Matthew 22: 1 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. 4 "Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.' 5 "But they paid no attention and went off--one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.' 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless. 13 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen."
Again this Sunday we have another great parable.
As the narrative unfolds in Matthew's gospel, no time elapses between this parable and the previous one of the "wicked tenants." And, in many ways, this parable is teaching the same thing. Jesus is employing a common rabbinic strategy (still used by a lot of teachers today) of saying the SAME THINGS in different ways so as to ensure that everyone 'gets it.'
So, to unpack...
vss 2-3: In the story, the event of the wedding is not news. The ones invited to come had already *been invited* as the story unfolds. The 'king' could be anything from a regional client king of Rome (think Herod) to the local leading family. Regardless, if Jewish, of course the wedding feast will go on for 7 days... Not a problem, though, for those in the king's social circle, as they'd have the ability to wine & dine for 7 days.
vss 4-6: These are acts of treason. They're offending not only the king, but more importantly his entire line of succession. This is very similar to the wicked tenants thinking that they could become their own vineyard owners.
vs 7: Of course, given the dating/timing of the final version of Matthew's gospel--which no one knows & can only make educated guesses concerning--it's very easy to interpret vs 7 in the light of the Roman siege of Jerusalem, and its eventual destruction (burning) in 70AD. In other words, the words of Jesus in this parable take on a 'prophetic' tone for Matthew the evangelist as he includes those words here in his gospel.
vss 8-10: Within the parable itself, it is no longer the privileged class who are invited to the banquet.... now EVERYONE IS.... "the bad as well as the good." And at first, it appears that the ONLY criteria for being there is the INVITATION ITSELF. Until we get to the next group of verses:
vss 11-14: This is **THE problematic section of the parable. It sorta throws a monkey wrench in the whole thing. It **had been a story about the refusal of the Jewish leaders to acknowledge the King's Son (Jesus), and so they were abandoned for a group of people who *would acknowledge him--the "good and bad"....the mixed congregation of Jewish AND Gentile believers....or if you prefer, those who've tried to live morally decent lives AND those who haven't. But just when the King had exhibited SO MUCH GRACE by inviting any & all to come to his banquet, he shows a surprising sternness regarding the guy in the wrong clothes. WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT?
Cultural commentators tell us that what constituted "wedding clothes" in this environment--especially among the lower classes--was that the garments be CLEAN. Some have tried to say that the King in the story would've PROVIDED clean garments to all of these lower class guests invited at the second go-around. Maybe. But it doesn't say that that's what happened in the parable. So it's speculation. All we can really know for sure is that within the story an invited guest attempts to stand before the king clothed in the wrong clothing.
From an application perspective, it appears to me that this is a complex parable being used to teach several things:
--Definitely it is teaching something similar to the parable of the wicked tenants. Refusal to acknowledge "The Son" leads to their destruction and a calling out to others.
--It is also teaching the universality of GRACE & THE GOSPEL. All are called....the good and the bad.
--But lest we misunderstand, the final twist in the story is added. Grace & the Gospel are universal, but God is not a universalist. The "wedding clothes" of the parable has been interpreted variously as the good works of the Christian life, the faith that accepts the Gospel's invitation, the garment of baptism, etc. etc. The garment of baptism may work best, given the early church's practice of robbing baptismal candidates in a new white garment signifying the righteousness of Christ. The final point of the parable, then, is that ALL are called...the good & bad alike..... but all are called to put on this new garment for the wedding feast--and it is only in being SO CLOTHED that one dare stand before the King. For such ones, the King is the gracious host; but to attempt to stand before him in your old garments, your old righteousness (which is as filthy rags according to St. Paul in Romans), means encountering the king as wrathful judge--not unlike how the 1st group of rebels experienced him.
Cheers,
TM
No comments:
Post a Comment