Strange Stories: some party

This story is ridiculous!

I mean who turns down an invitation to the wedding of a prince. An invitation that affirms that you are in the right social group.

And what king burns down a town in the time it takes to cook dinner?

Luke includes a similar story, but no murder or fire or dress code.

So, what to make of this over the top parable.

In reading this week I found there are a few ways that this can be interpreted.

We will explore the parable and see if anything else helps us to make sense of this parable.

Getting invited to a banquet or feast was a big deal. In this time in history, it was not unusual for food to be scarce, or at least not plentiful. This is a wedding, a time of joy and feasting. [i]

In a society based upon honour and shame, nothing could bestow more honour (to oneself and, by extension, to one's family) than attending a royal wedding, particularly the wedding of the king's own son. This is the kind of event for which you make room in your calendar. Circle the date. Don't forget. Be there at all costs. [ii]

Normally a feast like this one would be given by someone wealthy and those invited would be of parallel wealth. This was quite a strict social convention and it would therefore be quite a serious offence not to take up the invitation.[iii]

So why in the parable are the people who receive the invitations first time around either disinterested or murdering the messengers?

Then the king responds with more violence.

A further invitation to anyone and everyone.

I wonder, if we were walking along the beach and someone came up to us and said the Governor is holding a party here, come and join in the festivities – how would you feel? Would you go?  

This parable comes in the final week before the crucifixion in Matthews gospel. Jesus has come into Jerusalem on a donkey, cleared the temple of traders, healed people, then went away for night. The next day he is in the Temple again, and the Scribes and Pharisees question his authority.

Jesus responds with some parables:

The two sons, one who said he would go and work, but does not and the son who says he will not work but does. Jesus asks: Which one does the will of the father?

The second parable is known as the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. When the landowner sends slaves to get his share of the harvest, they are beaten up, the landowner sends his son, and he is killed.

Then this parable.

The traditional way to look at this reading is that God is the king, the messengers are the prophets, the people who are initially invited are Jews and the people who eventually come are the gentiles. The one thrown out for not wearing the correct robe, that refers to the need to always be clothed in righteous. It is an end-time understanding of the parable.

I can see how people read the parable this way, but I struggle with this explanation.

Some commentators read this as having some extreme elements, like murder and fire while dinner is being cooked, but overall it is about an invitation that is broad and wide but has an expectation of changed behaviour if you accept the invitation. Maybe this is the discipleship explanation, the invitation is there, accept it, but be willing to be transformed. [iv] The wedding garment is not a fashion statement as a   passion statement – where is your heart? [v]

Another way of reading the end of this parable is that reason the person who was thrown out, was because he was speechless when the king came to talk with him. Speechless.  Which means he wouldn't enter into a relationship with the king.[vi]

Some commentators speak of the parable as contrasting the violence of the Empire with the non-violence of Jesus. The reaction of the King shows his power, and his insecurity. Worried monarchs are dangerous monarchs: they are likely to erupt in rage.^[vii]

When we hear a parable, our first instinct, in general, is to assume the king in the parable represents God. But this King kills people and destroys a town, is that like the God you know? [viii]

What if the king in the parable is not God?

What if Jesus is the person thrown out of the banquet?

A king gives a banquet, and the people invited think they are too important to attend, so other people in the area are rounded up to attend the banquet. Would you turn down the invitation given what happened to the other people who did not accept the invitation?

Jesus is part of the ‘ordinary’ people who is rounded up to attend the feast but refuses to party at the king’s command. When questioned by the King in the parable, the person stays silent.

In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus is silent when questioned by chief priests and elders [Matthew 27: 11-14]

If Jesus is telling a parable about the way in which our earthly, violence-based authority is on display, then where do we see the kingdom of heaven? It looks like what this king does to the man who stands silently before him at the end of the parable. In short, it looks like what happened to Jesus when he stood silently in the face of his accusers and let them throw him out into the darkness of death. [ix]

Jesus tells this parable in response to questions from the religious leaders, they are asking who gives Jesus authority to teach and heal. Maybe this parable is a reminder that we cannot follow Caesar and God. For the early church the idea that following Jesus may get you killed was one they knew from experience.

This is another strange story, another parable that can sound bizarre to us. However, you understand the parable:

To be clothed in the righteousness of Christ.

To accept the invitation of Jesus and be transformed

Or to not get involved in the violence of Kings and rulers, but to live for God even at risk of your life

This is a powerful parable.

I pray you will hear God speaking to you,
that you will respond to the invitation and call of God
and live in the love and peace of Jesus.

---

[i] http://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=3870&fbclid=IwAR3Odwl8qvhYbq1uucBQjRauGQ24OqV1_gnuRBXNI4_jvWpm0UQGvtz05Z0

[ii] https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=172&fbclid=IwAR0UxlohxX3KmvD2UtalzAofga46iV3PMTHks2gGNIKJtvIfC0LBIiDjywc

[iii] Spill the beans

[iv] Hope Molozaiy on Facebook Narrative Lectionary Facebook Group responding to

Sarah Sanderson-Doughty 21 March 2019

[v] Spill the beans

[vi] Comment in https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=997&fbclid=IwAR3R4ZPodXuL_gcGraOAL5FhEWB2eoQs0NHyPRgUeV5Yp5tVqJUiD9u991Q

[vii] https://provokingthegospel.wordpress.com/2017/10/09/a-provocation-nineteenth-sunday-after-pentecost-october-15-2017-matthew-221-14/?fbclid=IwAR3Zc2235go9YBsgVgs7iyWhqvfGcoZ4M6LpEnp4zyT07IVr2BNtQNW3Dtw

[viii] http://girardianlectionary.net/year_a/proper23a_2008_ser.htm

[ix] http://girardianlectionary.net/year_a/proper23a_2008_ser.htm

the kingdom of heaven is like .. WHAT!

We usually hear the Luke version of the great banquet, less violence, but this week we are thinking about Matthew’s version.

during Lent I am trying to view these parables, which start ‘the kingdom of heaven is like…’ through the lens of the Lord’s Prayer, where we pray each week ‘your kingdom come’

what kind of kingdom are we reading about this morning??

 

The traditional way to look at this reading is that God is the king, the messengers are the prophets, the people who are initially invited are Jews and the people who eventually come are the gentiles. and the one thrown out for not wearing the correct robe? , that refers to the need to always be clothed in righteous.

 

I can see how people read the parable this way, but I struggle with this explanation.

 

a little background first.

Chapter 21 Matthew records the entry into Jerusalem, that we celebrate on Palm Sunday, then the cleansing of the Temple.  after that Jesus is really popular with the religious and political leaders J

then the story of the cursing of the fig tree, the religious leaders question Jesus, and Jesus doesn’t answer, but asks them a question.

then we get to three parables:

parable of the two sons – one said he wouldn’t work, but did; the other said he would work but didn’t.

the parable of the wicked tenants – where the landowner sends servants to collect his share of the produce, but the tenants killed them, so he sent his son, and they killed him as well.

verse 45-46

‘when the chief priests heard his parables, they realised that he was speaking about them. they wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowds, because they regarded him as a prophet.’

 

then this parable – the wedding banquet – and the next verse is

“then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap him in what he said”

 

so while the disciples, or some of them, are likely present, Jesus is speaking to the religious leaders of the time.

 

what about the wedding banquet, it seems that weddings were different to the way we celebrate here in Australia, though there are many ways to celebrate even in Australia.  The couple would do the legal stuff, then the wedding festivities would happen when the bride moved from her family home to the grooms family home. Also, considering that people didn’t have iPads or pocket diaries, when the banquet was ready, you sent out word.

and the invite list:

as with diplomatic and business dinners today, you invite people who can do something for you. The people invited to the wedding of a prince, would be  people who were then beholden to the King, to be an ally of the King if the need arose, and they would definitely not set out to overthrow the king.

 

How might all this help us in looking at this parable.

 

here is a  poem by Bruce Prewer

Wedding Feast

(based on Matthew 22: 1-14)

 

He is off

the planet again!

This Jesus

who tells folk stories

which upend

normality and our

credulity suspend!

 

Where on earth

is royalty ignored?

Since

when does the guest

stay away

from the wedding feast

of a prince?

 

Where’s any king

who would open his table

to the street?

To garbage collectors,

back packers, buskers,

homeless kids

and the dead beat?

 

One thing’s sure:

Christ’s quirky kingdom

cannot be

of this world’s making.

Here kings swank

and royal halls are crammed

with pomposity.

                                                                                                                                                           

— Copyright © B.D. Prewer 1995, and posted on Bruce Prewer’s Homepage. 

 

the whole premise of the parable is ridiculous, who turns down an invitation from the King, let alone kills the messengers?  which King is going to pause meal preparations to go to war against their own people?

 

As I have been pondering, and struggling with this story, an email arrived yesterday with a short story from Andrew Dutney, the President of the UCA.  He was at a National Council of Churches Leaders meeting, and  Archbishop Zaia, Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Australia, New Zealand and Lebanon was asked to speak briefly about the situation of his people in the Assyrian Church of the East.

 

These people live with violence, some have been killed, others raped and tortured, and many have fled from Iraq to Syria as refugees. [i]

And I wondered what difference it would make to how we hear this parable if we lived with constant violence and oppression?

 

I wonder what happens if we consider that the king is not God, but Caesar, and we hear what happens when a city descends into violence.  I wonder if this is part of the reaction of Matthew to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Most scholars have the Gospel of Matthew being written down after that time.

 

What if this is saying to us – when you try to live the kingdom of heaven into being, you will be subject to persecution and violence; because Caesar doesn’t want a Kingdom of peace, and forgiveness and justice.   That would take all the power from Caesar.

 

what if this is like a political comedy on TV, something like Clarke and Dawes or Frontline?  What if this is  about the violence that lies just below the surface of societies with strong notions of honour and shame.

 

 

What have we heard so far this Lent about the Kingdom of God?

we started with the parable of the servant who was forgiven much, but who then did not forgive the person who owed him money.

‘the Kingdom of God is a Kingdom of forgiveness.’

 

Then last Sunday we heard the parable of the workers in the vineyard, where each was paid what was needed to sustain their family for the day.

“The Kingdom of heaven, is a kingdom of justice, a kingdom of need being met, not because we deserve it, not because we earned it, but because God is generous, and gracious and knows our need.”

 

God forgives us, is generous with us, and provides for the needs of all people, but to be part of God’s kingdom we need to also be generous, share resources and offer forgiveness.

 

then this passage?

 

what might we take away from this passage, this strange parable?

 

This kingdom that we pray for ask for our total allegiance, for all we are, and that may lead to conflict with others in society and even our own families.  But violence is not part of the Kingdom.

See what happened to Jesus when he lived in ways that upset the religious and political leaders – violence was done to him, he did not initiate violence against others or to defend himself.

 

We pray and we work for the coming of the Kingdom of heaven, a kingdom of peace, justice, and generosity; and some people will fight against such a kingdom coming into being.

  

ideas taken from

http://www.preachingpeace.org/lectionaries/34-year-a/164-yeara-proper23.html

http://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=2389#post_comments

 

---

[i] https://andrewfdutney.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/what-happened-on-thursday-morning/