comments on Matthew 22:1-14
Posted on October 14, 2011 with 0 comments
...comment on the Lesson
Matthew 22:1-14
This chapter is a continuation of Christ's discourses in the temple, two or three days before he died. His discourses then are largely recorded, as being of special weight and consequence. In this chapter, we have,
I. Instruction given, by the parable of the marriage-supper, concerning the rejection of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles (v. 1-10), and, by the doom of the guest that had not the wedding-garment, the danger of hypocrisy in the profession of Christianity (v. 11-14).
II. Disputes with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes, who opposed Christ, 1. Concerning paying tribute to Caesar (v. 15-22). Concerning the resurrection of the dead, and the future state (v. 23-33). Concerning the great commandment of the law (v. 34-40). Concerning the relation of the Messiah to David (v. 41-46).
I think it very likely that Herod would come to mind, and I also think it very likely that his marriage on the eve of the battle by which he conquered Jerusalem would be a part of the popular imagination. In fact, given the parable's immediate reference to a king and a wedding banquet, the thought of Herod's pre-battle marriage would be more likely to have been the first association anyone made with the parable's wedding banquet setting.[1] This makes the parable's focus on the guests as the crucial actors and particularly the reference to them as "ameleo" all the more understandable and important. Jesus presumably has in his audience not just those who fear his challenge to the established order; he also likely has a second audience which has been awaiting a challenge to that order. Both are looking for vindications of their position, and Jesus allows neither to find it at the expense of the other.
Why would Herod leave an army on the eve of battle to finalize a marriage? I pointed out that the parable's king was not immune to mimetic contagion. Herod the Great was a man of considerable sophistication, even if he was impetuous, tyrannical etc. He was sophisticated enough to realize the wisdom of having legitimacy precede his conquering. In this he remained consistent with the logic of his actions when he had attempted diplomacy. Marriage would shelter him and to some extent elevate him above the mimetic passions that will inevitably permeate the city. Were he to marry inside the city following the battle the marriage would appear to be a spoil of war. It was better to marry early and offstage in order to keep the incipient dynasty as separate as possible from the associations that made it possible. Much of Jesus' audience would be wondering if Jesus would be bringing those associations back to the forefront. Jesus had the option of using the marriage reference as a carefully coded but generally understood reference to what he perceived to be the illegitimacy of the Herodian regime. This of course would then be the prelude to a rebellion in which the illegitimate Herodian dynasty would be replaced by Israel's legitimate rulers. It would also be a return to the world of strife the parable presents so clearly. Everyone was so fixated on having Jesus either claim them as their patron via the parable or have their opposition to him vindicated by the parable that no one could hear what Jesus was actually saying in the parable, which was that once we forsake the kingdom of heaven conflict will make us indistinguishable from each other.
Kings shall shut their mouths because of him...
[1] The listener would probably also have had in mind that Herod later kills this wife and her sons because he perceived them to be possible rivals for the throne. They would hear sarcasm in Jesus' words.
Marty Aikin, Yale University
Matthew 22:1-14
This chapter is a continuation of Christ's discourses in the temple, two or three days before he died. His discourses then are largely recorded, as being of special weight and consequence. In this chapter, we have,
I. Instruction given, by the parable of the marriage-supper, concerning the rejection of the Jews, and the calling of the Gentiles (v. 1-10), and, by the doom of the guest that had not the wedding-garment, the danger of hypocrisy in the profession of Christianity (v. 11-14).
II. Disputes with the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes, who opposed Christ, 1. Concerning paying tribute to Caesar (v. 15-22). Concerning the resurrection of the dead, and the future state (v. 23-33). Concerning the great commandment of the law (v. 34-40). Concerning the relation of the Messiah to David (v. 41-46).
I think it very likely that Herod would come to mind, and I also think it very likely that his marriage on the eve of the battle by which he conquered Jerusalem would be a part of the popular imagination. In fact, given the parable's immediate reference to a king and a wedding banquet, the thought of Herod's pre-battle marriage would be more likely to have been the first association anyone made with the parable's wedding banquet setting.[1] This makes the parable's focus on the guests as the crucial actors and particularly the reference to them as "ameleo" all the more understandable and important. Jesus presumably has in his audience not just those who fear his challenge to the established order; he also likely has a second audience which has been awaiting a challenge to that order. Both are looking for vindications of their position, and Jesus allows neither to find it at the expense of the other.
Why would Herod leave an army on the eve of battle to finalize a marriage? I pointed out that the parable's king was not immune to mimetic contagion. Herod the Great was a man of considerable sophistication, even if he was impetuous, tyrannical etc. He was sophisticated enough to realize the wisdom of having legitimacy precede his conquering. In this he remained consistent with the logic of his actions when he had attempted diplomacy. Marriage would shelter him and to some extent elevate him above the mimetic passions that will inevitably permeate the city. Were he to marry inside the city following the battle the marriage would appear to be a spoil of war. It was better to marry early and offstage in order to keep the incipient dynasty as separate as possible from the associations that made it possible. Much of Jesus' audience would be wondering if Jesus would be bringing those associations back to the forefront. Jesus had the option of using the marriage reference as a carefully coded but generally understood reference to what he perceived to be the illegitimacy of the Herodian regime. This of course would then be the prelude to a rebellion in which the illegitimate Herodian dynasty would be replaced by Israel's legitimate rulers. It would also be a return to the world of strife the parable presents so clearly. Everyone was so fixated on having Jesus either claim them as their patron via the parable or have their opposition to him vindicated by the parable that no one could hear what Jesus was actually saying in the parable, which was that once we forsake the kingdom of heaven conflict will make us indistinguishable from each other.
Kings shall shut their mouths because of him...
[1] The listener would probably also have had in mind that Herod later kills this wife and her sons because he perceived them to be possible rivals for the throne. They would hear sarcasm in Jesus' words.
Marty Aikin, Yale University