Proper 23 Year A 2026: Matthew 22:1-14

 When I was growing up, there were a lot of teen movies centered around a single party - usually the prom, like in American Pie and 10 Things I Hate About You. Even when the party wasn’t the central plot, it was still a huge plot point in the movie where it set up the next act, like in Clueless and Mean Girls. In today’s Gospel, we read about a party that changes things, but in an apocalyptic way that’s a little more intense than Janice yelling at Cady, “you are a mean girl!”

Matthew is more apocalyptic in general than any of the other Gospels, so you get scarier texts with outer darkness like we heard today. Today’s text from Matthew also appears in Luke, but it’s toned down a lot in Luke. In Luke, no one gets killed, they simply all send their regrets. The owner of the house (not a king like in Matthew) sends his slave out into the streets and has him bring in the “poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame”. He does so, but there’s still room, and so he’s sent out to grab whoever he finds until the house is filled, and there’s a light rebuke at the end that “none of those who were invited will taste my dinner”. Jesus here is making a statement about the “dinner” of the kingdom of heaven, but it’s pretty tame compared to the weeping and gnashing of teeth of Matthew.

This parable in Matthew is the third in a series. So, it’s important to note what came before it to fully understand what point Matthew is making through the entirety of this story. In chapter 21, Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem - Palm Sunday. Next, he cleanses the temple, curses the fig tree, and his authority is challenged. He then tells these three parables, all of which are thematically similar to today’s parable which begins chapter 22.

To that first challenge to Jesus’ authority by the priests and elders, Matthew joins a parable of his own not found in any other gospel, the two sons. Comparing the authorities to the son who says he will obey his father but does not, Jesus fashions a contrast where the tax collectors and sex workers who believed John the Baptist will enter the kingdom of God before the authorities. The sharpness of the judgment continues in the parable of the wicked tenants from last week’s readings. The chief priests and Pharisees recognize themselves in Jesus’ story to be the target of the warning that the kingdom of God will be taken away and given to a nation that will produce fruits. Matthew is thinking of the church composed of Jews and Gentiles who believe in Jesus.

The parable of the marriage feast is another instance of the rejection of the leaders. Those invited first by the king are unworthy and do not come; and since they kill the slaves sent with the invitation, the king sends his troops and destroys their city. I have tended to see the destruction of the city as an overreaction to turning down an invitation, missing the part where the people kill the king’s slaves. This would’ve been a proportionate reaction to what could have been seen as an act of rebellion against the king, not about a banquet invitation but about the treatment of his slaves. The king himself is a thinly veiled allusion to God, with the king’s slaves being an equally thinly veiled allusion to the prophets.

Scholars believe that the end of this parable, where the man without a wedding robe is thrown into the outer darkness, was originally an independent parable. Which makes sense, because if he was pulled in off the street how would he have known to have one on him? The other explanation I’ve heard is that they would’ve had wedding robes at the banquet available - kind of how if you’re visiting a Jewish temple, they’ll have yarmulkes available to wear to enter the space respectfully - and this man didn’t avail himself of what was readily available for him to be appropriately dressed for the space. Either one takes care of the story which on its face appears to be “man punished for something over which he had no control”.

This ending deals with a reality that Matthew knows well: Into the church have been brought both bad and good, so that those who have accepted the initial call to follow Jesus have to face further judgment. Those Christians who are not worthy will suffer the same fate as those who formerly had the kingdom but were not worthy to keep it. Thus in none of these three parables is it simply a question of the replacement of Israel by the church or of Jews by Gentiles. For Matthew, the issue is the replacement of the unworthy in Judaism (especially the leaders) by a community of Jews and Gentiles who have come to believe in Jesus and have worthily responded to his demands for the kingdom.

Any challenge to authority, such as calling out the religious leaders or Rome itself, is in itself a political message. Political resistance to Rome in the Gospel is not overt, but economic and political issues of the larger Roman Empire are not far under the surface. Matthew’s political message is repeatedly implied with varying levels of subtlety:

Jesus is descended from King David through a long line of kings and is the promised Messiah
His name recalls Joshua, “the Savior”
His birth is marked by a heavenly star
He is a threat to Rome’s official ruling Herodian kings
His message is about the kingdom of heaven, which is in contrast to the "kingdom" of Rome
His predecessor, the prophet John the Baptist, is executed by Rome's appointed representative, Herod Antipas
He opposes the Jerusalem temple’s priestly hierarchy, who must collaborate with Rome
He is condemned by a vacillating Roman governor, Pontius Pilate
Most important, his execution is by crucifixion, a Roman penalty mainly for political rebels

Add all this up and you can see why Matthew, particularly by this point in his Gospel where he is preparing us for the crucifixion, is also preparing us for what it will cost to follow Jesus. Next week Jesus will tell the Pharisees, in response to their question about whether it is lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, to give to the emperor the things that are the emperor and to God the things that are God’s. Which seems like a neat and tidy categorization if you don’t ask the question, “what isn’t God’s?”

Matthew sets up a reversal of fates, where those in power on earth do not inherit the kingdom because of their lack of faith in Jesus while those who do inherit are the least likely heirs. At the time of Matthew’s writing, there was no such thing as a middle class, so the reversal of fortunes was much clearer and made a much more stark statement. When folks are brought into the banquet, “both good and bad” are invited. The concept of the kingdom containing both good and evil is only found in Matthew. But it is in line with what Jesus himself says: I have come to call not the righteous but sinners. Jesus heals “sinners” and then says “go and sin no more”. The “bad” are invited into the kingdom, into the banquet, but being in that banquet, encountering Jesus, will change them. And for that matter, the “good” will change too. So how does taking your seat at Christ’s banquet table change you?