Jesus again
told them a parable, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared
a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been
invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come. 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.’ But they ignored him and
went off—one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized some of his
servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his
army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding
banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. So go to the
street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 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. But when the
king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing
wedding clothes. He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes,
friend?’ The man was speechless. “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.’ For many
are invited, but few are chosen.
*****************************************************************************
This really
qualifies as one of Jesus’ more confusing and not very nice parables. Some of
the invitees to the wedding take servants of the king, beat them and kill
them. So the king gets angry and burns
down the whole city in which these particular people live, and kills them all.
Then he sends the rest of his servants out to find anyone they can to bring to
the banquet. By force if necessary. Then one person is thrown out, because he
isn’t dressed for a wedding. So how on earth do we preach this parable? And wring
any good news out of it at all?
Well, I don’t
really like some of these stories, and that’s why I force myself sometimes to
preach them. Because they *are* hard. And we have to pick our way through
culture, history, and religious understanding. So, let’s try a little context
as we pick this apart.
First, when Matthew was written,
Jesus had already been dead around fifty years, so there’s a pretty good chance
it wasn’t Matthew who wrote it – and in that time a segment of the population
believed he was the Messiah. They considered themselves to be Jewish, but
their understanding of Judaism wasn't what the Pharisees thought – they
considered themselves practicing the Judaism Jesus believed in, the Judaism
Jesus taught. This Gospel was written for the Jewish community, after Jerusalem
and the temple had been destroyed. There were a lot of Jewish sects and a lot
of interpretations of what being Jewish meant – just as today there are plenty
of Christian denominations, who all believe they have the right interpretation.
For Judaism, Temple worship was the very core, central to Jewish identity for
more than a thousand years, and for many – it still is today – even the story
of the destruction of that temple is still recited in services and at weddings.
Once the temple was gone, the whole of Jewish identity was in question as well.
The Pharisees and other religious leaders were dominant in the push to
establish a definition of Judaism to which everyone would agree. They were
the religious leaders who believed they were the keepers of God's Law; Jewish
identity had to be based in keeping the Law – coincidentally their
interpretation of the Law. They were of the religious and priestly castes, and
it was their function. In order to ensure that people would follow the Law
properly, they had to be seen and understood as the ultimate authority on the law.
So it’s understandable to a point. Except that there was no room in their
understanding for recognising a Nazarene peasant as a Messiah – even though the
coming of a Messiah had been foretold.
So the gospel of Matthew was written
as a support for the Matthean community, when the Pharisaic community seemed to
be winning. Jesus in the stories not only claims God's authority, but
claims that those religious leaders who refuse to recognise him have their
authority taken away. Rev. Karen Golz says “In the parable we read today,
God is the king, Jesus is the son, the chief priests and Pharisees are the
originally invited guests - the ones who declined the invitation both times and
beat and murdered the slaves (who themselves are understood to be the
prophets)-and the guests brought in from the main streets are the Gentiles, the
non-Jews who would now enjoy a covenant relationship with God. That was
Matthew's goal: to assure his community of their proper place in Jewish
history, and to assure them that opening the mission to non-Jews was in
accordance with God's will.”
So that was then. What does it mean
for us now?
"The realm of God may be compared to a
king who gave a wedding banquet for his son..." The one who has created
this incredible feast and wants to share it. So the loved ones are invited to
come and celebrate. Ahh but they have other more important things to do.
I look at this parable, and I see two
things: God who wants to be in relationship with us, and a table set and ready for
anyone who wishes to come. Look at this
- the table is set, the offer is there. There are no bars to the
invitation. But a bunch have too many other things to do.
And then there’s that pesky line
about how one of the people was not dressed for the wedding. I’m going to make
a stretch and suggest that it wasn’t the king who was critical of the clothes,
but one of the religious leaders who was there, and was into the ‘holier than
thou’ business. Because I don’t think God cares what we have on. I don’t think
the king was fussy about clothes if the servants brought in anyone they found
who was hungry.
Last week I read a story about a
young girl who was set to take her First Communion in a Catholic church. She
was excited at this rite of passage in her church. She was a child who loved to
wear suits, and had a collection. So she and her mother went shopping for a
white suit. As soon as the church heard she was going to wear a suit, they issued
a dress code which said girls had to wear white dresses and veils, and boys
wore suits. She was denied a place at the table, because of her choice of
clothing. And in the discussion which ensued, there was all kinds of commentary
about ‘respect for the church’, about the ‘traditions of the church’ ‘respect
for God”. And when asked if God had a dress code, no one answered. When asked
if Jesus turned anyone away from a meal, no one answered. When asked how this
would help a child grow in faith, no one answered.
Well, I've stood at this very pulpit
and talked about what being called means, and I know that’s hard for some to
wrestle with. We still have this notion of worth But the truth is, we're
called, through no worth or merit of our own. We’re called to the table, first
and foremost, regardless of who we are, where we came from, what we have on.
God doesn’t care who we are, where we came from, or what we have on. God cares
if we care or not. God cares about us even if we don’t care, but God wants us
to care enough to be engaged and involved. God says come – lets share together –
lets celebrate and eat together at this wedding where justice and love are
offered to everyone. God doesn’t turn anyone away, at any time.
God knows life as life should
be, life as life could be. And through unconditional love, no matter who
we are, where we come from, or what we have on – God invites us to participate.
So come to the banquet.
Sources: “God’s Party” A sermon
based on Matthew 22:1-14 by Rev. Karen A. Goltz
No comments:
Post a Comment