NL 133: The Wedding Banquet

image: “The Marriage Feast” by John Everett Millais  (1829–1896) (Wikimedia)

Matthew 22:1-14

Initial Thoughts

  • Not an Anti-Jewish Text! Though this text has been misused to promote anti-Jewish sentiments. Counter them vocally! This text is as much about the condemnation or salvation of Christians as it is about Jews/Israel.

    • “This third parable… rehearses the elite’s rejection and outlines their judgment. The repetition underlines the gravity of the elite’s response, accounts for the fall of Jerusalem in 70 as an act of God’s judgment carried out (unwittingly) by Rome, confirms the ongoing place of both Israel and disciples within salvation history, and impresses on the audience as the new tenants charged with mission to Israel the need for fruitfulness and faithfulness in carrying out their mission, especially among the poor.” (Warren Carter, Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading, p. 432)

  • “Let’s just admit it: this is an ugly parable. No amount of generalizing about God’s hospitality or vulnerability or invitation is going to do away with that. In fact, I think that straying into generalities is a huge mistake, as it glosses over the serious nature and inherent danger in passages like this. So I would urge you either to preach this parable in its distinct and unattractive particularity or to choose one of the other three far more attractive and certainly more edifying passages appointed for this day.” (David Lose, In the Meantime)

Bible Study

  • Literary Context- three parables - there is a natural progression (use of “again” in v.1 bind this parable to the preceding ones)

    • 21:28-32 - Two Sons- focus on John the Baptist

    • 21:33-46 - The Landowner’s Vineyard - Focus on Jesus (the son who was killed)

    • 22:1-14 - King’s Banquet- Focus on the parousia- the culmination and judgment/salvation

      • Comes in response to the Chief Priests and Pharisees deciding that they needed to arrest him, but refrained for fear of the crowds.

      • “We are catching a glimpse of the low point in an intense family feud.” (David Lose, In the Meantime) This is true both within Matthew’s story and within Matthew’s authorship and historical context. This section of the story directly connects the the crucifixion of Jesus to the destruction of the Temple.

  • Matthew vs Luke 14:15-24

    • Luke’s literary context was at a table gathering. It was a Sabbath meal at the home of one of the Pharisees, a much less contentious place in the story.

    • Similar stories, but Matthew escalates it - in violence and absurdity

    • Wedding instead of “great banquet” elevates the rudeness of snubbing the invitation

    • Guests don’t even have the decency to provide reasonable excuse. They simply don’t want to come and ignore the invitation.

      • Today they would just click “Maybe” or “Interested.”

    • Rejection of invitation is escalated by beating and killing the messengers - which is an absurd way to respond to a King’s invitation - hence heightening the reality that this is not prescriptive. We are not meant to learn how to handle those who reject our invitation from this story.

  • Potential Traditional Allegory:

    • King- God - problematic to say the least - where is the grace?

    • Son - Jesus

    • Initial Guests - Religious Elite (according to Carter and Michael Joseph Brown)

    • First group of slaves - Hebrew Prophets

    • Second Group - Christian Missionaries

  • This parable is not to be understood historically or literally in any sense

    • The “killing” of the servants and the Kings “destruction” of the initial guests is both hyperbolic and symbolic of the abuse of the prophets at the hands of the “faithful” and the destruction of Jerusalem

    • In this story, the King (God) acts as a Roman Imperial tyrant. This is not meant to be descriptive of who God is, but a reflection of how earthly Kings act.

    • Matthew is writing out of a particular context which includes the destruction of the Temple and the persecution of followers of the Way.

  • The guest who don’t come

    • For a royal wedding invitations would go out to the privileged and powerful, other potential guest could find out who else was coming and decide to come based on the guest list. “If the right people would come, all would come. If the right people were not coming, they would stay away. The excuses are indirect ways of signaling disapproval of the dinner arrangements.” Michael Joseph Brown, “Matthew”, True to Our Native Land, p. 122.

  • Themes:

    • Those that are initially called/blessed/elected are still judged on their actions - there is no “grandfather” policy of salvation

    • God is interested in who shows up prepared to do the work of God (love God and neighbor)

    • Is there a conditional nature to salvation? Is grace freely given or does it demand obedience and response?

    • The Good and the Bad are invited to attend!

  • Inappropriate clothing (Eugene Boring, NIB Commentary)

    • Being invited to the party does not mean one automatically is “saved”

    • The “elect” or the Christian are not a replacement for Israel

    • This passage is not a word of triumph to believers but a word of warning - do not presume salvation - it is a gift

    • Salvation is not a destination but a dedication to God’s ministry of love and grace. Showing up is a good start, but not enough

    • From Douglas Hare (Interpretation) “Why should the king be so incredibly harsh to a poor man who has hastily been brought from outside the city, who presumably had no opportunity to borrow a clean tunic fit for the occasion?... The answer to all such questions, of course, is that this is not an ordinary story but an allegory. The wedding feast is not the church but the age to come. The required garment is righteousness, that is, behavior (to put on Christ) in accordance with Jesus’ teachings. The man is speechless because he has no defense; he accepted the invitation of the gospel, but refused to conform his life to the gospel.” (p. 252, parenthetical note added)

    • From Warren Carter: “The absence of the wedding garment suggests a failure to discern and honor the authority and goodness of the king. He is one of the ‘bad’ who has failed to behave or live in a manner appropriate to the status of being invited by the king… This guest, though inside the wedding banquet is guilty in the same sorts of offenses as the elite leaders who did not honor the invitation,  and suffers the same fate.”

    • From Michael Joseph Brown: “The King would have had the appropriate garments ready for his guests. The individual did not put on the garment provided, thus shaming the king…The man is cast out not because of who he is, but because of whatthe refuses to do. He does not honor the king.” 

  • Judgment

    • Notice that the guests choose not to come to the banquet despite being invited and the unrobed guest refused to respond to the king about why he is dressed inappropriately

    • The old story about Heaven and Hell being a banquet table with 3 foot spoons

      • Hell- they starve and are hungry unable to feed themselves

      • Heaven- they are stuffed feeding each other

    • “But keep in mind, we are not Matthew’s community; that is, we are not the minority tradition with little cultural power trying to make sense of our rejection and alienation. Rather we are disciples of Jesus who hear, even in this parable, the good news that God invites all, good and bad (Mt. 22:10), because God is a God of expansive love and radical inclusiveness. And we are disciples who see, especially in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, not only just how far God will go to make this invitation of grace but also and that God’s words of love and forgiveness are more powerful than any words of punishment, hate, or fear. And because we have seen and heard and experienced first hand God’s love, we do not have to call down God’s judgment but can trust the God we know in Jesus to care for those who do not respond to God’s invitation just as graciously as God has cared for us. “

Thoughts and Questions

  • All three of these parables are warning to listen to God and to do the work of God - loving God and loving neighbor. To not do that work is to refuse the Kingdom of God. To give false lip service to this ministry is to show up in the wrong clothes. How do we show up, ready to serve?

  • What about showing up to church? Granted it is not enough in and of itself - but is it a if not the first step?

  • We don’t want to guilt people into church - so have we made church seem unimportant?

  • Does your church go out of its way to invite the good and the bad?

Year 1Eric FistlerMatthewComment