|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Gospel of the Absurd
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
This next week's Gospel is one of the most absurd stories I know.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:1-14
Basic outline
King is giving a wedding party for his son. Sends out his servants to tell the invited guests to come, all is ready.
The invited guests ignore the call.
The king again sends out the servants to tell the invited guests to come.
Again the guest ignore the call
One goes to his business
Another to his farm
The rest seize the servants, mistreat them and
kill them.
Enraged the king sends his soldiers to punish the murderers and to destroy their city. (I am wondering about the food, I bet the food would have started to spoil by this time).
The king then tells the servants to go out into the streets (of the city that is being destroyed?) and invite the commoners, both good and bad, to come to the feast. And the hall was filled.
But wait, the king comes into the hall and spots someone who does not have proper attire on. (How would any person on the street have proper attire for such a wedding anyway, especially if their city was just destroyed?)
The king challenges this man
The man cannot give a good answer
The king orders the man thrown out into the
utter darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth
Many are called, few are chosen.
All of this is very absurd, as I have pointed out in my editorial comments
Goes to show, even though I have heard this story many times throughout my life, I still see new things in it.
What do you make of the story?
Is the destruction of the city referring to the destruction of Jerusalem (assuming the Matthew was written after 70 CE)?
What do you make of the man without proper attire?
To me it is not a question of his attire, but am wondering if the problem was that while he came to the party, he was not partying--he did not realize how momentous the occasion actually was.
Consider the risk to the king, all the extravagant things he must have gone through, only to be rejected, not once, but twice.
How about the son, no one was coming to his party. Now that would be embarrassing.
Weird story.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
This parable shows the election of the Gentiles and the Jews rejection of Christ. As for the man with the the wrong attire, I've always understood this to be referring to baptism or rather, as in the case of this unfortunate gentleman, his lack of it.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I don't know from theological allegory, but here is my take:
The king (the Father?) offers the respectable folks (the Jewish elite?) his hospitality at his Son's wedding feast. They either carelessly reject his slaves (his prophets?) and the invitations they bring or viciously reject them. The king says to hell with them and their cushy gated communities! So while his soldiers are dispatching the nasties and their neighborhoods, he sends slaves to fetch the more humble folks in the streets of other parts of his kingdom (who would have more sense than to turn down a Royal Command Invitation to a wedding) until he has a wedding hall full. Now, I have heard that a rich host of the era provides fancy robes for his invited guests to don at such a feast. This robeless guy is either uninvited ( ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ) and therefore has not been given the robe or is such a dope that he loses his robe (relapsed? apostate?), cannot come up with either a good story, the Truth, or even an apology and winds up out in the night bitching and moaning and grinding his molars.
The End.
[ 07. October 2014, 05:45: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Not dopeyness, that'd be unjust. The man can't reply, even though the king calls him "friend" and patiently awaits an answer.
As I understand it, the robes (supplied by the king, of course--people out camping under hedges aren't likely to have anything fit to wear to a wedding, and would have no time to go and fetch it anyway, if they did!)...
as I was saying, the robes represent God's gift of forgiveness and righteousness. They "cover up" what would normally make these people most unsuitable guests at the wedding!
But this fellow, well, he's in his old duds--doubtless the ones he was wearing when the servants scooped him up and brought him along. Why hasn't he got robes like everybody else? They all have them, he had the same opportunities they had. If he hasn't got fine robes, it can only be because he's refused them--has chosen to wear his own clothing instead--has adopted an attitude of "if the king wants me, he'll have to take me as I am. I'm good enough for any fine court, I'll have no bleeding charity."
Which is a slap in the face to the king's generosity, and deserves shamefaced, silent embarrassment at the inquiry, and later molar grinding.
[ 07. October 2014, 06:22: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
... and we needn't stick this all on the Jews--the first lot represent everybody who receives an invitation and is rude/stupid enough to refuse. (They've doubtless known about the wedding feast, and their own invitation, for weeks or months; the invitation they are turning down is not the first time they've heard of the event.
Keep in mind that hosts in those days would not be able to fix a set hour when the banquet would be ready in just the same way we can now. We have temperature monitored ovens and oven timers, and can be fairly sure everything will be ready (more or less) by six. They would need to wait till the barbecue etc. came off the fire, and then send out a bunch of servants to warn everybody that dinner was about to be ready, it's time to come NOW. It was the only reasonable alternative to having a couple hundred hungry guests getting sloshed and clogging up your courtyard for hours while you waited for the calf to roast. Leave 'em at home, and send out servants to fetch them when the cooks start fixing up the platters.
This logically implies that the first lot of people had already been invited days before, and accepted that invitation, and have suddenly changed their minds at the very point dinner is announced, leaving their would-be host with a ton of food and no guests. No wonder he was angry with them.
Anyway, they would stand for anybody who is privileged to have an invitation to the Kingdom of God and for a totally unworthy reason sloughs it off rudely at the last minute. This would include cradle church members as well.
And the second lot would be all the people who would ordinarily never dream of getting an invitation from the king/God--that is, Gentiles/pagans/tax collectors/prostitutes/other notorious sinners. They can't believe their luck. All but the one guy, who proves that even sheer grace can be refused.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jrw
Shipmate
# 18045
|
Posted
I would imagine that many people would be quite hurt if they had invited someone to a party and the person turned up without having 'made any effort' in terms of physical appearance. They would probably think (rightly or wrongly) that the person didn't actually like them very much and had only come along purely for the event. Maybe the bloke in the story thought, "Oh, an invitation from King So-and-So. Can't actually stand him, but it should be a good do".
Posts: 522 | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
In context, Jesus has come into Jerusalem in a triumphal entry that the children are singing about, he's driven the buyers and sellers out of his Father's house of prayer, and healed people in it. The Scribes and Pharisees are furious. Jesus goes to a safe place for the night.
Jesus returns the next morning and curses the fig tree, and so it dries up. This is very symbolic. The Scribes and Pharisees are ready for him. They challenge his authority. He challenges theirs in return, and then tells three parables against them: the first asks who is serving God, the son who says he will but doesn't or the one who says he won't but he does. It ends with Jesus telling them that the tax-collectors and prostitutes are going to Heaven ahead of them. Ouch. The next parable is about the landowner who has wicked tenants who won't give what is due to him, and who kill his messengers. This ends with Jesus telling them that the kingdom of God will be taken from them and given to people who will produce the fruits of the kingdom. He's telling it straight.
Now we come to this parable. The invited guests were taking their invitations to the banquet for granted. They were assuming that due to their blood-line they would naturally be invited. They were taking their relationship with God lightly. They couldn't be bothered to make the effort. When the messengers pressed them, they abused and/or killed them. This refers to the prophets. The audience would know that.
And so, Jesus said, the people they looked down upon as unfit for the feast would be invited in, the hungry people who would appreciate the invitation and be ready to show this to their host. Their robes would be made of the love they showed toward their host, the love that was missing in the one who was thrown out. That's my take.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
What I am about to say may appear contradictory, but it is a part of the questioning I am going through at this time.
First of all, I would not be too hasty is claiming that Matthew put this in because he was trying to explain the rejection of Jesus by the Jews and then the development of Christianity.
At the time Matthew was writing, the Christian subcommunity still saw themselves as part of the local, larger, synagogue community. While there were rumblings, the split did not happen till much later.
That said, I want to focus on why the invited guests did not come. I do not think it was because the invited guests were rejecting the king or the groom directly; rather they would not come because they were rejecting the bride. She was not "one of their kind." My wife pointed this out. Her family went through a similar experience nearly 40 years ago. My wife's sister (who is white) fell in love and choose to marry a black man. A family of second cousins were aghast and choose not to come to the wedding because--in my sister in law's case--the groom was not one of "our kind." To this day the second cousins are still estranged from the family.
In Matthew's day the Christian community called itself "the bride of Christ." If the temple establishment were the invited guests who were refusing to come because the bride was not one of their kind, there could be a connection. Meanwhile, they were also being scandalized by all the riff raff that was showing up at the party. Jesus was being roundly condemned for eating with tax collectors (like Matthew) and prostitutes. He associated with fishermen (not exactly nobility) and women (scandal in itself). He was not afraid to reach out to touch lepers and other outcasts. Gentiles were coming to him. Etc.
Now to apply the story to us. Do we still have problems with the type of people coming to the party? It was not too long ago my congregation went through a process where we officially became a part of the Reconciling in Christ movement (meaning we welcome all regardless of race, color, background, or sexual orientation). While we unofficially had on problems with people who have same sex orientation (a former church council president is a lesbian, several of the children who grew up in the congregation came out as they became young adults, we had several same sex couples worship with us from time to time, and we were the only Christian church in the community who was willing to host a funeral for a swimming coach who was gay after he died) we never officially said people with same sex orientations were welcomed. Finally someone brought the formally brought the issue up. But even then it took nearly three years of discussion to make it official. There had been fears that about a third of the congregation would split off. But the end result was we only lost two families. On the other hand we saw a surge of new worshipers with many varied backgrounds (Nigerian, Peruvian, Chinese, German, Jamaican) begin worshipping with us. They all said they felt comfortable with us because we had become intentionally welcoming. We still are.
Now, I am not do not want to get into a dead horse conversation here. I am only using the same sex orientation as an example. Fact is, at least in the US, the Sunday Morning Worship hour is still the most segregated hour in the American week.
Also want to post this interesting comment I saw in the Spokane Spokesman Review yesterday (kind of explains how the host of a wedding feels when things go awry) This was in a column called "Anne/s Mailbox"--it is a nationally syndicated column
Saw this in the Spokesman Review Anne's Mailbox today
Dear Annie: My blood boiled when I read your response to “Jay,” who complained about the length of weddings. He sounds like one of those guests who makes it all about him and not the couple celebrating the most important day of their lives. You told him it was an option to leave before dinner was served. That is unbelievably rude!
You do know, I would hope, that the hosts still have to pay for the meal. In the case of our daughter, that amounted to $60 per person. How would you feel if you invited a guest for dinner at a restaurant and he left after ordering his food and you still had pay for it? Are you kidding me?
If a person doesn’t like the length of weddings, the invitation should be declined. Another option would be to let the hosts know that you will attend only the ceremony. That shouldn’t take too long and is, after all, the most important part. My amazing 95-year-old mother-in-law was on the dance floor until the last song was played. I just love her attitude. – Exasperated Mother of the Bride
Dear Exasperated: Are you going to lock the doors and tie your guests to their chairs to make sure they stay? People RSVP with every intention of eating dinner. We’ve seen guests descend like locusts on the dessert. But if the reception is appallingly delayed because the bridal party went out for drinks first or decided to spend three hours taking photographs, guests are entitled to go home when they can’t wait any longer. (But we, too, like your mother-in-law’s attitude. Go Mom!)
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
If you ran into this story in some other other context, it would indeed seem absurd or worse. The same is true of various other parables.
The king is throwing a wedding banquet for his son and has invited people who nonetheless do not want to come. (One wonders if they were offered any option to decline.) It sounds as if the king is highly unpopular (or his son is). When he sends out his servants and they are attacked, the situation seems even more extreme. He then sends out his servants to shanghai anyone they meet and drag them all to the feast, willy-nilly. Presumably these people like him no better than the others, so he must have send armed servants, perhaps an army. There must have been many frightened, miserable guests. When he finds someone improperly dressed (having been shanghaied), he gets upset about that and expels that man. The man who is expelled is probably relieved that at least he was not killed and also happy inasmuch as he didn't want to attend in the first place. The man who is expelled can be seen as a survivor, to be congratulated on having survived the whims of the king. It might be a good time to emigrate; could any land with such a king survive long?
If you tell this story to a non-Christian and identify the king in the story as God, you may well drive him farther away.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
I agree with Lamb Chopped's comments.
I wish I had the supporting scholarship at hand for this, but I'm not posting from where my notes are. Still, I hope this may be helpful...
"Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" is not an image of utter hellish condemnation, but the equivalent of a rather silly prank.
The outer darkness referred to the dark zone immediately outside the city walls. However, this was not a deserted area. Beggars, animal merchants, and others would be camped outside the city walls at night, so they could enter or ply their trade by the gates in the morning.
The man bound hand and foot would almost certainly be discovered by - and be at the mercy of - the sub-urban poor people just outside the walls. It would be not unlike tying up your friend and dropping him off outside a convenience store in a sketchy neighbourhood, because he had been acting like an arrogant douche. Would the folks who find him have mercy on him? Would they kick him in the head and take his wallet? It's a mildly dangerous prank, but also a lesson to help someone learn to stop being such a douche or face the consequences.
This only slightly lessens the weirdness of Matthew's parable, but might be worth considering.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
A friend of mine heard this sermon on the topic
Baptist Bookworm
So Jesus is the man thrown out; the King is,
well, the King; and we have the vested interests; and if not collaborators, acquiesers.
Does this sound much more like the kingdom of heaven and less the Gospel of the Absurd?
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
I agree with Lamb Chopped's comments.
I wish I had the supporting scholarship at hand for this, but I'm not posting from where my notes are. Still, I hope this may be helpful...
"Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" is not an image of utter hellish condemnation, but the equivalent of a rather silly prank.
The outer darkness referred to the dark zone immediately outside the city walls. However, this was not a deserted area. Beggars, animal merchants, and others would be camped outside the city walls at night, so they could enter or ply their trade by the gates in the morning.
The man bound hand and foot would almost certainly be discovered by - and be at the mercy of - the sub-urban poor people just outside the walls. It would be not unlike tying up your friend and dropping him off outside a convenience store in a sketchy neighbourhood, because he had been acting like an arrogant douche. Would the folks who find him have mercy on him? Would they kick him in the head and take his wallet? It's a mildly dangerous prank, but also a lesson to help someone learn to stop being such a douche or face the consequences.
This only slightly lessens the weirdness of Matthew's parable, but might be worth considering.
Well worth considering - someone quite upset about a man going to Hell form his bad dress sense, was still ruminating on last week's reading, yesterday, and I mentioned, with aknowledgement, this idea and she cheered up.
It would be helpful if you could find the scholarship which positied this idea.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... they would not come because they were rejecting the bride. She was not "one of their kind." My wife pointed this out...
...Jesus was being roundly condemned for eating with tax collectors (like Matthew) and prostitutes. He associated with fishermen (not exactly nobility) and women (scandal in itself). He was not afraid to reach out to touch lepers and other outcasts. Gentiles were coming to him. Etc.
Now to apply the story to us. Do we still have problems with the type of people coming to the party?....
I like this interpretation, not as the only valid interpretation (I have long believed the improperly dressed man was demonstrating an ungracious ungrateful "I'll do it but only my way" or even "any event I attend, I have to stand out as different") but as a potentially equally valid interpretation that challenges us in our churches and our daily lives.
More traditional interpretations as above in this thread can feed self-satisfaction if we identify with those who gladly accept the invitation. We are the good guys, phooey on them.
I don't think I've ever heard these interpretations extended to challenge, but it could be done. Ask, do we really accept? Or do we see some of what we think God is asking as of us as inconveniencing our planned comforts. Help a neighbor instead of watching that game on TV? "Later God, I've got stuff to do right now." Married a wife, bought me as cow, got plans for the evening and the next 20 years of my career. Helping the neighbor has to wait, I'll get around to it later.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
