Engraved Invitations and Proper Wedding Attire—Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 20A/Proper 23A (Matthew 22)

Matthew 22:1-14 New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

22 Once more Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying: ² “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. ³ He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. ⁴ 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.’ ⁵ But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, ⁶ while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them. ⁷ The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. ⁸ Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. ⁹ Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.’ ¹⁰ 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.

¹¹ “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a wedding robe, ¹² and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was speechless. ¹³ 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.’ ¹⁴ For many are called, but few are chosen.”

***********

                To set the scene. Jesus has entered Jerusalem in triumph. He’s been hailed the Son of David. That is, he was hailed as the Messiah. He also cleansed the Temple and cursed a fig tree. In other words, Jesus has been busy, and not everyone is happy with what he’s been up to. A group of priests and elders approached him and asked for his credentials. They demanded to know by what authority Jesus had been doing these things. Jesus returned the favor by asking them whether John’s baptism was from heaven or earth. When they refused to answer, he chose not to answer their question. Instead, he offered three parables as a response, two of which we’ve already encountered. There was the parable of the two sons, one of whom initially refused to work in the vineyard, but ended up doing so, while the second son said he would go but ended up not going. The question then was who did the will of the father? The second parable involved a vineyard and wicked tenants who essentially tried to take the inheritance for themselves by killing the son (heir). That led to judgment. In this third parable we see some parallels to the second parable of the vineyard, only this time the context is a wedding banquet and a refusal on the part of guests to attend. As before the invitees act rather unhospitably.  

                As he often does, Jesus uses a parable to describe God’s realm. The formula here is: “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son.” In this parable, the king prepares the banquet and sends out invitations to the appropriate people. That is, the invitation goes out to the elite, the kind of people royalty hang out with. Amazingly, the invited guests turned down the opportunity to share in the big day. Not only that, but some of them treat the messengers rather roughly, even killing them. It’s not the kind of response a person in power would expect to receive. You can imagine that the king felt abused and therefore wasn’t happy with the news that the invited guests were too busy to attend this banquet.

While the first time the king sent out word, the invitees simply sent their regrets. Thanks, but no thanks they told the king. Then, when the king sent his messengers out the second time telling the invitees that everything was ready for the wedding feast, their response was even harsher. The very abusive response given to the messengers came even though the king made it clear that this was going to be a first-class banquet. After all, the king had slaughtered his oxen and a fatted calf for the event. Despite the renewed invitation with further details, some of those invited laughed at the messengers and some even killed the king’s messengers. In other words, the invited guests had no interest in going and didn’t mind letting the king know in the harshest of terms. So, who are these invitees? As before, we would assume that Jesus (and Matthew) has the religious authorities in mind. After all, God’s messengers (prophets) were often treated poorly. All of this is couched in allegory. The assumption is that the reader knows who is who.

                What comes next should disturb us. As Jesus tells the story, the king (God?) is so enraged by the way his servants are treated by the invited guests that he sends in the troops to burn down the city and annihilate the offenders. This is a scorched earth policy. Why such a harsh response? Could it be that their refusal to come to the wedding, together with the way they treated the king’s slaves, could be seen as an act of treason? Treason, of course, can’t go unpunished (even today in the United States treason is punishable by execution). As is often true in warfare, the punishment is meted out indiscriminately. That is, everyone in the village suffers and dies (as we’re seeing in the Israeli response in Gaza to the attack by Hamas). We often refer to this as collateral damage.

The point here, according to Jesus, is that those invited have shown themselves to be unworthy of even living, and therefore deserve to be punished. For those of us who insist that Jesus preaches a gospel of love, this parable poses problems. It describes divine wrath and judgment. This isn’t “Old Testament” stuff; this isn’t even Revelation. This is Jesus telling parables of the Kingdom and judgment stands at the center of the story. So, what should we make of this?  How do we make sense of a gospel of grace and mercy and a message of judgment with harsh punishment?

As we read this parable, we need to keep in mind the destruction of Jerusalem that took place not long before this Gospel was written. Many early Christians believed the fall of Jerusalem was a sign of God’s judgment on Jerusalem for its rejection of Jesus. As we see time and again, sometimes the innocent gets caught up with the guilty (the leadership).

While the guests receive their punishment, the king’s son still needs to get married. Besides, the king had his servants prepare a large feast and didn’t want all this food to go to waste. Since the invited guests rejected the overture, the king sent his slaves out to gather up other guests. Unlike the first guest list that was filled with the elite, this new list featured those living on the margins. The slaves were instructed to go downtown and invite everyone they encountered to the wedding feast. So, they went out and invited everyone, the good and the bad, so they could fill the wedding hall with guests. In Luke’s version of the parable, the king instructed the servants to bring to the party the poor, crippled, blind, and lame (Lk 14:21). Matthew may have had the same group of people in mind as Luke, but the point is that this time the invitation was indiscriminate. It’s worth noting here that while some among the elite are known to have followed Jesus and were part of the early church, the majority of those who followed Jesus both before and after the cross and resurrection were those who lived on the margins.

While everyone seems to be invited, there is one figure who appears to be an interloper. In the closing verses of the parable (Mt. 22:11-14), Jesus tells us that when the king arrived, he noticed that one person stood out. Unlike everyone else in the room, he wasn’t wearing a wedding robe. When the servants went out to invite folks to the party, they gave each one a wedding robe. This person lacked it, so the question is—how did he get in? The king asked the person without the wedding robe how he crashed the party. The man was speechless. So, the king had the servants throw him out into the outer darkness. Using apocalyptic language, the man was cast into that place where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth. As we read this, we might want to ask why the king acted like this. Why didn’t he just send for a robe? After all, everyone seems to be invited, both the good and the bad. Of course, this man without a robe might have been one of those originally invited, and they’re no longer welcome to the feast. Ultimately, Matthew doesn’t tell us why judgment falls on the man without a robe.  As Sally Brown notes, this invitation is scandalously broad, so there are only two ways of being excluded: “[E]ither you disregarded the invitation completely; or you imagined an invitation this broad could not be worth much, so you stumbled in still dressed for the gym, in case the party was a bore” [Feasting on the Gospels--Matthew, Volume 2, p. 187]. We live in a time where casual is the norm. We don’t dress up for church. I’ve officiated at funerals, where family and friends come dressed in sweats. No longer is black necessary, just come as you are and hope there’s a nice reception afterward. The message here could be one of how we treat holy occasions in our lives. And are there consequences for dishonoring those occasions?

 The final word attributed to Jesus might give those of us who lean toward universalism pause, Jesus tells us that “many are called, but few are chosen” (Mt. 22:14). Let this be a lesson for future wedding crashers!  

There is an interesting juxtaposition here between the wedding celebration, which should be joyous, and the word of judgment. I think many of us prefer the joyous side, we would be well served to at least contemplate the idea of divine judgment. We must beware of the attractiveness of cheap grace that demands nothing of us. While Jesus preaches a message of divine love, he doesn’t always offer a warm and fuzzy message. How judgment is meted out here likely requires a bit of interpretation, but it is present, nonetheless. As with many parables of the kingdom, this parable has a strong eschatological element.

As with many parables of the kingdom, we need to be aware of the long history of interpreting them with an anti-Jewish edge. As I write this reflection, the modern nation of Israel is engaged in warfare with Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group that attacked Israel, killing nearly a thousand persons. By the end of this scores of people will die on both sides (mainly “collateral damage”). I’m somewhat conflicted here because the state of Israel has treated Palestinians poorly, treating them as second-class persons, while at the same time, the Jewish people have faced existential threats from ancient times to the present, which has contributed to strong responses to threats. So, let us be careful not to read this as Jesus pronouncing judgment on Jews and suggesting that God has replaced Jews with Gentiles as God’s chosen people. In times like this, may we join together and pray for peace, even as people, whether Israeli or Palestinian, grieve their lost loved ones.

                Getting back to the closing statement— “Many are called, but few are chosen” —what does it mean to be chosen as one of the Elect? In the Hebrew Bible, we read that God chooses a people— Abraham and Sarah and their descendants. We learn there that God makes a covenant and declares that through them and these descendants, the nations will be blessed (Genesis 12:1-3). Is that not the message given to us as followers of Jesus? Are we not “Called to Bless” the nations? Again, not everyone approved of Jesus’ ministry and message. So, in verses not included in our reading, we’re told that the Pharisees began plotting to entrap Jesus by asking him about tax policy (Matthew 22:15).