Matthew 22:1-14 (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, 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."
Luke 14:16-24
There was once a man who threw a great dinner party and invited many. When it was time for dinner, he sent out his servant to the invited guests, saying, ‘Come on in; the food’s on the table.’
“Then they all began to beg off, one after another making excuses. The first said, ‘I bought a piece of property and need to look it over. Send my regrets.’ Another said, ‘I just bought five teams of oxen, and I really need to check them out. Send my regrets.’ And yet another said, ‘I just got married and need to get home to my wife.’
“The servant went back and told the master what had happened. He was outraged and told the servant, ‘Quickly, get out into the city streets and alleys. Collect all who look like they need a square meal, all the misfits and homeless and wretched you can lay your hands on, and bring them here.’ The servant reported back, ‘Master, I did what you commanded—and there’s still room.’ The master said, ‘Then go to the country roads. Whoever you find, drag them in. I want my house full! Let me tell you, not one of those originally invited is going to get so much as a bite at my dinner party.’”
These two readings are very similar - in fact - it’s easy to say they are the same story with variations. One version comes from Matthew’s Gospel, one from Luke’s. Before we get into specifics here I want to say a couple of important things about scripture in general.
Probably the single most important thing we need to remember any time we read scripture is the fact that the writers were writing to specific communities of people, in a specific place in the world and at a specific time in history. These were never general documents addressed to all of time and space. When we, today, pick up our Bibles and read, nothing in here was addressed to us. No one here was writing to a single person present here in this room today.
That these stories do speak to us, across 2000 to 3000 years is a tribute to the universality of the messages and God’s determination to speak to God’s people anywhere, everywhere - but in fact, every writer in this book was writing to his or her own people - maybe envisioning one or two generations down the road, but no more than that. That doesn’t mean we can’t find meaning in what we read here - just that all this was not originally addressed to us.
Every writing here has a context and a history and those two things mean everything when we’re trying to understand what the story is about. Because of this, it’s important to know as much as we can about who the writer was and who it was he was speaking to.
We’ll start with Matthew. Matthew was a devout Jewish man writing to a Jewish community in a Israel/Judah that had lost all the glory it had once known under David and Solomon and was now nothing more than a powerless subject nation under the rule of the Roman Empire. Much of Matthew’s Gospel is devoted to illustrating to the Jewish community that Jesus was the fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecies about the messiah to come – the new Moses sent to lead them once again out of the desert – and that following Jesus kept them well within Jewish Law.
The Christian community Matthew belonged to was compiled from the local Jewish community in and around Jerusalem, and most of them still, for a long time, saw themselves as good Jews just adding their Christian beliefs onto their Jewish observances.
Last week we talked about the conflict between Peter and Paul over a shared table meal. Context was everything in that story. Christianity began in Jerusalem, in the heart of Jewish Orthodoxy. The earliest Christians, with Peter at their head, were still bound to the Temple and tended to be very conservative in that they assumed everyone must adhere to the Jewish faith in order to be a Christian, while Paul, who was a devout Jew himself, had been raised at a remove from the Temple (Taursus is up in what is today northern Syria), setting up an internal conflict within the new faith community.
Matthew, as part of the Jerusalem community, was caught up in this conflict between old-style Judaism and Christianity right from the beginning. When the Jerusalem Jews clung to their orthodoxy and continued to reject Jesus – and, incidentally, the good news Matthew reported – Matthew was not above putting some very harsh, ugly words against them into Jesus’ mouth.
Luke, on the other hand, was most likely a Gentile - Luke is a Greek name - but one who was well versed in the Old Testament and in Jewish thought. He is historically linked with the Luke mentioned as one of Paul’s traveling companions. We don’t know much more about him, except that his gospel – written for a wider non-Jewish, Gentile world – is much less focused on Jewish laws and rules and much more centered on the saving nature of Jesus. Whereas Matthew – obviously raised as a good Jew – is more concerned with those same laws and rules, Luke – the outsider who has been brought into the inner circle of God’s people – is much more liberal and welcoming in the Jesus he presents.
With all this in mind, what do these two readings tell us?
Probably the single most important thing we need to remember any time we read scripture is the fact that the writers were writing to specific communities of people, in a specific place in the world and at a specific time in history. These were never general documents addressed to all of time and space. When we, today, pick up our Bibles and read, nothing in here was addressed to us. No one here was writing to a single person present here in this room today.
That these stories do speak to us, across 2000 to 3000 years is a tribute to the universality of the messages and God’s determination to speak to God’s people anywhere, everywhere - but in fact, every writer in this book was writing to his or her own people - maybe envisioning one or two generations down the road, but no more than that. That doesn’t mean we can’t find meaning in what we read here - just that all this was not originally addressed to us.
Every writing here has a context and a history and those two things mean everything when we’re trying to understand what the story is about. Because of this, it’s important to know as much as we can about who the writer was and who it was he was speaking to.
We’ll start with Matthew. Matthew was a devout Jewish man writing to a Jewish community in a Israel/Judah that had lost all the glory it had once known under David and Solomon and was now nothing more than a powerless subject nation under the rule of the Roman Empire. Much of Matthew’s Gospel is devoted to illustrating to the Jewish community that Jesus was the fulfillment of all the Old Testament prophecies about the messiah to come – the new Moses sent to lead them once again out of the desert – and that following Jesus kept them well within Jewish Law.
The Christian community Matthew belonged to was compiled from the local Jewish community in and around Jerusalem, and most of them still, for a long time, saw themselves as good Jews just adding their Christian beliefs onto their Jewish observances.
Last week we talked about the conflict between Peter and Paul over a shared table meal. Context was everything in that story. Christianity began in Jerusalem, in the heart of Jewish Orthodoxy. The earliest Christians, with Peter at their head, were still bound to the Temple and tended to be very conservative in that they assumed everyone must adhere to the Jewish faith in order to be a Christian, while Paul, who was a devout Jew himself, had been raised at a remove from the Temple (Taursus is up in what is today northern Syria), setting up an internal conflict within the new faith community.
Matthew, as part of the Jerusalem community, was caught up in this conflict between old-style Judaism and Christianity right from the beginning. When the Jerusalem Jews clung to their orthodoxy and continued to reject Jesus – and, incidentally, the good news Matthew reported – Matthew was not above putting some very harsh, ugly words against them into Jesus’ mouth.
Luke, on the other hand, was most likely a Gentile - Luke is a Greek name - but one who was well versed in the Old Testament and in Jewish thought. He is historically linked with the Luke mentioned as one of Paul’s traveling companions. We don’t know much more about him, except that his gospel – written for a wider non-Jewish, Gentile world – is much less focused on Jewish laws and rules and much more centered on the saving nature of Jesus. Whereas Matthew – obviously raised as a good Jew – is more concerned with those same laws and rules, Luke – the outsider who has been brought into the inner circle of God’s people – is much more liberal and welcoming in the Jesus he presents.
With all this in mind, what do these two readings tell us?
• Historically, this has been interpreted as an allegory about God, in the person of the man or king who gave the dinner, and the original invitees - the Jewish people. When those originally invited turned down the invitation, then the dinner was opened up to everyone else - the wider Gentile world
• Luke’s is about the welcoming in of those not originally invited - only one small mention of the original invitees - some anger, but not really a lot
• Matthew’s version barely mentions the new attendees who actually came to the dinner - his version focuses on those who were first invited, but rejected the invitation and were replaced at the table.
• There is also, in Matthew’s version, a lot of rage and outright hatred for those who did that rejecting. What’s it say? The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city - bit of an over-reaction it seems to me (and not much like the Abba/God Jesus taught).
So – we have one story presented in two very different contexts – Matthew, trying to convert the diehard Jewish conservatives and Luke, recording what he saw as God’s open-handed welcome to all people. Is the rage we hear in Matthew’s version coming from Jesus or from Matthew? Is God really as welcoming as Luke’s dinner-giver, or is that just Luke’s preference? The only way we can know for ourselves is to figure it out from our own experience of God - and that requires that we also know ourselves – and that’s an whole other sermon.
For today, just remember, that context and history matter when we read scripture. We cannot just pick up the book, read a passage at random, and claim to truly understand it all. We have to put some effort into it. We have to care enough to find out.
For today, just remember, that context and history matter when we read scripture. We cannot just pick up the book, read a passage at random, and claim to truly understand it all. We have to put some effort into it. We have to care enough to find out.
RSS Feed