Matt 22:1-14
Unchristlike Images of God in Matthean Parables
A Mini-Minyan with Brad Jersak, Brian Zahnd, Derek Flood, Andrew Klager
Introduction (Brad Jersak)
I was recently invited to share thoughts and respond to questions about my book, A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel, among a theologically mixed group of very perceptive readers.
Prior to the meeting, the facilitator gave me the consideration of a heads up about a question he was planning to ask. He wanted to me to address the problem of why Jesus’ parables sometimes seem to represent God in a rather un-Christlike light—especially as an infuriated and vengeful king who not only destroys, but even tortures those who do not respond to his invitation. Specifically, he asked me to look at the parable of the banquet as told in Matthew 22.
I was aware of the difficulties in that passage and thought to invite three colleagues to weigh in with their collective wisdom, rather than speaking on my own. Namely, Brian Zahnd, Derek Flood and Andrew Klager. I also received behind the scenes input from Pastor Jason Tripp, who I’ll reference later as well. The conversation that followed seemed well worth sharing, so the following represents excerpts from it.
We begin with the text:
Matthew 22 1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying, 2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. 3 And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come. 4 Again he sent out other slaves saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are all butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast.”’ 5 But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business, 6 and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them. 7 But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire. 8 Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.’ 10 Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests.
11 “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, 12 and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 For many are called, but few are chosen.”
I enjoyed the comments and depth of conversation, very nice, I would like to suggest one more perspective that is obviously hoisted upon the language , but aren’t they all? This parable follows on the heels of the chief Preists and Pharisees seeking to lay hands on Jesus and it bleeds into “And Jesus answered and spoke to THEM”…so for context I think the parable starts out with a specific audeience in mind (which others have implied as well) and I think as a true teacher Jesus is trying to get a point across to this group of adversaries to peace and that might be framed like this: “You want God to be some kind of King? I just shiwed up on the foal of a coat, gentle and meek demonstrating what kind of king God really is, but you want a different kind of king??? Well let me show what that really looks like, and you’re not going to like it, so this is kind of a warniing shot to let you know, you always get what what you seek”…and then Jesus goes on to describe what the kind of King they are looking for would look like in Gods clothes…now I know that Jesus starts the parable with “the kingdom of heaven is like:” but he has always made it clear that the kingdom is kind of here now and we get to shape it with our actions and our words, obviously the kingdom he describes here is NOT heavenly for some of the people in the parable, but that is the harsh reality of the kingdom NOW it takes the shaoe we ourselves give it and that might mean we get a king of violence if thats what we choose to build…I find it odd at all that Jesus has resorted to describing his Father as this kind of king and sustpect that he is simply describing a king that the Pharisess wanted and what the end result of that would look like…he was trying to communicate to them that they had already been invited into Gods wedding feast and that was connected to the son they were rejecting by wanting a king of their own making…
Sorry for the typos big fingers, little text ipad woes…have mercy.
Great post Brad, and what a panel of experts! I preached thru the Matthew’s “gnashing of teeth” parables last year at the church I led just outside of Toronto. I’m now in exile, living in Los Angeles . They are difficult! And profoundly important. In my work with these texts I tried hard not to jump to the conclusion that ‘the king’ is the God figure. Just like in the text about the worker in the vineyard or the parable of the talents, let’s not assume God is the wealthy, land-owning, CEO-like dictator. That is how we have been formed to understand God in the white/western north America, but I think our friends working in Liberation and Feminist theology have something important to say here.
If the king in the parable is not representative of God but instead a first century king (like Herod), then no hermeneutical gymnastics are needed. (This is where your book “A More Christ-like God” is brilliant! If the king doesn’t look like Christ, than we can’t align him with God. But he does look violently identical to first century kings… so maybe he’s just what Jesus says he is – why do some love literalism, except when it makes the most sense?) The first century listener/reader, understood this kind of a king. At the end, the king tortures/kills the one who doesn’t fit his agenda. This is exactly what political power did to Jesus (and often still does). He was put out of the city (the place of political, cultural, economic power), into the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, Golgatha.
It’s similar with the parable of the talents. God isn’t the wealthy banker who destroys those who don’t ‘invest’ well. WOW! Talk about a capitalist reading of that one. Rather, the wealthy banker is a wealthy banker. A king is a king. A vineyard owner is a vineyard owner. And in the first century being a wealthy banker inevitably meant exploiting others and unsavory kind of money lending (William R. Herzog’s Parables as Subversive Speech is SO good here). So lived the opposite of Ex. 22:25 “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest.”
The business leader rewards those who prop up his capitalist greed, where he punishes the one who refuses to play the game (buries the cash). And it is this person who is expelled, for he doesn’t play along with power. This is exactly what happened to Jesus (think cleansing of the temple).
I love these parables because if anything they do exactly what you’re doing… they create dialogue and expose some of our deepest assumptions about God and neighbor. Thanks for your insights and those of your amigos!
For those interested, I posted some further musing on this passage seen in the light of the cross: http://www.therebelgod.com/2015/10/wrestling-with-gods-violence-in_31.html