'Places' Draft One in progress...

Though it is best known as "The Places at the Table," Luke 14:7-11 is cited in the Bible as "Conduct of Invited Guests and Hosts;" it does just that: the parable explains Jesus' stance on appropriate behavior of banquet guests in first century Palestine. It addresses more than simply table ranking in relation to social status in Jesus' time, as its reputation states, and its message also surpasses the common interpretation of practicing humility. The parable discusses what it means to be a socially esteemed philosophical character and encourages all members of the social pyramid to justly challenge hierarchical standards within contemplation and knowledge.

(Summary paragraph and key points)

Luke 14 opens with a near introduction paragraph called "Healing of the Man with Dropsy on the Sabbath," placing Jesus on the sabbath at the home of a Pharisee whose guests, save for Jesus, are scholars of law. Before them lay a man ill with dropsy; Jesus turns to his host and fellow guests and poses the question, is it lawful to cure on the sabbath or not? His question is not answered and he quickly heals the man and excuses him. Jesus asks a following question: Who among you, if your son or ox falls into a cistern, would not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day? The Pharisees did not respond. Luke then goes on to expose Jesus' telling of the parable to these men, immediately voicing the setting of a banquet, opening an automatic philosophical mindset in the audience by its time's intended language. The prefacing scene also states that the people in the room, all of them, are "observing him carefully" which is implying that, since they had Jesus present for ethical profession, they want to learn from the intelligent revolutionary.

One's knowledge of well known, implied and unfamiliar social standards of 1st century Palestine and table fellowship are important in the understanding of The Places at the Table and its relevance and implication of philosophical significance at banquets. Easy conclusions may be that the highest esteemed of society sit at the head of the table where as the lower of the invited (yet banquets were held very high and therefore on the whole, only the esteemed were invited) would be placed at the lower end of the table. This would then mean that when the man in Jesus' parable sat at the top of the table, he immediately esteemed himself, which is true but is a vague and uninformed response to the parable. Table ranking and meaning in Jesus' time covers much more than one's place at the table regarding simply class. Anthropologists developed a word, commensality, which is rooted from the word mensa which is Latin for table; "[it] means the rules of tabling and eating as miniature models for the rules of association and socialization" (Crossan). Essentially Jesus preached what Crossan calls "Open Commensality" however in Luke 14:7-11, Jesus simply discusses not only the philosophy behind, but the philosophy entailed in, table fellowship in 1st century Palestine. Early philosophical tradition, which Jesus fully practiced, mentions a teaching through a motif called "table talk," which Jesus is doing while telling the parable. "Table talk" occurs during a meal when all agree on one topic to discuss and piece apart, participating actively in what Smith calls "elevated conversation." More so, the idealistic philosophical society articulated by Hellenistic Jewish writer Philo is conjured with banquets where all opinions are confronted or circulated among all guests with knowledge and "contemplation of verities of nature" (Philo). Both the concept of "table talk" and Philo's ideal Jewish philosophical society are indicative of an earnest social ranking based on intelligent conversation, which couples, yet is not, class. Jesus had, by this time, accomplished to climb a social ladder with his strong abilities to utilize thought in place of power or rank, as he is plainly encouraging the man in the parable to do by starting at the bottom of the table (and earning intellectual respect, then rank).

ahh boogers

I. Though it is best known as "The Places at the Table," Luke 14:7-11 is cited in the Bible as "Conduct of Invited Guests and Hosts;" it does just that: the parable explains Jesus' stance on appropriate behavior of banquet guests in first century Palestine. It addresses more than simply table ranking in relation to social status in Jesus' time, as its reputation states, and its message also surpasses the common interpretation of practicing humility. The parable discusses what it means to be a socially esteemed philosophical character and encourages all members of the social pyramid to justly challenge hierarchical standards within contemplation and knowledge.

II. A. Jesus' questions: Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath or not; Who among you [Pharisees], if your son or ox falls into a cistern, would not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day? The Pharisees did not respond. The Bible mentions before these questions are asked that Jesus is at a banquet hosted by the Pharisees, opening a philosophical mindset in the reader by its time's intensive language. The prefacing scene also states that the people in the room, all of them, are "observing him carefully" which is implying that, since they had Jesus present for ethical profession, they want to learn from the intelligent revolutionary.
B. Social standards of 1st century Palestine and table fellowship:
1. Jesus teaches through "table talk": philosophical tradition, all agree on one topic to discuss and piece apart ("elevated conversation").
2. Jewish philosophical society: banquets where opinions are confronted/circulated, knowledge, and "contemplation of verities of nature." (Philo)
3. Head of table to bottom of table: social ranking.
C. Embarrassment v. esteem in 1st century Palestine: personally embarrassed, blow to knowledge mojo v. being socially esteemed as a philosopher and problem solver as Jesus was.
D. Ending of parable: "For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

III. Philosophical discussion was the language of hierarchy in Jesus' time, so one might use knowledge and discussion as a means for moving through and altering the social customs and standards, ascending up the metaphorical table ranking with ethical wisdom and a true understanding for conduct.

DP #17: Thesis 1st Draft

Though it is called "The Places at the Table," Luke 14:7-11 addresses more than simply table ranking in relation to social status in 1st century Palestine. Jesus teaches a fellow working class stranger to not sit at the head of the table at a wedding, rather to sit at the bottom and wait to be asked to move up. When the man does so, Jesus also solicits him to invite not the wealthy elite to such gatherings but the outcasts, sick and poor. He preaches a plain lesson of humility and courtesy through which he asks his community to create the Kingdom of God with a just rebellion against hierarchical standards as opposed to an inappropriate contradiction to social customs.

DP #16: A Reading of the Parables of Jesus

Etchells' main point in A Reading of the Parables of Jesus is that Jesus himself has to challenge what is expected of humans in order to make a point about status and hospitality. She points out that Jesus himself is a peasant (within working class with a carpenter father, Joseph) who rises above what is expected of his class in order to teach and make things right. He preaches hospitality by challenging the social order before guesses who "were watching him closely" and who were placed above him in status. Etchell is poignant in explaining that Jesus uses controversial tactics such as those mentioned in order to overcome wrongly controversial social happenings.

DP #15: Hearing the Parables of Jesus

Author Perkins shortly addresses Places at the Table in his book, Hearing the Parables of Jesus. He says that the parable is one of many which plays on "awkward situations of social etiquette with benign humor," declaring that such parables have the reader really consider what is going on in such situations and and themselves which elements of it is the most important (think: social norms v. challenging societal standards). Perkins also says that holding oneself to these standards may take away our attention to real issues such as social justice and fellowship with others in the "Christian community." He sums it up by saying that our superficial concerns of social/societal ranking are no concern of God's, which is Jesus' message through the parable.

DP #14: The Gospel Parables

The Gospel Parables by Armstrong addresses The Places at the Table in relation to "Humility and Courtesy" by discussing first the ancient feast etiquette of Jesus' time and relating it to what Jesus said in the parable. Armstrong communicates to his reader that the parable dictates humility by choosing a lower seat at the table and waiting to be moved up and courtesy by inviting not the high end of society but the people who need blessing, the outcasts: this is Jesus' message. The author also says that the parable is telling us that humility is essentially the soul of courtesy and politeness, the core of a true human being. There are many ways for the parable to be interpreted and The Gospel Parables addresses that which is most common of the interpretations and explains it with more examples within the Bible and the history of Jesus' time to help the reader better understand how important humility and courtesy were (and, as Jesus communicates, still are) in a righteous lifestyle.

DP #13: Perception in Truth

I would love to say that it is possible I would spare my only loaf of fresh bread to an expecting neighbor or even that I would get up in the middle of the night to welcome, by dutiful obligation, my visitor and that I see my same behavior reflected in the beautiful essence of the 21st Century, but I would be lying a great deal. We are told now that it is wrong, even dangerous, to put ourselves before others and that practicing dominating egalitarianism can prove detrimental to our family's well-being; this is true, yet what we don't see or allow ourselves to see is that it lacks to present 'the whole picture.' Capitalism strikes, as it has quite successfully in this time and place, and down goes the selfless cycle, down goes any possible communalism or hospitality, down goes any chance of an existing population on smiles and what seems right (but it's wrong). It is a hopeless outlook on this world, seeing nothing but a collection of money-orientated beings tracing a maze of personal success, yet it is a truly unrealistic existence to trek the earth with hope that more than one amazing neighbor might spare some bread and thus turn the world around; hopeful honesty in one's perception of what is before them seems to be the message of the parable and respectively the most healthy eyes through which to see the world.

DP #12: I almost forgot... I was watching HELP!

Systems are set up to fail those on the bottom of the pyramid since all systems are driven by power, which lay in the hands of those in considerably handsome financial states. The King in the parable decided to proclaim his power by calling attention to his economics thus driving those below him into the ground because his power (and money) came first. FEMA, in response to Katrina, first saved those with money because they reflect directly the power of the nation (consider taxes) and the economy of the city (consider the alternate damsel). Since power is directly connected to money, it is utterly conceivable that all systems are indirectly designed to work from the top-down.

DP #11: I've finally discovered a use for those Bibles hotel rooms!

It was difficult for the servant to understand that his master was even setting an example because when the master represents God, the servant's actions are executed as a common human's would be. The parable Jesus uses here is another metaphor for the Kingdom of God, explaining God's forgiving nature in spite of the careless closed mindedness humans perform; the example here being both the first servant and Peter's willingness to forgive his brother only seven times. Jesus' point is that humans don't fully comprehend that God has set and is always setting examples for us to follow: ones so basic, like love and forgiveness, that occur without our even knowing it. It should be expected that the first servant condemn his fellow servant when the parable is set up with such a narrow (and, in Jesus' eyes, common) human mind in need of consciousness of God's example in order to be fully compassionate.

DP #10: Israel vs. Palestine

Jesus would resolve the problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians by equally splitting up the land and allowing cross-travel under particular circumstances only, to prevent conflict. The Parable of the Tenants might help explain this reasoning because Jesus would expect the Palestinians, like the tenants, to go after what was taken from them and to stand up for themselves, protecting their rights. The Parable of the Good Samaritan also explains the solution by proclaiming through Jesus' teaching that everyone, those who were let down and those who did the letting down, deserves a helping hand (thus leaving both the Israelis and the Palestinians with equal land). Such a solution is simple enough to work and exhibits timeless lessons taught in the parables, displaying its potential to be a lasting resolution.

DP #9: This is a for shit answer. Sorry!

Jesus is telling God, or the Householder (the cornerstone of the parable), that his power and Kingdom will be reassigned. The Householder's Son is seen as Jesus who stands before the Jewish people, priests, elders, and scribes who used their power to accept him for their own benefit; they are represented by the tenants. Jesus was crucified by these people who had been fully trusted to perform faith and respect to God as the son in the parable was and thus God's authority was taken from the hands of the Jewish people and placed before the Christians. The parable foresees this and serves as a warning to God (and to Jesus' people) that lack of respect and extreme violence is to come.

DP #8: And The Protagonist Is...

Mark twelve's Parable of the Tenants exhibits a protagonist who trusts that people will do the right thing and execute just behavior: the landowner embodies Jesus' message. As the character whose needs begin and end the story, the landowner seeks justice for the greed of the tenants and due to his power (and the power of the cheering audience), he rightfully gets it. Not only is the message of self-proclaimed justice provoked by the man, honesty and faith is shown when he rents land in his name out. Jesus' message, that faith isn't all and won't occur without a struggle, is displayed by the good guy, the landowner, and this makes him the protagonist.

DP #7: Mustard Seeds are EVIL!!!! :)

Jesus' comparison of the mustard seed to the Kingdom of God explains that though being a part of God's empire is more difficult than living absent from it, it's impossible to escape. To farmers, the mustard seed is a major threat, an extreme challenge they must face or overcome resulting of riches or lack there of; the Kingdom of God is a moral challenge whose battle is seemingly easy to win. Jesus was trying to communicate to the farmers that the power of the Kingdom of God takes over contagiously as the seeds do to their crops. Considering the fact that a metaphor is not meant to explain the whole part of a notion but explain in depth a specific part of it, Jesus' comparison is meant to describe the power and wealth of the Kingdom of God to the farmers in a language they might better understand.

DP #6: Blind Eye on Poverty

Clearly many arguments can be made as to why there is extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa but one which holds much truth is that of government corruption. The lack of leadership and fundamental responsibility in all deficient countries is an issue but is especially in Africa: it propelled conflict in the Niger Delta because officials turned their backs when the leaders of the Delta armed their criminal gangs and thus were able to sway the 2003 elections a great deal and is the cause of daily rapes and murders in the Congo. The United States' not-so-wonderful leadership is also becoming an enabler by being co-dependant to corrupt African governments and not rightfully participating in global efforts to change the current statistics. It might not be presumptuous to say that with new leadership, less than 1.5 billion people would be living on $1 a day; however the Levite and Priest never stopped so who is to say the crooked leaders ever will?

DP #5: American Priest, Global Samaritan

As the parable indirectly dictates by choosing a Priest and Levite to ignore the dying naked man and a Samaritan to give him aid, the list of first world countries giving global donations explains more about the U.S. in relation to the other countries than it directly tells. When looked at in depth, at least the first five countries (Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark) on the list of twenty-two do not have, or are trying to reduce, a separation of church and state, boosting monotheistic (and dominately Bible-reading) religions. Also, the United States is the only country on the chart that does not practice socialized/universal healthcare, the only country able to see but not actually see. The U.S. places so low on the list because with a lack of practicing religions (or simply money-minded ones) and a health care program which demonstrates a "tribal ethic," our culture speaks to us: the homeless man is only sleeping; we fail to see human as human or to live with the lesson The Good Samaritan taught, "to be human is to respond to the sufferings of others with compassion."

DP #3: Jesus's Mission Through Matthew 1:1-18

Matthew's account of Jesus's genealogy proclaims that Jesus came from a group of women who got what they wanted by demanding it. Specifically naming Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba, the genealogy shows that it's not the specific blood relation that matters but the association with incredibly strong and sophisticated actions which makes these women important references in anticipating Jesus's teaching. Like Jesus, all women were outsiders who utilized their smarts to change their social status; they manipulated their situations with original actions and used self-directed activity to demand justice as opposed to expecting it from God. Considering the given traits and strategy to stating a specific genealogy, Martin Luther King, Jr. could be known as Jesus's daddy; John Lennon might be his daddy's daddy and we could call Mother Theresa his daddy's daddy's momma: his mission could be expected similarly.

DP #1: Common Story About Me

The selecting process was a difficult one. When I was four, I decided to be Aladdin for Halloween. Impressionible little girl, probably wearing a hand-me-down Teenage Mutent Ninja Turtles shirt upon making the announcement, wanted to be a boy for the dress-up holiday. My mom asked me if I was sure I didn't want to be Jasmine but I stood my ground and went with her to the Toys-R-Us to buy it. I was Aladdin, I had an Abu. In fact, I adored the costume so much that I chose to wear it to my brother's elementary Halloween performance, sat in the front with the rest of the small children, and most likely smiled bravely. I was sandwiched by boys who thought it was wrong for me, a girl, to be wearing a cape and pants. Of course it was probably mostly rooted in the fact that I had cooties. They stole my Abu and tossed it "monkey"-style over my head. I hated it, at seventeen still have a mental image impounded in my head of the brown vested monkey flying above me, yet I have no regrets.

There is most definitely a reason for the telling of this story. Not only does it perfectly describe my spunk and fearlessness but it teaches a lesson that is, I believe, held at high rank in my family: the 'you' you choose to be is a glorious one. Don't second-guess, be true. And that's what I, Aladdin, have done and will continue to do. Seriously. Ask Abu.

DP #2: Why Humans Tell Stories

Stories are told to trigger emotions and teach the outcome of specific instances. Considering the example of the most common and historical story form, fables (or parables in this case), simple occurrences are shared and passed on to teach a lesson or theme. These stories are effective because they capture their audience, as all good stories do, by heightening their emotions with plot twists or common feelings. As our forms of story telling continue to evolve from etched sentences and pictures to 3-D cinemas, the experience of receiving the sentiments and messages become more affective and real.