MATTHEW 22:1-14 -- The Parable of the Wedding Banquet (NRSV)
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, mistreated 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.”
LUKE 14:16-24 – The Parable of the Great Dinner (NRSV)
Jesus said, “Someone gave a great dinner and invited many. At the time for the dinner he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is ready now.’ But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a piece of land, and I must go out and see it; please accept my regrets.’ Another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please accept my regrets.’ Another said, ‘I have just been married, and therefore I cannot come.’ So the slave returned and reported this to his master.
Then the owner of the house became angry and said to his slave, ‘Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.’ And the slave said, ‘Sir, what you ordered has been done, and there is still room.’ Then the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those who were invited will taste my dinner.’ ”
Here we have two variations on one story. In the first, from the writer of Matthew’s gospel, we find Jesus in Jerusalem, teaching in the Temple grounds. The Temple was a sprawling site with the Holy of Holies in the center, surrounded by several different courts complete with balconies, from which rabbis could instruct their followers. Most likely Jesus would have been in the “Women’s Court”, where both men and women would have been able to hear him. It was from one such setting that Jesus shared the Parable of the Wedding Banquet – our first reading.
Just as a brief refresher on Matthew’s gospel: This would have been written, at the earliest, somewhere in the last ten, maybe fifteen years of the first century, making it extremely unlikely that this is the Matthew who was one of the original twelve who traveled with Jesus. Since we don’t really know much of this writer – who was only called Matthew by later writers – there’s no point is discussing him too much.
The second version of this story was recorded by a writer who remained un-named until 2nd century Christians decided to identify him with the Luke who was a traveling companion of Paul. He never identifies as such in either Luke or Acts so, as with the writer of Matthew, we just don’t know. Modern scholarship leans toward dating it somewhere in the 1st or 2nd decade of the second century – making it somewhere between ten and thirty years after the writings of Matthew.
There is no king and no wedding in the second version, only a rich man who decides to throw a big party in this, “The Parable of the Great Dinner.”
Aside from the big party-meal and the rejection of the initially invited, one more thing the two versions have in common is the anger expressed by both the King and the Rich Man. Each had thrown a major feast and each had been humiliated by the refusals of the those invited.
But Matthew’s version certainly has more reason for his over-the-top reaction to the murder of his servants, even though it seems a particularly bloody response and nowhere admirable to our modern eyes, but the whole ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ “ appears to us to be way out of proportion for the ‘crime’ of not wearing a wedding robe. Nowhere as bloody as destroying a city, but far from a good look, nonetheless.
In contrast, the worst we can find in Luke’s version, is sending his servants out to compel people on the street to come in and fill up the guest quota. The last time I looked, compel means forcing people to do what you want just to make your party look full.. Tacky, but not too violent.
If, as has always been taught, down through the centuries, the King and the Rich Man both represent God, the beaten and slaughtered servants are the prophets – sent by God to warn the Hebrews but often rejected and even killed by those who would not hear. The rude invitees represent the Hebrew peoples who were the first choice to be invited, but ignored God’s invitations for them to join God’s kingdom. Neither Matthew nor Luke give us an admirable picture of the King-Rich Man-God.
It would be stretching credulity too far to say these are two separate stories – there are too many obvious similarities to go there. I think it’s safe to say this is the same story, but remembered and told by two widely separated communities – separated first by geography and then by years.
And finally by the communities for which they were written – Mattthew’s version was written for Jewish hearers, making sure they understand their failure and responsibility for the rage of the King. Luke’s version would likely have been written for diaspora Jews or for Gentile Christian converts where Matthew’s anger might have turned future believers away.
Again, this parable – in whichever version – requires that we pay close attention to our reading and recognize that the authors, while telling essentially the same story, are each expressing their own views and tailoring their versions to fit their presumed audience. They are also telling us more about themselves, than that supposed audience.
Just as a brief refresher on Matthew’s gospel: This would have been written, at the earliest, somewhere in the last ten, maybe fifteen years of the first century, making it extremely unlikely that this is the Matthew who was one of the original twelve who traveled with Jesus. Since we don’t really know much of this writer – who was only called Matthew by later writers – there’s no point is discussing him too much.
The second version of this story was recorded by a writer who remained un-named until 2nd century Christians decided to identify him with the Luke who was a traveling companion of Paul. He never identifies as such in either Luke or Acts so, as with the writer of Matthew, we just don’t know. Modern scholarship leans toward dating it somewhere in the 1st or 2nd decade of the second century – making it somewhere between ten and thirty years after the writings of Matthew.
There is no king and no wedding in the second version, only a rich man who decides to throw a big party in this, “The Parable of the Great Dinner.”
Aside from the big party-meal and the rejection of the initially invited, one more thing the two versions have in common is the anger expressed by both the King and the Rich Man. Each had thrown a major feast and each had been humiliated by the refusals of the those invited.
But Matthew’s version certainly has more reason for his over-the-top reaction to the murder of his servants, even though it seems a particularly bloody response and nowhere admirable to our modern eyes, but the whole ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ “ appears to us to be way out of proportion for the ‘crime’ of not wearing a wedding robe. Nowhere as bloody as destroying a city, but far from a good look, nonetheless.
In contrast, the worst we can find in Luke’s version, is sending his servants out to compel people on the street to come in and fill up the guest quota. The last time I looked, compel means forcing people to do what you want just to make your party look full.. Tacky, but not too violent.
If, as has always been taught, down through the centuries, the King and the Rich Man both represent God, the beaten and slaughtered servants are the prophets – sent by God to warn the Hebrews but often rejected and even killed by those who would not hear. The rude invitees represent the Hebrew peoples who were the first choice to be invited, but ignored God’s invitations for them to join God’s kingdom. Neither Matthew nor Luke give us an admirable picture of the King-Rich Man-God.
It would be stretching credulity too far to say these are two separate stories – there are too many obvious similarities to go there. I think it’s safe to say this is the same story, but remembered and told by two widely separated communities – separated first by geography and then by years.
And finally by the communities for which they were written – Mattthew’s version was written for Jewish hearers, making sure they understand their failure and responsibility for the rage of the King. Luke’s version would likely have been written for diaspora Jews or for Gentile Christian converts where Matthew’s anger might have turned future believers away.
Again, this parable – in whichever version – requires that we pay close attention to our reading and recognize that the authors, while telling essentially the same story, are each expressing their own views and tailoring their versions to fit their presumed audience. They are also telling us more about themselves, than that supposed audience.
RSS Feed