He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence.
Mt 22:1-14
THE PARABLE OF THE INVITATIONS TO THE WEDDING
Matthew inserts two more parables: the marriage feast and the wedding gar-ment. The first (marriage feast) has been highly allegorized. A king knvites guests to his son’s wedding feast, but they refuse to come. So he sends other servants, and they still refuse to come, and ill-treat and kill the servants. So the king sends his army and burns their city. Then the king sends the servants to find other guests - as many as they can find, both bad and good. .
We should notice first the similarities between this parable and the parable of the vineyard which it follows in Matthew: in both, two groups of servants are sent; those to whom the servants are sent refuse to do what the servants say, and kill some of them; those who have refused to obey are themselves destroyed; and they are replaced by others, who make up for what the first have failed to do.
Matthew clearly means his readers to understand the two parables in the same way: he is describing God's dealings with the Jews, their disobedience to him, and the new covenant which will include the gentiles.
The allegorical elements in the story, which strike the reader as strange and unnatural, e.g. the killing of those who bring an invitation to a wedding, the de-struction of guests, and burning of a city while a meal is waiting to be served, are no doubt additions, made by the Church or the Evangelist to an earlier and more straightforward parable. To some extent these additions show the influence of the parable of the vineyard in its Matthean form (e.g. 22:4 repeats words in 21:36).
Moreover, there is a similar parable in Luke 14:16ff. which is in some ways less allegorized, in other ways more developed - e.g. the reasons why the guests do not come are given more fully.
It is difficult to reconstruct the original parable of Jesus out of Matthew’s al-legory, but the purpose of it may have been to defend his fellowship with the tax collectors and sinners on the grounds that the Pharisees had refused his invitation to repent and to join him at his table, which was the anticipation of the messianic feast.
Matthew inserts this parable, and the parable which follows, between .Mark 12:12 and Mark 12:13 (= Matthew 22:15). It is usually thought that this parable, and the parable in Luke I4:6ff. are independent expansions of an original shorter parable; but it may be that here too Luke has used Matthew.
v. 1. Jesus again in reply spoke to them in parables, saying,
This verse is Matthew's composition, to introduce the two parables which he is inserting here.
v. 2. “The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son.
The kingdom of heaven may be likened to: This method of introducing a parable is a translation of an Aramaic expression, and it means “It is the case with…as with…”. The kingdom is not like a king but a wedding feast.
A king: The king here is God, as in 5:35 (Jerusalem is the city of the great King), 18:23(a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants). In other places in this Gospel, Jesus himself is the King, e.g. 25:34.
A marriage feast: The kingdom is compared to a marriage feast again at 25:10, and in Rev. 19:7ff.
v. 3. He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come.
Cf. the first group of servants sent for the fruit of the vineyard in 21:34f.; perhaps Matthew means the former prophets in both places.
v. 4. A second time he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those invited: “Behold, I have prepared my banquet, my calves and fattened cattle are killed, and everything is ready; come to the feast.”’
Cf. the second group of servants in 21:36. One would expect these to be . the latter prophets, though it has been suggested that the apostles are meant, and their mission to Israel, 10:5ff.
vv. 5 &6. Some ignored the invitation and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. The rest laid hold of his servants, mistreated them, and killed them.
The story is inexplicable unless we recall the interpretation - the refusal of Israel to repent, and the persecution of the prophets (or of the apostles).
v. 7. The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.
Cf. 21:41.43. The city stands for Jerusalem, destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70.
v. 8. Then he said to his servants, ‘The feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy to come.
Those invited were not worthy: Cf. the instructions to the apostles in 10:13ff.
v. 9. Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.
Go therefore (poreuesthe oun): Cf. the words with which Jesus sends the apostles to the Gentiles: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations (poreuthentes oun) 28:19. The new mission of the servants corresponds to the mission to the Gentiles which begins after the resurrection.
v. 10. The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, and the hall was filled with guests.
Both bad and good anticipates the next parable, in which a 'bad' guest is cast out of the wedding hall.
THE PARABLE OF THE WEDDING GARMENT
The second parable continues the story of the first: the king who has invited the guests comes into the hall to inspect them, and finds one who has no wedding garment: the king commands him to be thrown out. Again the parable has been allegorized - the outside of the hall is described as the outer darkness, where men will weep and gnash their teeth; that is, the hall is the life of the age to come, and outside it is hell. Also, it is clear that originally this was a separate parable; how could a guest be blamed for not being correctly dressed for a wedding, when he had been brought in in the manner described at the end of the previous parable?
There is a similar parable attributed to a rabbi who lived about the year A.D. 80, which describes a king sending invitations to a banquet, but giving no time. The wise attired themselves, while the foolish went on with their work. Suddenly the summons came, and those who were not dressed in clean clothes were not' admitted to the banquet. If Jesus' parable was originally used for the same pur-pose, then it taught readiness, that is, repentance; cf. 25:1ff.
Matthew uses it to show that it is not enough to hear the preaching: there must be a response to it, in good works: Bear fruit that befits repentance (3:8); compare the seed sown on the good soil, he who hears the word and understands it; he indeed bears fruit… (13:23). Matthew says that many are called - that is, invited into the kingdom by the preaching of the gospel; but few are chosen - that is, few will respond, and are worthy. The Jews themselves have demonstrated this principle: it will operate among the Gentiles also; they will be judged at the end of the world (see 25:31ff.). Cf. also the parable of the net (13:47ff.) for the idea of good and bad together in the Church.
These verses have no parallel in the other Gospels; and the latter part is full of Matthean expressions.
v. 11. But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment.
When the king came in to look at the guests: This is the last judgment; com-pare the parables in Chapter 13 (e.g. weeds of the field, the net). and in Chapter 25 (the ten bridesmaids, the talents. the sheep and the goats): in all of these there is a division or sorting out of the bad and the good.
A man who had no wedding garment: The wedding garment was not, apparently, a special garment, but ordinary clean clothes. It stands for the new life of good works which is to follow the preaching of the gospel. The fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints (Rev. 19:8).
v. 12. He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wed-ding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence.
Friend (hetaire): A word used only by Matthew in the New Testament, and always of people who are in the wrong; see 20:13.
How did you get in here without a wedding garment? The only demand which John and Jesus make is that men should repent in order to enter the king-dom (3:2, 4:17). This repentance expresses itself in a life of good works, or chari-ty. The man has tried to enter without this new life, and therefore he is condemned.
He was speechless: The Jews thought of good works as 'intercessors' before God; e.g. 'He who fulfils a command gains for himself an intercessor'. Cf Acts 10:4. The man has done no good works. Therefore, he is silent and there is no one to speak for him.
v. 13. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’
The attendants: A different word in the Greek from the servants in the pre-vious parable. They stand for the angels; Cf. 13:39ff.
Bind him hand and foot: Cf. the command to the servants in the parable of the weeds of the field, Gather the weeds first, and bind them in bundles to be burned (13:30).
Cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth: For the same expression; see 8:12 and cf. 13:42. 50; 24:51; 25:30.
v. 14. Many are invited, but few are chosen.
For many are called, but few are chosen: The word called (kletoi) is from the same root as the word translated invited in vv. 3ff.
Chosen (eklektoi) means chosen by God for the life of the kingdom; the chosen or elect will be gathered into the kingdom by the angels (24:31). The saying may be a Jewish proverb; and it means that though many are offered the gospel by the preaching of the prophets and apostles, few will respond to it by repentance and good works.
No comments:
Post a Comment