Matthew 22:1-14
Proper 23 (28) - Year A
In trying to find a place from which to get a purchase on this terrible text the following came from Ralph Milton and his weekly Rumors: "What do we do with this passage? The story is an allegory against the Jews who did not accept Christ. Their city (Jerusalem) is burned as a result and the outcasts (gentiles) are invited to the wedding feast instead. As a layperson, sitting in the bass section of the choir, I'd be wondering, "So? Does that have any significance for me?"
"Well, perhaps. When we fail to respond to the generous and loving invitation of God - an invitation to joy and sharing that is issued to everyone - and turn instead to the gods we make for ourselves, there can be shattering consequences. Our failure to respond to God's love can lead to hatred, injustice, greed, and all manner of violence to humankind."
It wasn't the allegory part that caught me because this is a self-described parable. It was the recognition that a failure to respond to love and mercy can only only end up with responses of indifferent hate and egoistic judgment. We see this played out in today's world in a variety of ways. Listen to this snippet from a list I listen in on. "I went to a fascinating lecture at the U this morning by a Canadian scholar by the name of Shadia Drury. She's written a book titled The Political Philosophy of Leo Straus.
"She discusses to some extent the role of religion with the neo-conservatives--(these are guys like Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Irving and William Kristol and others). They were "disciples" of the University of Chicago professor, Leo Strauss (deceased some years ago).
"Neoconservatism holds that religion is necessary to "control the masses." They view religion as a pious, but necessary, fraud. Seems to me that this is what we are seeing worked out in the Institute on Religion and Democracy, which has heavy neoconservative connections. Of course, not every religious person who has allied themselves with IRD is insincere--they just may not be "in on the joke" so to speak. The neoconservatives find their alliance with the Religious Right necessary and useful."
There is a choice to be made in the face of the outrageous limitation of chosenness that ends this act of a larger play.
In and of itself this parable can't be borne long for all of us end up speechless in explaining ourselves. So this needs to be seen in light of the few glimmers of something better than what we have during this time between entering Jerusalem and the end of Matthew. This is the background darkness the clarifies moments of recognition regarding the greatest commandments, the reality of lamenting exactly this approach, a resurrection from exactly this grave, and a willingness to engage a steadfast choice to live an extension of mercy rather than a short-circuiting to wailing and gnashing.
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2005/october2005.html
Just when we think we have won through the act of violence (destroyed them and their city) and turned things over to those expected to be loyal because of their ascension to new power we find that the expected loyalists also fail to bring the honor expected by such a violent victor.
Enough victories like this and there will be no one left but a final golem sycophant. And in what universe is that sort of obeisance satisfying?
Procrustes had his bed, this king has his wedding garment to measure the predetermined worth of a person. Perhaps humanity was indeed made for the Sabbath! What other creeds and laws might be called forth to constrain celebrations of life and possibilities of new life?
A question must be asked about the insecurity of the king. Isn't this a good spot for a queen to call a time-out, schedule a vacation, insist on a time of refuge? If you've got a good thing/wedding going, wherefrom arises the need to impose it? Is this gnashing of teeth mentality one that will turn around and resurrect? Or, having started down that retribution road, is there a way to repent?
Isn't this a fine example of "you're with me or against me"? Where is creativity in the midst of an eighth day? Was it all used up in the first seven? Surely there is a better response than the very one Caiaphas, Pilate, et al was willing to resort to.
What other response is available to you when the good you offer is not received as good?
http://www.kairoscomotion.org/lectionary/2005/october2005.html
Moses is delayed on the mountain: Worry. Take things into your own hands and build an alternative worship experience. Dance around a golden calf, which is what hoarded resources are good for.
Wedding guests have refused their invitations and killed the messengers: Recompense. Take things into your own hands and kill the killers. Invite any left to the wedding. A seemingly generous act finds the violence of recompense still active when someone doesn't live up to a dress code. With a finer and finer sieve are folks caught, until none will be able to stand. Many are called, but few are chosen. Few are chosen, and even these will eventually be speechless.
It is difficult to let our gentleness be shown in a wilderness setting or an example of heavenly blessing. We refuse to take the time to remember goodness and mercy all the days of our life.
- - -
glory is exchanged for grass
every day
that which is before us
is never as delightful
as that which is not
grass is greener elsewheregrass is exchanged for grass
grass for grace
promises of G*D with us
in Moses' return
in a heavenly banquet
fall on empty earswe hallucinate grass
until gold becomes an oasis
busy-ness an edge for advancement
getting hungrier and hungrier
settling for empty calories
unsettling the ox within us each
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html
Might we be looking at a different kind of parable here – one that rehearses a bit of history? Imagine a stained glass kind of re-telling of Creation, Eden/Babel, Flood, Exodus, Exile by one understood to be a prophet who is raising an important question.
The presence of G*D may be compared to Creation. Is not a wedding a celebration of creation? (Mind, a wedding can become quite trivial in its cultural manifestation.) The honoring of differences in the context of a larger unity, sparks much that is new.
However it happens, celebrations do formally end. A drifting away happens when one celebration doesn't morph into a next celebration. Great is the fall thereof – whether in Eden or at Babel – when my difference is more important than your difference and there are better things to do alone.
O, the Flood of rage, as sending folks away grows and grows into murder most foul – into genocide.
O, the remorse, the rebound, to settle for a new people and an Exodus from our mutual crying and loneliness.
O, the heightened sensitivity when the new folks don't play according to the game and we are still not back at the joy of creation. A trial separation, an Exile, grows from any slight or disappointment.
Yes, we have here a slam of the religious leaders of that and every age who forget their place in this ongoing story of Paradise Lost and Paradise Yearned For. But, also a rehearsal of a vision of every prophet to reconnect Creation and Present.
Where was your emotional connection to this snapshot of G*D? Were you overjoyed to be included in with the good, the bad, and the ugly? Were your fears engaged that you would be the next one to make a slip or get caught by an unrepentant Miss Manners, one with no sense of comedy?
After the little moral at the end, did you find yourself feeling glad you were among the few? Was there a little niggling thought that you had one more opportunity to bargain to increase the few, to more, to many, to all? If feeling the former and recognizing the latter, what are you doing to advocate for those being told to go to hell in today's world?
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html
Again with the parables. If Jesus, as a revelation of G*D, does so much with parables, we might begin catch a glimpse of a subtle G*D. In so doing we would do well to engage some humility in our understanding of G*D. Blessings to you for appreciating a more expansive G*D than doctrine or literalness can contain.
What a difference if we were to use an “invite everyone” approach to living life. Finding the good and the bad within each person we meet, we will find those ready for a next step and those who are not.
Given a choice between “inviting everyone” and “throw him away”, when a particular everyone doesn’t measure up, we see the parable ending with verse 10 - “filled with guests”. After this we get into what we take is a later addition and agree with the Jesus Seminar folks who write in The Five Gospels, “The Matthean version has strayed from from the original parable. The body of the parable (22:2-10) has been turned into an allegory of history of salvation: a king (God) prepares a feast for his son (Jesus) and invites his subjects (Israel) to the banquet. They treat the invitations lightly or kill the king’s servants (the prophets). The king destroys them and their city (Jerusalem) and invites others (foreigners) to the feast. This allegory is alien to Jesus, since the story has been thoroughly Christianized and looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem.”
It is not enough to hear that a parable is being told without an appreciation of what a parable is. Otherwise we fall prey to the old bait and switch - I’m going to tell you a parable . . . at least I want you to think highly of my allegory I am claiming to be a parable. A discerning ear and eye can help us move deeper into reported experiences and not be fooled by an initial claim.
= = = = = = =
Matthew is in such a dark place these weeks. I read these parables, and for a while I say, "That's Jesus." And then, "Whoa, that's Matthew" (or the Matthean community).
I would LOVE to preach this parable without the ending.
I think I'll be going with Philippians though!
http://kcmlection.blogspot.com/2011/10/matthew-221-14.html
Always with the intermediaries. Why send “slaves” to do a final ask?
Who would dare to ignore a king to their face or to try to imprison them? It is so easy for us to fall into judging where we are going to spend our time and energy. Convenience is a major issue here. Also at stake are judgments about survival and whether attending a wedding will detract from the needed commerce to continue growing personal wealth. Both of these remind us of the eternal tension between our social contracts and our personal judgments.
Here the kingly prerogative is to make the king’s judgments preeminent and so all citizens need to drop everything to attend to wherever the king ends up on a particular decision. Why would a wedding banquet be expected to be of the same import and value to everyone? Is this but the latest in a series of vanities of kingship that is weakening the interrelationships of the community or is it a key turning point in the way the citizens are recommitted to one another? The mere fact of a banquet doesn’t tell us much about where it fits into larger pictures.
The only consistent things here is the hair-trigger recompense a king is able to wreak upon their subjects. Many are slaughtered and single outliers are bound and tortured.
Where would you rank this particular parable in light of other parables. Is this on the same par as a mustard seed?
What aspect of heaven does this convey that another parable about a field pearl doesn’t or can’t? And, is this a constituent part of heaven or another of our interpretations based on kingly privilege?
Not being able to take a parable at face-value, how might we use this to reveal a misconception about heaven (defined by hell rather than itself) or an integral part of its nature (exclusive, decisional)?
Imagine for a moment a moral that is a bit less privileged. What would it be like to follow Chapter 21’s insight that many regarded Jesus as a prophet? Might that push us to reconsider the telling of this parable in favor of one that is more prophetically merciful than kingly/priestly judgment and end with “Many are called, and many welcomed.”