only used twice. The other time it is in Luke when Levi, the tax-collector, invites Jesus to his house. When this word is used in the OT, it normally refers to banquets put on by Persian kings. In other words, this is a big, rich party that few can actually host.
If you put these words together, you get a very surprising twist at the end of the story: Who is invited to this feast of glory? Jesus commends us to invite those on the outside. Jesus here is introducing table fellowship to the unthinkable.
Other words worth pondering:
ταπεινοω (14.11; "humble"): This word is often paired with exalts (υψοω). In Philippians 2 and Hebrews 12, we are reminded that Jesus humbles himself that he might be exalted.
μακαριος (14.14; "blessed"): This is the word Luke (and Matthew) use for the beatitudes, "Blessed are..."
καλεω (14.7; used 7 times in this passage!; "invite") This word is used virtually very sentence. It means invite and call. If we think about this parable as a reference to God, then we get a new name for God in vs 10: The one who has invited or called you. God as one who calls!
αισχυνη (14.9; "disgrace" or "shame"): One would expect to find this word quite frequently in the NT, especially given the 'fuss' about honor/shame societies. While this word appears quite frequently in the OT, it is rather rare in the NT. This might be an avenue for more reflection. Is Jesus neglecting this dynamic in his society? Is it so much a part of the world that the writers do not need to mention it? In this case, Jesus seems to be appealing to people's sense of honor and shame, telling them that seeking honor is itself shameful.
Aside: One of the places "shame" (αισχυνη) is used in the NT is Philippians 3:19 -- "their glory is their shame." Classic line.
Sentence deconstructed:
και εγενετο εν τη ελθειν αυτον εις οικον τινος των αρχοντων των φαρισαων σαββατω φαγειν αρτον και αυτοι ησαν παρατηρουμενοι αυτον
14.1 On one occasion when Jesus was going to the house of a leader of the Pharisees to eat a meal on the Sabbath, they were watching him closely.
και εγενετο : This is a typical way to begin a sentence. It simply means: "And it happened." It is unnecessary.
εν τη ελθειν αυτον : Technically this is an "articular infinitive with preposition." This means a couple of things. It combines a preposition (in) with an article (the) with an infinitive (coming). Literally: "In the coming." You have to translate the preposition as an adverb: "While he comes..." The problem with an infinitive is that it is, well, infinite. This means it is un-conjugated. You don't know who is doing the action. So, to indicate this, they stick the subject of an infinitive clause in the accusative. In this case, auton, or he.
εις οικον τινος των αρχοντων των φαρισαων: "into the house" is fairly straight forward. The rest is a genitive where we just put in a lot of "ofs": 'of one of the leaders of the pharisees.' Worth contemplating that the Pharisees had leaders. Those seeking holiness found a way to hierarchy very quickly...
σαββατω : The sabbath here is in the dative; here this is a dative revealing when something happens, ie, "on the sabbath." So you can combine this with the earlier infinitive (we are still in the infinitive phrase here): "When Jesus went on the sabbath into the house of one...pharisees...
φαγειν αρτον: Here we have another infinitive, which completes the other verb, "went" as in, "he went to eat." Oddly enough, the object of this infinitive phrase is also in the accusative, "arton" or bread. In an infinitive phrase, both subject and object can be in the accusative!
και αυτοι ησαν παρατηρουμενοι αυτον: Let's take care of the "autoi"s here. The first is plural, they; the second is mas. sing, him. 95% of "auto"s are not going to be translated as "self" or "very" but are simply pronouns.
ησαν παρατηρουμενοι: A really complex way of making a verb in the imperfect -- put an imperfect for of "to be" with a perfect tense participle. Used quite frequently with middle/passive verbs. But simple to translated: "were watching."
Would you please leave some commentary on ἀνταποδίδωμι which we translate as "to repay."
ReplyDeleteGratefully,
Pastor Mark W. Fischer
First Lutheran Church, Portage, PA
Mark,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the question. The word means "repay." It is not too common in the New Testament, but when used, it is used conjunction with God's repayment, even God doling out judgment and punishment.
In short, this passage linguistically does not support justification by grace in the traditional Lutheran sense. I guess the question for me is -- does justification by grace mean that our choices in life have no eternal consequences? It seems in Luke's Gospel the way we treat the marginalized does come back to haunt us. I think rather than ignore this data, we need to find a way to understand how this stands along side (perhaps in nearly eternal dialectical tension?) with justification by grace.