Matthew 22:1-14
Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. Again he sent other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited: Look, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.’ But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his slaves, maltreated them, and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests.
“But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.”
There are two parts to this parable. The first is rather odd. The second even more so.
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 (14:15-24), 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 tidbit 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 readers 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.
Prayer: Dear God, help us to see those around us as your beloved children…always…no matter what. Amen.
Post image: 14th century Russian icon of the parable of the wedding feast.
First century Jewish wedding customs held that the father of the groom was in charge of the event and bore all the expense associated with the wedding and the banquet that followed. I’ve been told that in case of royalty or the very wealthy this often included providing a specially made garment to be worn over a guest’s regular clothing. This wedding garment was presented to the guest upon arrival and donned immediately. Refusal to wear it was an insult to the Father of the groom and could get a guest ejected from the festivities. In case of large gatherings it also served as identification to discourage uninvited guests from crashing the party.
Does the king have to represent God? What if Jesus was the one caste out for not going along with the Roman regime?
Thank you for saying we don’t know. It is so refreshing and freeing!