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. 3He sent his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet, but they would not come. 4Again 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.” 5But they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, 6while the rest seized his slaves, maltreated them, and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. 8Then he said to his slaves, “The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9Go therefore into the main streets, and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet.” 10Those 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,12and he said to him, “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?” And he was speechless. 13Then 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.” 14For many are called, but few are chosen.’
Translation: And again, Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to an earthly king who gave a marriage feast for his son. And he sent his servants to call the-ones-who-had-been-called to the marriage feast, but they did not want to come. Again, he sent other servants, saying, 'Speak to those-who-have-been-called: Behold! I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and fat calves are killed, and all is ready. Come into the marriage feast.'
But the ones being neglectful went away, one to his land, another to his trade, and the rest seized his servants, treated them with insolence, and killed them. The king became angry, and sending his soldiers, he destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
Then he said to his servants, 'The marriage feast is ready, but the-ones-who-had-been-called were not worthy. Go, therefore, upon the journey-ways and call into the marriage feast as many as you find.' And those servants went out into the 'ways' and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good, and the wedding feast was filled with guests.
But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw there a person who had not put on the wedding garment. And he said to him, 'Friend, how did you get in here not having a wedding garment?' But he was speechless. Then the king said to the deacons, 'Bind him hand and foot and throw him out into the outer darkness. There, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' For the invited (are) many, but the chosen (are) few."
Background and situation: The lection is mostly from Q--the parallel is Luke 14:15-24--though, again, Matthew's version is some different from Luke's. In Luke, "a man" gives "a great dinner." Matthew kicks this up to a king giving a wedding banquet for his son. Matthew has a special fondness for royal images. He frequently presents images of king-ship and kingdoms.
Likewise, the "great dinner" in Luke is the "marriage feast" in Matthew--indeed, the Great Banquet itself. The marriage feast as a symbol of God's abundant fellowship with humanity at the culmination of history goes back at least to first Isaiah (c. 750 BC):
On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples
a feast of rich food, a feast of well-matured wines,
of rich food filled with marrow, of well-matured wines strained clear. (Isaiah 25: 6)
Matthew tells three parables between 21: 23 and 22: 14--the parable of the two sons, the parable of the wicked tenants, and, now, the parable of the wedding banquet. In the first parable, the parable of the two sons, tax collectors and prostitutes are said to go into the kingdom of heaven before the religious leadership.
In the parable of the wicked tenants, the kingdom will be taken away from the religious leadership and given to people who produce fruits. In the parable of the wedding banquet, the invitation is rejected by those first invited and given to those rounded up at the last minute.
Having been led through three parables which place the religious leadership in a negative light, the surprising conclusion at the end of the parable (11-13), added by Matthew, focuses attention on the shortcomings of the church. The old leadership is compromised, yes, but the new community also has its own problems--specifically: the failure to live and work in light of the death and resurrection of the Lord.
Parable of the wedding banquet: The king sends his servants out to "call those who have been called" (tous keklemenous). The root Greek word (kaleo) is the same as that which also designates the church--ekklesia, which literally means: the "called out ones." Matthew is the only one of the four gospels to use the word ekklesia (16: 18).
In this parable, however, the "called out ones" refers to the first "called out ones," the Hebrews. They are represented in this parable, and throughout Matthew's gospel, by the Jewish religious heirarchy. (Matthew has nothing against Jews per se. He is one himself, as was Jesus. His argument is with the religious leadership.)
This is made clear by a brief re-cap: It is Holy Week. Jesus has entered Jerusalem, driven the profiteers out of the Temple, then publicly embarrassed and verbally assaulted the "chief priests and scribes"--the Temple heirarchy--by reminding the crowd of the heirarchy's complicity in the murder of John the Baptist.
Then, he tells the parable of the two sons, the point of which is to accuse the "chief priests and scribes" of not practicing justice and of opposing God. After that, he tells the parable of the wicked tenants, the point of which is the rejection of the religious heirarchy in favor of those who "produce the fruits of the kingdom."
Then, he tells this story, the parable of the wedding banquet. The king is holding a wedding banquet in honor of his son. He sends his servants to call those invited--the original "called out ones"--but they hold the king's invitation in low regard and did not want to come.
This is a surprising impertinence. An invitation from the king was as close to a "command performance" as could be found in the ancient world--or today either, for that matter. This disregard for the king's invitation symbolizes Israel's resistance to the first servants sent by the king, the Old Testament prophets.
The king then sends out "other" servants to the same group. These "other servants" of the king represent the followers of "the way"--the early Christians, in other words. They issue the announcement of the arrival of the Great Banquet. This time, the invitation is stated fully and explicitly: "Behold! I have made ready my dinner, my oxen and fat calves are killed, and all is ready. Come into the marriage feast."
"All is ready" is clear eschatological language. One should ask: How is it that "all is ready"? Note that the figure of "the son" does not actually appear in this parable. This "son" had been killed in the parable of the wicked tenants immediately preceding. Yet, in this parable, the son is obviously alive. The parable of the wedding banquet assumes that the son has been raised from the dead. In his death and resurrection, "all is ready."
This time, the invitees are called "neglectful." They "did not care" about the king's dinner. One went to his farm--literally, "ground." The other went to his business--emporium, in Greek. They went back to preserving and expanding their economic interests, in other words. Agriculture and commerce were primary sources of wealth for the ruling families of Jerusalem.
The "rest"--loipoi--inflict violence upon these "other" servants. The "rest" are the minions of the ruling class, those not directly wealthy themselves, but rather those who lived high on the hog off the largesse of their benefactors, the wealthy ruling families.
The "other servants" are seized, mistreated, and killed. The king retaliates by sending soldiers who destroyed the murderers and burned the city. (Any connection with a real event is hereby sundered. You don't get angry, start a war, and conquer a city all before the pot roast gets cold.)
The mention of a burning city is an obvious reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in the Roman-Jewish War, AD 70, and Matthew's audience would have recognized this immediately. For Matthew, the destruction of Jerusalem was the judgment of God against those who resisted the "way of justice" and killed Jesus.
The original "ones who were called" turn out to be "not worthy." The king then tells his servants to "go, therefore." (In chapter 28, the same phrase will announce the mission to "all nations.") Here, the servants are to go to, in Greek, diexodous ton 'odon--literally: "through out of ways of ways."
The meaning of diexodous itself is unclear. It appears to mean road-exits leaving a town. You'll notice also the word "exodus" in it, a recollection of the Hebrew people on their journey out of slavery into freedom. (Does diexodous ton 'odon suggest that following the way of Jesus is true freedom?)
The servants go out on these "road-exits" or, as I've translated it, "journey-ways," and "gather together"--synagoge--"all" they found, "both bad and good." Placing "bad" before "good" draws attention to this pointed rejection of morality as a basis for determining who goes to the banquet. Morality is not a consideration. The servants are to gather up all they find without regard to whether anyone deserves it or not. Accordingly, the wedding banquet is "filled with guests."
The "friend": Matthew then appends vss. 11-13 which are unique to Matthew. The king enters the wedding hall to "behold the guests" whereupon he notices one person who was not dressed in the proper wedding garment.
This person is called "friend" (etairos). Matthew uses this word three times in his gospel--once to describe the "friend" who complained about the justice of the owner in the parable of the laborers of the vineyard, its use here, and once in relation to Judas, the betrayer. The word carries a certain chill. Think of it as "hey, pal" expressed ironically.
Robert Capon imagines that the host of the banquet supplied the wedding garments. Otherwise, how could you expect people rounded up off the streets to have the proper clothes? You don't leave for work in the morning by packing a tux in your lunch box on the outside chance that someone might call you to a wedding party.
The host supplied the wedding garment of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The Great Banquet has been made possible and ushered in by that and that alone.
One person has apparently thought the banquet is based in something other than that. He wears some other garment. We are not told whether the man wore rags or a tux. It matters not which. Anything other than the wedding garment of Christ's death and resurrection is irrelevant.
The man is unceremoniously shown the exit because the death and resurrection of Jesus is the only reason that anyone is there. Their presence has nothing to do with their "goodness" or "badness." It has nothing to do with whether or not they are in any way "worthy." It has everything to do with a "new creation" in which none of that counts.
The lection closes with a line which, at first glance, doesn't relate very well to the rest of the story: "For many are called, but few chosen." On the basis of the story, who are the "many"? Conversely, who are the "few"?
For me, the word for "chosen"--eklectoi--indicates the people of the early church, the ekklesia. Many have been called, in other words, but only a few have been chosen for the church. Thus, Matthew is able to affirm the universal message of the gospel and simultaneously explain why it has not taken the world by storm.
Thanks as always for this John. Is it valid to see Jesus/Matthew's use of "eklectoi" in the last sentence as word play?
In other words, pre-Jesus the Chosen ones are those chosen by God, but now it is those who have chosen to follow and clothe themselves in Christ (the impetus is on Man not God to be part of the Kingdom).
Which leads to my other question, can the second "are" be translated as "have", or it the Greek more specific? It seems that the final message of the parable would be more clear if it could translate to: For many are called, but few have chosen.
Peace,
David
Posted by: Brother Bartimaeus | October 06, 2011 at 09:42 PM
Thank you, I am struggling with what to say about this Gospel tomorrow, you have put a very good turn on it for me.
Dianne Aid, TSSF
Auburn, Washington
Posted by: Dianne Aid | October 09, 2011 at 12:13 AM
David, I don't see anything about the people themselves doing any "choosing" in this parable. It's rather about God's choice of us, not our choice of God. The guy without a wedding robe had already been chosen, but didn't want to act like it. Thanks for your visit.
Diane, thanks for your visit as well. I'm curious: What's TSSF?
Posted by: John Petty | October 10, 2011 at 03:52 PM
Oops. Also David, I was going to check the Greek on your question, but spaced it until just now. I'll try to remember to do that later. Thanks!
pax, jp
Posted by: John Petty | October 10, 2011 at 03:54 PM
I'll admit that as an anabaptist, we might not see it the same. :) It does seem to me that the entire parable is all about choices made regarding joining the call to participate in the kingdom. Do the "called out ones" choose to participate? No, they would rather avoid the call by choosing farm, business (mammon), or killing the messenger.
I've aso read it was customary for wedding participants to have been provided robes, which means the guy without one made a choice not to wear it (I.e. not clothed in Christ).
Posted by: Brother Bartimaeus | October 11, 2011 at 03:40 PM
Actually, I kind of agree with you, though "choice" is not a word that comes easily to a Lutheran. I do think the parable is about "rising to the occasion" so to speak, and putting on the wedding garment of new life, which means living in line with the values of the kingdom.
You'd enjoy my text study group.
Posted by: John Petty | October 12, 2011 at 10:44 AM
Thanks John, I'm sure I would. However the commute from Virginia would be a bit taxing.
Posted by: Brother Bartimaeus | October 16, 2011 at 08:32 PM
I suggested that rapid and accelerating changes in the way that legal process work (the gathering and organization of documents and information) is staffed and priced has significantly influenced the extent of the associate layoffs and the reduction in entry-level hiring among larger law firms in the last few years. The result is that most large law firms have far fewer partnership-track associates today than they did, say, five years ago, and that seems unlikely to change substantially anytime soon, even as the economy recovers.
Posted by: Coach outlet store | November 04, 2011 at 01:00 AM
I wonder if the use of the word friend in this instance maybe a suggestion of God's desire to draw all of us into relationship and that it is the man's silence which casts him out because he refuses to enter into that relationship, you could also suggest that in calling Judas friend Jesus is revealing the nature of God which longs for union with us.
Posted by: Chris Davey | August 24, 2012 at 09:03 AM
Hi Chris,
I agree that it's the man's silence that casts him out. If he's have said anything at all--that is, if he had in any way wanted to be in a relationship--he would have been fine.
As for "friend," I respect your point of view. As you probably know, there is considerable discussion on how "friend" is meant. I'm generally following Robert Capon on this, but you may indeed be right that the word is meant non-ironically rather than as ironic, which is the way I'm using it.
Thanks for your visit!
Posted by: John Petty | August 25, 2012 at 09:43 AM