Some Thoughts on the Parable of the Wedding Feast and Parabolic Literature
/Parables
* The meaning of most parables is not so obvious, or at least it shouldn't be. If we assume we know what Jesus is talking about, we are probably missing the main point; if we are too familiar with the story (having heard it so often before), we might not think carefully enough about its real meaning.
* Most parables contain some element that is strange or unusual. They should cause you to say, "Wait a minute! That's not how farmers do their work! That's not what kings usually do! That's not what normally happens in nature!" And this strange element should cause you to think!
* Parables do not define things precisely, but rather use comparisons to describe some aspect of how God acts or interacts with human beings. Yet to say "A is like B" does not mean that "A is identical to B in all respects"; so one should be careful not to misinterpret or misapply the parables.
*We might think that Jesus spoke in parables to make it easier for people to understand his message. According to the Gospels, however, he surprisingly does NOT expect everyone to understand them!
In Matthew, at least the disciples of Jesus understand the parables; but in Mark, even they have a hard time understanding, despite receiving extra instructions in private!
(a short analysis by James C. Christensen)
So, in looking at the parable of the Wedding Feast in Mt. 22, we are first alerted that we are in the parabolic realm at the very beginning when everyone in the kingdom refuses the invitation of the king to a wedding feast for his son. This would ever happen to a king in real life.
This reminds me of a genre of literature which employs magical realism; the opening line or paragraph so fantastic that the reader is alerted that we are not dealing with a realistic news story here. I am reminded of John L'Heureux's wonderful short story "The Anatomy of Desire" which opens with this paragraph :
Because Hanley’s skin had been stripped off by the enemy, he could find no one who was willing to be with him for long. The nurses were obligated, of course, to see him now and then, and sometimes the doctor, but certainly not the other patients and certainly not his wife and children. He was raw, he was meat, and he would never be any better. He had a great and natural desire, therefore, to be possessed by someone.
The readers realize at the outset that the author is giving them a wink and a nod and is inviting them to go along on a fantastic ride. It is the same with parables,
They strange or unbelievable elements in the parable let the listeners know that they are in what I might call "tall-tale" territory. They have to suspend their disbelief and go along with the game…
Other oddities:
The feast is already prepared and waiting before the king even knows how many would be attending.
Why would the king summon only those of one city to the feast? Was it everyone in the city, rich and poor?
And finally, when that invitation ends in disaster, the king issues a command to go to some vague set of main roads and haul in whoever they find--not much of a celebration with people no one even knows.
Then the addendum (or some might say, a second parable, has lots of red herrings as well: why would the king have the servants summon the bad and the good alike? Why did only one man not manage to dress properly? It doesn't make sense.
At this point we have to realize that this is neither a realistic story nor a simple metaphor. The Jews who heard this parable did not expect realism or logic. For example: we cannot equate the king and God. The section about the king killing everyone in one city is nothing more than Matthew's no-so-veiled reference to Jerusalem being destroyed by the Romans--something some Jewish-Christians felt they deserved. But horrific, nonetheless.
Parables were meant to catch Jesus' listeners off guard, to make them re-evaluate their normal ways of behaving, and to align their hearts with God's heart. Many parables, like the one about the Pharisee and the Publican, or the one about the Good Samaritan, employed elements which were very countercultural, and shocking to the people of Jesus' time. However, because we have grown up with them, they seem familiar or even ordinary to us. Often, we need to translate those stories using examples from our own social and cultural situations in order to see how truly counter-cultural they are.
These parables, which appear to be simple and straightforward stories, are actually multi-dimensional and complex. Frequently, we are left with things unresolved and have to make some conclusions of our own. Does the elder brother ever go in to join the party welcoming the prodigal son home? How do those in the vineyard who worked much longer hours respond to the words of the vineyard owner? Does the Good Samaritan return, and what happens to the victim? Does the Pharisee ever understand his spiritual arrogance? Once they get inside, do the five "wise" virgins enjoy the banquet, knowing that their sisters are still outside? Why DID a guest at the wedding feast show up poorly attire and refuse to explain why? How we resolve those issues in our own minds tells us a lot about our own attitudes. Are they in line with God's or not?
If there is some overall wisdom to be gleaned from parables, it is this: God's ways are not our ways. Parables tell us that the fight for the kingdom is not played out in palaces and war rooms, but in the everyday events of our everyday lives. The struggle for the kingdom is carried out in our divided hearts, where we sometimes mutter "Thy kingdom come" without fully realizing that we might have to pray "My kingdom go". (Alan Redpath, British Baptist Preacher). The parable demands that each of us answer the question "What do YOU say? How we answer defines our moral landscape.
