I want all of you to know that I really wish that I could stand up here and give you all the answers. This parable appears so straightforward. Here's how we can understand the parable, and how I've heard it explained before. The Jewish religious leaders are invited to a party by Jesus. They don’t believe John the Baptist’s message, so they don’t attend. The religious leaders even grow violent mistreating messengers. Then God sends in the troops which happen to be a Roman army to slaughter the city. We Gentiles get in but if we don’t comply - if we don’t put on the wedding garment - then we too will get tossed out. I read this interpretation over and over as I did my study on this passage.
While this interpretation appears to fit the parable, it does raise some serious issues for me. First it paints a disturbing picture of God. When I see God depicted as violent within the pages of the Gospels it doesn’t make sense to me. If God is meant to be the king in this passage then God sends a Roman army to destroy Jerusalem. The king greets one of his guests, addressing him as “friend,” and then tosses this “friend” out of the wedding without even getting an explanation. Do these sound like the actions of any rational person - much less a loving God?
When we look at Jesus' acts and teachings Jesus seems consistently in opposition to violence, even when his followers think it necessary. In Luke 9 a Samaritan village refuses to let Jesus pass through. James and John ask Jesus if they should call down fire on the village and destroy it, but Jesus rebuked them. We read that, when Jesus was on the cross he had a legion of angels at his call. How awesome it would have been for Jesus to wipe out those people who put him on the cross! But Jesus forbears. The worst he does is toss over a few tables in the temple. Jesus a non-violent resister.
It doesn't seem to me that Jesus is really in the sin-punishing business. Of course we suffer when we sin and say no to God. But even when we intentionally defy God, Jesus teaches us that our God prefers repentance and reconciliation. But this king in the parable is retaliatory; when the leaders abuse and kill his messengers he responds to their violence with violence of his own.
But here's where things get interesting to my reading - with the man without a wedding garment. We don't know why he came to a wedding without a garment. Did no one tell him it was a wedding? Did he not have time to find one? Was he being intentionally provoking to the king? We don't know because, when he's accused, the man remains silent. He remains silent before his accusers. Who else does that remind us of? Jesus, when he stands before Pilate. Pilate accuses him, and tries to get a response from Jesus. He won't defend himself, won't answer the accusations that the religious establishment had made against him. And so Jesus is removed from their society. He is killed.
I want to raise the possibility of viewing this parable differently. What if God is not the king in this passage? What if the king is the Temple Jesus was so often criticizing? Let's think of it this way: the church decides to throw a party and sends out invitation to all the best folks in town. Business people, landowners like farmers - you know, important people. But these important people are not interested. In fact they resent the religious people and do violence to them. The church doesn't like this treatment, and condemns all those who have slighted them. Clearly all these people will "burn in hell", and that judgment satisfies the church's sense of self-righteousness.
But still, there's a party going on, so the church invites the not-so-important people. They're not the "best" folks, but the church will make due. Really the people should be grateful they got an invitation at all, and should come with all enthusiasm. They should at least dress and act appropriately to show their gratitude, right? But one comes without a wedding garment. It is an affront, an insult not to be borne. The only reasonable response is to kick that person out.
What if that person without a wedding garment, the one who faces accusation silently, is really Jesus. Jesus, who wouldn't allow the temple to feel good about its self-righteousness, but challenged it to true charity. Jesus, who wouldn't comport himself properly, but spent time with lepers and tax collectors and prostitutes - and even claimed that these ones were closer to God's will than the priests and scribes. Jesus is a major party-pooper for the Temple. What choice did they have but to get rid of him?
If we see the parable in this light it becomes a serious challenge to us as church. When we start valuing the rich over the poor, or the well-dressed or well-behaved over those who have obvious need, we run the same risk as the Temple did in its day. We run the risk of throwing Jesus right out of church. We remember Jesus' other parable about the sheep and goats, when he instructs us that whenever we do an act of kindness unto the least of these we do it unto him. Well that turns around too. When we as a church condemn another person, or reject someone, or even make them feel self-conscious in walking through our doors - when we bar the way to anyone who seeks comfort and healing, we bar the way to Jesus himself. My heart’s desire is for our church to be an open table. These words are easy to say. The challenge comes in really meaning it. That is what brings me back every week.
| 
Sermon for October 9, 2011
