Dear Friends
Matthew continues to narrate Jesus’ parables and this week reading is chapter 22: 1-14. The first part of the parable describes a king who plans to throw a wedding banquet for his son but none of the invited guests have any intention of attending, even after multiple invitations. Indeed, they are so intent on avoiding the wedding banquet that they actually mistreat and kill some of the king’s servants. Enraged, the king sends his army to destroy his own rebellious people and then invites anyone and everyone to the banquet.
Subjects not interested in attending a royal wedding? Odd. Subjects so determined not to attend they maltreat and murder the king’s messengers? Odder still. A king so upset that he sends the army to destroy his own people? Even more odd, bordering on unimaginable. And then inviting everyone good and bad to the wedding in the place of the vanquished subjects after this strange turn of events? Absolutely beyond belief.
So what do we make of this peculiar tale? As we’ve seen before, sometimes it helps to compare material that appears in more than one Gospel to get a sense of each author’s particular interest and intent. In this case, a story much like this one appears in Luke (14:1524), but noticeably absent of all the violence. In Luke’s version, someone not a king simply threw a great banquet and when guests made excuses the host invited all kinds of people, and especially people not normally invited to banquets the poor, the lame, the crippled, and the blind. This fits in well with Luke’s particular concern for the poor and all those who are disadvantaged and aligns with his theological commitment to God’s eagerness to welcome all people into the kingdom, compare the parable of the prodigal son, for instance.
Matthew, however, is likely caught up in a fierce conflict with local Jewish religious authorities, and is therefore adapting Jesus’ parable to explain why and how his opponents really missed out. In fact, the reference to the king vanquishing his people and burning the city may reflect Matthew’s conviction that the destruction of Jerusalem which happened in 70 AD, probably 10 years or so before Matthew wrote was God’s punishment for the rejection of Jesus by the religious authorities.
This is difficult stuff, make no mistake. And we may want to wonder about, if not call into question, some of the interpretative conclusions Matthew reaches. That’s all right. Matthew, and the larger Bible, can handle our questions. Goodness, but in the Psalms you have the biblical writers themselves calling God’s activity to account and into question all the time!
And yet even after this peculiar story, there’s still this last remaining delicacy of the parable, perhaps the oddest part of all. In short, what is with the king and the guy who didn’t have a wedding robe? Truth be told, I have no idea. None. I’ve heard some people suggest that the wedding garment might have represented baptism, and that this was a warning to those in Matthew’ community who were not baptized, or didn’t hold the same view of Baptism, or had some other theological difference with Matthew. But, truth be told, we really don’t know. And that’s okay, too. Faith isn’t understanding everything, not even accepting everything. Faith is hanging on, trusting in God’s love, even when you don’t always understand or agree.
Solomzi