Maddenation
The wedding feast
Now and then, while listening to the Gospel reading during Sunday Mass, I let my mind wander to my own interpretations and questions about it. Often, during these times, I am reminded of past difficulties I have had in understanding these sacred writings. Today was one of those days. I talk about it here, not to undermine anyone’s faith, but merely to point out my own questions.
Today’s Gospel was from Matthew 22:1-14. Jesus tells a parable likening the kingdom of heaven to a king giving a wedding feast for his son. You know the story. His guests refuse to come, even after he invites them a second time, giving lame excuses or, and in some cases (I can’t imagine why they would do this) killing his messengers. The king, enraged, sends his troops to destroy these people and burn their city.
Having killed the invited guests, the king, in a case of classic “sour grapes” says they were not worthy anyway and tells his servants to go out into the streets and invite “whomever you find.” (The parable makes it sound like all of this happens while “the feast is ready,” but I must assume it took quite some time, and his son must have gotten quite impatient waiting for his wedding night.)
OK, so now the wedding hall is filled with guests and the king goes out to meet his new friends. He finds some poor guy without a proper wedding garment, confronts him about it, and, when he doesn’t answer, has him bound and thrown outside. That’s the part that has always bothered me. The king invites people right off the street, and then throws a guy out (after binding his hands and feet!) for not having a “wedding garment.” No wonder the king didn’t have any friends.
I’ve heard various “explanations” for this seeming cruelty in homilies through the years, most of which I forget. I think one priest said that “in those days” wedding garments could be provided by the king’s servants if a guest didn’t have them. So there would have been no excuse for not having proper garments and wearing “street clothes” to the feast would have been highly disrespectful. I don’t buy it. I think the king was just pissed off about his original guests snubbing his party (and killing his servants) and was looking for an excuse to throw somebody into the night of “wailing and gnashing teeth.”
Remember now, this is what the kingdom of heaven is supposed to be like. I wonder if they did the Macarina?
Dad • Observations • 10/10/05 • 3 comments
Comments
Patrick • 10/17/05 • 12:03 AM:I was very entertained by your comments on this parable, and I agree with you. Brian Doyle was saying that a friend of his who is an expert on Aramaic believes that the sayings most likely really spoken by Jesus are all the strangest ones, like the camel through the eye of the needle. Others, this friend believes, were probably added later by the gospel writers.
As for the wedding garment: I always cringe at the explanations like the priest gave you, explanations that first posit the infallibility of the gospels, then bend over backwards to retrofit some explanation. You’re right that this king seems very unlikable, but remember that God wasn’t all that likable either at this time. Jesus was in the process of making God “Our Father” instead of the “Lord of Hosts” who commanded the Israelites to slaughter their enemies and stone their adulteresses. Just a thought…
David • 10/23/05 • 6:44 PM:I had been wanting to comment on this post for a while now. I too have some trouble with this Gospel passage. And the priest here in Chicago didn’t give the best of explanations - it was much like Patrick said - retrofited. So I was waiting until I remembered to read the “Reflection” from Magnificat. Turns out, the reflection offered no insight at all. I’m out of luck there.
Gospels like this one make me wish I could read Greek. In the past I’ve even borrowed Greek scriptures with translation included (not really a help). In reading Magnificat I just now realized that they include a shorten version - one without the hard to understand ending. I can’t stand when there’s a [shortened version] in the readings. Seriously, how much harder is it to read the whole thing?
Anyway, my take on this Gospel can be summed up rather easily and eloquently -
GOD MEANS BUSINESS
That’s it. No more need to hyperanalyze.
Now I’d like to comment on The Eye of The Needle. I was going to include some wisdom here, all about what Jesus really meant when he said that. But before I did, I decided to look it up and share a link. That’s when I found this site. Very interesting. I love commentary on the Gospels, especially when they tie in historical context, languages/translations, human error and interpretation.
Dad • 10/25/05 • 4:24 PM:I didn’t think I was “hyperanalyzing” the passage. Right there on the surface it seemed mean to throw the poorly dressed guest out on his ear.
On the “eye of the needle” I’m heard lots of explanations for that too, including the one about the mythical small gate to Jerusalem. Maybe the key is what Jesus says later, something like “With God, all things are possible.” I’ve had it explained to me that, although it’s impossible to get the camel through the eye, we need not worry because God can do anything. I never found this very satisfying because Jesus’s statement is so clearly saying that, if you’re rich, forget about it. Of course, if as you say, God means business, then maybe rich businessmen have the inside track.
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
Please capitalize your name properly and use the same information each time you comment. We will not send you spam, and your email address will not be posted.