Conversation Points on Matthew 22:1-14

Study Format:
1. Read passage aloud. What did you notice in the reading? What words or phrase caught your attention?
2. Read passage aloud a second time. What questions would you ask the text?
3. Read passage aloud a third time. What do you hear God calling you to do or be in response to this text?

Interesting Ideas to Consider:
• V. 1 starts “Once more…” indicating this parable has the same audience as the previous two. The three parables form a unit, and to understand this last one it has to be read in context of the first two.
• In the preceding parable, 21:43 introduced the kingship motif. This parable builds on it, and the man in the preceding parable now becomes the king throwing a wedding banquet for his son. The father/son motif is one of the threads that bind all three of these parables together. It should also be noted that the kingdom of heaven is not specifically the king, but the whole situation the king is in.
• The custom behind inviting people to a wedding banquet was not unlike the current custom of a “save-the-date” followed by an actual invitation. The first step was an invitation sent well in advance, which was to be acknowledged and accepted by those invited. The day of the event, a courtesy reminder was sent. In Matthew’s allegorical interpretation, the implied initial invitation was the original covenant between God and Israel. No excuses are given in Matthew’s version of the parable for why the invited guests now refused, but the refusal, especially in concert, might imply rebellion.
• Like the previous parable of the landowner and the tenants, the king was patient and instead of retaliating sent other slaves.
• After the second refusal however, the king became angry and destroyed the people. Dr. Boring points out this is clearly parabolic, as there is no way to make this part realistic. The king could not wait a dinner while he had troops destroy entire cities.
• After the invited and refused guests are destroyed, a third invitation goes out, this time not just for those who had been invited previously, but for all.
• V. 11-13 are a different parable tacked on to the first. Once again realism is sacrificed for theological meaning. In early Christianity, the idea of putting on “new clothes” was a common language of explaining conversion. It was not that some random guy off the street was expected to just be carrying around garments suitable for a wedding, but the theological expectation of being fully clothed in God’s grace.

Works Sourced:
Boring, M. Eugene. “The Gospel of Matthew.” The New Interpreter’s Bible Volume VIII. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995.