Reflective Bible Study

Of all the different characters included in our passage/parable, let’s turn our attention to the original invitees; those who were first invited but who blew off their invitation.

The one thing that really stands out in my mind about this group is that these people are who we could call “convenience friends” – friends who are only friends when it is convenient for them. They seem to be friendly with the man who was hosting the banquet occasionally, but the friendship was pretty low on their priorities. They seem to have placed other tasks ahead of attending.

However, what happens if we turn this around onto us. How “convenience friend-like” are we being with God/Jesus? Are we only interested in doing our own thing, but then at the moment we need help, we are praying and asking for assistance? Or are we willing to put the tasks aside to enjoy the friendship?

While the spontaneous invitees only have to accept the invitation to be included, these “convenience friends” seem to have to reject the invitation to be excluded. The way they exclude themselves is that they have placed other priorities ahead of God. In the three excuses, we see three categories that often can take precedence over our relationship with God.

In our lives, do we let our material possessions come first? Like the man who wanted to go check out a piece of land (that he already bought), are we constantly needing to check out our balance sheet like it is a score-card for our success? This man gives up a relationship with God for some stuff. Is this a path we really want to head down?

However, what if we let our career come first? Like the man who needed to test out his new oxen, do we place our focus on how much we can accomplish, or how much status we can acquire with what we do? This man gives up a relationship with God for a bigger paycheck. Is this a path we really want to head down?

The last original invitee is a little trickier, because what if we place our family and spouse ahead of God? Like the person who simply didn’t want to come because he just got married, are we more interested in spending time with our spouse than spending time with God? Are we really thinking that these two relationships have to be in conflict? Is there any logical reason that the host who invited this person wouldn’t have also extended the invitation to his new wife? This man gives up a relationship with God for a relationship with a person – someone who he could have easily had a relationship with as well. Is following this man’s example a path we really want to head down?

I hope your answer is “No” to each of these three paths. Instead I hope that you choose to place having a relationship with God as the highest priority in your life. The myth that we can easily fall into is that having a relationship with God doesn’t allow for these other successes. Instead, God is interested in being first in our lives, and helping us be the best we can be in these other areas.

During the days that followed Jesus’ birth, we are introduced to a man named Simeon, who met Joseph, Mary, and Jesus while they were visiting the temple in Jerusalem. Simeon was brought there because he obeyed the Holy Spirit’s leading, and something that Simeon says about Jesus always amazes me when I read it.

In Simeon’s thanks and praise to God, he says this statement about Jesus: “With my own eyes I have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples: A light to reveal your will to the Gentiles and bring glory to your people Israel.” (v. 30-32)

Simeon recognizes Jesus’ mission before almost anyone else had. He acknowledges that Jesus would be a light to the Gentiles in addition to bringing glory to Israel. The general consensus at that time was that the Messiah would come to save the people of Israel from Rome, and that God’s Chosen One would exclusively focus on God’s people (i.e. the people of Israel).

But Simeon sees the bigger picture, and He also understands a broader role for the Messiah. The only way He really could know this is through the Holy Spirit, and from how Simeon is introduced in this passage, it is very likely that these words were spoken about Jesus through the Holy Spirit’s inspiration.

Simeon also has some challenging words as well – specifically for Mary, Jesus’ mother: “This child is chosen by God for the destruction and the salvation of many in Israel. He will be a sign from God which many people will speak against and so reveal their secret thoughts. And sorrow, like a sharp sword, will break your own heart.” (v. 34-35)

The life Simeon predicted for Jesus was not one where everybody loves Him. Simeon warns Mary that many people will speak against Jesus, and that how they treat Jesus will reveal their thoughts and feelings towards God.

It is the same with us living 2,000 years later. The easiest way to learn the spiritual temperature of someone’s heart is by simply bringing Jesus into a conversation. In this way, Jesus continues to be a sign from God that reveals the thoughts of those who have taken a stand against God.

Following Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, John shifts the focus onto the messengers who take this news to the Pharisees and chief priests. While Lazarus was not the first dead individual that Jesus brought back to life, perhaps this miracle was more notable because Lazarus had already been buried.

John brings us into this council meeting and describes how the leaders present their problem. John tells us, “The Pharisees and the chief priests met with the Council and said, ‘What shall we do? Look at all the miracles this man is performing! If we let him go on in this way, everyone will believe in him, and the Roman authorities will take action and destroy our Temple and our nation!’” (47-48)

The way the leaders presented their case is in some ways logical, but it is also very one-sided. If we look at the conclusion they draw, it is like presenting the worst-case scenario as the only option. In their presentation of the problem Jesus is causing, they make Jesus out to be a military threat to Rome when there is almost no evidence to support their theory of this – except for their own prophecies about a Messiah.

Centuries of Jewish tradition pointed to the Messiah coming and overthrowing whatever power was occupying their nation and setting them up as a kingdom that would never end. This angle of interpretation did make Jesus a military threat – even if nothing in His ministry demonstrated this.

But their logic may be flawed.

While the Christian movement eventually did overcome the Roman Empire, it didn’t do so through any type of military activity. Instead, it may be better to say that Christianity outlasted Rome as an empire because what the empire was built on was destined to crumble.

But what if their logic was not flawed?

Maybe if too large a group began rallying around Jesus, Rome would perceive it as a threat. Perhaps the threat wouldn’t be from Jesus Himself, but instead from His followers who believed in the Messiah being a military leader.

However, if this were the case, the Jewish system wouldn’t be guaranteed to be a target as well. All the leaders would need to do is request help from the Romans, and then they would clearly demonstrate whose side they were on.

When looking closer at how the leaders present their argument, we can see that they orchestrated the scenario to only show one side – which was the side saying Jesus should die. There is no guarantee that what they describe would have ultimately happened if they didn’t get their way, but fear drove their actions.

In our own lives, if we let fear drive us, our decisions and actions will be one-sided – driven by only looking at the worst-case scenario. When fear drives us, we are more likely to make poor decisions and make mistakes. However, even in with our mistakes, Jesus is able to reach down and help us make the best of the situation we find ourselves in.