In this Sunday’s reading there
is a wedding and a feast.
I always enjoy weddings. They
are such happy times. This year I have had the privilege of officiating at
weddings and the pleasure of attending weddings as a guest.
Each wedding is different,
some are very small, others large; some formal, others informal; some
elaborate, others simple. Yet there are
elements in common. People arrive having taken time to get ready to “look their
best” and they are smiling. It is a
happy, yet solemn occasion as the focus is on the promises that the couple make
to each other. Tears are often shed as vows are exchanged.
Today’s reading in Matthew’s
gospel is a parable about a wedding. A very bizarre wedding!
The wedding is for the king’s
son and guests had been invited. However when the king’s slaves went to call
them the guests all said they couldn’t attend. The king sent back the slaves to
tell them how much preparation had been done. This seemed to make the invited
guests angry, although some offered excuses the rest murdered the messengers.
Bizarre!
In turn this made the king
angry. The king sent troops, burnt the city and murdered his friends (who had
murdered his slaves).
The king then said that these
guests were not worthy to come to the wedding banquet (presumably that is the
few who are still alive!). The king instructed the servants to go out and find
strangers to invite to the wedding feast.
Then an even more bizarre
turn of events! The king was upset that there was a man attending not wearing a
wedding robe, had him bound and thrown out. Very strange to invite people off
the street and expect them to wear wedding robes.
So, I think it is clear that
the author of Matthew penned this story to have shock value to the readers. But
what was it saying? This is a complex story. I am not even going to attempt to interpret
all the different nuances of this parable. But I do have a couple of thoughts
to share.
I have heard it interpreted
that the king is God, the slaves are prophets and the guests are Israel. I want
to resist this interpretation. For me it is simply too problematic.
As you have heard me say many
times, I think it is a mistake to set characters in parables. It often doesn’t
work, interpretations have to be twisted to make the characters behave in expected
ways.
If the king is said to
represent God in this parable then the picture is not a pleasant one. God would
be given to rages, one who seeks revenge, a murderer, a destroyer of cities and
a torturer. Not a pleasant picture.
The first thought I had, and one
which I will continue to ponder, is about the influence this parable (and other
similar ones) have on contemporary society or even throughout history. If, God is
understood as one who seeks revenge, is angry, can murder and pillage then it can
give justification to behave in a certain way.
(And I don’t even want to
start on the picture of God as a male thus giving rise to the idea that only
males are in God’s image with a duty to dominate females. Sufficient to say this interpretation has
caused harm to women and children for centuries.)
I think it is really
important to consider this whole idea of how we image God. In the last few
years I have read many things where God is being said to be angry or revengeful.
Where God is supposed to be on one side and seeking the downfall of others. How
much influence do interpretations such as this king’s behaviour have on this
sort of portrayal of God?
So where do I find God
(Christ) in this parable? Certainly not in the king, nor the guests, nor the
slaves. I find Christ in the one who was speechless. The one who was cast out.
The least of the least. It reminds me to see Christ, to see that spark of
divinity, in the poor, the downtrodden, the persecuted and the unlovely.
