I’ve written an entry over at the eBay atheist site on how the figure of Jesus used stories in his lessons.  I thought it would be interesting for Christians to know how an atheist like me views the parables.

I’m picking one at random from the 33 listed on the wikipedia page, the Parables of Jesus, to give my interpretation.  I’m taking the Parable of the Guests because it’s both straightforward and short. :) 

Luke 14:7-15 (New King James Version)

7 So He told a parable to those who were invited, when He noted how they chose the best places, saying to them:

8 “When you are invited by anyone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in the best place, lest one more honorable than you be invited by him;

9 and he who invited you and him come and say to you, ‘Give place to this man,’ and then you begin with shame to take the lowest place.

10 But when you are invited, go and sit down in the lowest place, so that when he who invited you comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, go up higher.’ Then you will have glory in the presence of those who sit at the table with you.

11 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

12 Then He also said to him who invited Him, “When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. 13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind.

14 And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

15 Now when one of those who sat at the table with Him heard these things, he said to Him, “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!”

I’m not overly familiar with the bible so the context is lost on me without doing some more reading.  Essentially he’s been invited to have dinner with lawyers and Pharisees at the home of one of the rulers of the Pharisees.  These are some pretty important figures politically and religiously.  I imagine that they are responsible for interpreting both secular laws and religious laws.  With that kind of power you don’t really want to make an enemy of them.

Yet the first thing he does is call them out on their pride and greed for status.  They’ve sat in the best seats to be seen as great and powerful among their peers.  You could argue that this is their right and that they deserve to be honoured but Jesus says not.  He says that there is someone who is greater than they are and that by taking the high seat they risk being set aside (made low) in the eyes of those who are lesser than they are in society.

He offers advice to take the humblest seat so that those around you will appreciate your modesty and raise you up to a place that you deserve.  The host has this responsibility and the right to answer vanity with the humiliation of being asked to give up a high seat for another.  Jesus is saying that taking a lower place voids this risk, that modesty and humility will raise you up in the eyes of the host and your peers.

A modern parallel is the practice aboard ship for a captain to invite guests to sup at his table.  Nobody has a place at the captain’s table but the captain and being invited to share it is a high honour.

This is really about waiting for recognition rather than taking it where is might not be deserved.  A good idea in general I think you’ll agree but very safe.  I say safe because the risk of taking a higher place might pay off and you might get recognised as someone more deserving than you are.  There’s a short term benefit to this that is likely to backfire and won’t pay off in the long run.  I maintain that it’s good advice to be humble until your position is established.

Then the parable says that when giving a feast the host should invite the needy.  This speaks to motive.  If you’re inviting people to eat with you only to gain invitations and social recognition then you need to reassess your priorities.  An invitation should be free from obligation.  I think that’s why those with nothing to offer are listed because they have nothing to return and cannot be held to any obligation.  I also think that it is secondary that charity should be offered here.  Charity and compassion for those in need are important but I don’t see this parable as highlighting that.  It’s more about obligation and honour and pride and humility.

That’s my atheist take on it anyway.  I found it to be an enjoyable exercise.  What’s your take on this particular parable?

Popularity: 6% [?]