[Please read the passages in Matthew, Luke, and the Gospel of Thomas. Gospel of Thomas 64 can be found below after the text of this article. Reading Deuteronomy 20: 5-7 (also found below) and Isaiah 24:17-25:9 (which you can read in your Bibles) will also be helpful in understanding this parable.]
Before we look at this parable, let’s review several guidelines regarding interpreting parables:
- The parables of Jesus are extended metaphors. They are not to be interpreted literally but literarily. They point to a deeper reality.
- All of Jesus’ parables are about what he called the Kingdom of God. God was breaking into history and into people’s lives through Jesus’ life, teachings, and example. However, this Kingdom is not like any other kingdom ever experienced in history. As Mennonite scholars say, it’s an Upside-Down Kingdom.
- Jesus’ parables all contain surprises which reveal something of the nature of this radical Kingdom of God.
- Jesus’ parables invite people to enter into his parables as they allow his message to challenge and reshape their lives. We cannot just listen to his parables. We must hear them, engage with them, and, in a very real sense, become a part of the story Jesus is telling. Often, we are the ones who finish his parables by how we respond to our encounter with God’s truth and presence.
- Parables were oral in origin and, for decades, oral in transmission by members of the earliest church. I think that many of the parables attributed to Jesus have their origin with him, but some of them were adapted and expanded by his early followers as they attempted to interpret and make these important teachings of Jesus relevant for their time and contexts.
We have three versions of Jesus’ parable about a man who invited guests to a banquet. Matthew, Luke, and the author(s) of the Gospel of Thomas each give their own twist and interpretation of this extended metaphor from Jesus.
- Matthew’s version of this parable turns the village dinner into a wedding banquet for a king’s son and an eschatological banquet celebrating the completion of God’s purposes in Israel and the world. The king kills those who have violently rejected his invitation and burns their city. The curious mention of the wedding guest who is “bound hand and foot and cast into the outer darkness where men will weep and gnash their teeth” reflects a warning Matthew has made several places in his Gospel. The mixing of the good and the bad in Israel and the church will come to an end once God’s final victory over evil has occurred. The evil will be banished into darkness and punitive judgment. In Matthew’s interpretation of this parable, the city burned and destroyed should perhaps be understood as Jerusalem and those who reject the king’s invitation as those Jews who have rejected Jesus as the Messiah. The wedding guests who do attend the banquet may represent the church. (Matthew often ends his passages of judgment with “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Virtually every New Testament scholar maintains that such words did not originate with Jesus. Matthew has an ax to grind which does not reflect the compassionate love of God for all creation and people.)
- Luke’s version of the parable reflects the controversy regarding Jesus’ open table fellowship of belonging. The Pharisees had problems with Jesus’ inclusion of sinners and those who did not strictly observe the letter of the religious law. Eating with such people was an affront to their religious sensibilities. Jesus, however, claims that the eschatological banquet celebrated by God and God’s people is already happening through him as he breaks bread with those whom others would exclude (See Luke 14:1). This parable also reflects a Lukan concern for the poor and how the message and presence of God in Christ is good news for the oppressed, marginalized, and rejected. Some scholars maintain that references to bringing in the poor, maimed, blind, lame, and homeless represent Luke’s additions to this parable. However, even if Luke added these parts, they certainly reflect Jesus’ own words found elsewhere in the Gospels. And the very “banquet” which stands at the center of this parable surely points to the dinners Jesus enjoyed with people who were poor, maimed, blind, lame, homeless. These were the ones who would be the surprise guests at the Table of the Lord in the eschaton. By eating with such people, Jesus was bringing the liberating future of the eschaton into the present moment of his ministry.
- Gospel of Thomas 64 offers an interpretation of this parable which reflects its tendency to condemn a life of business and gain. The parable continues a gnostic interpretation of the gospel of Jesus. Although a few scholars still look to the Gospel of Thomas in their search for the historical Jesus (and their number seems to be diminishing each year), I doubt if there is anything authentic in the writing which we have not already found in the New Testament Gospels.
So, what did the historical Jesus mean by this parable? (The following interpretation of this parable reflects the conclusions of New Testament scholars summarized by Bernard Brandon Scott in his book entitled Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus.) This story involves a man who invites people to a banquet. In fact, there is a double-invitation. First, an invitation is sent to announce an intended dinner. On the day of the banquet, the man sends his servant to invite his guests a second time. This second invitation was a usual practice in villages in the ancient Near East. It was a form of polite recognition that the guests have the honor of being invited to dine with this apparently wealthy and influential citizen. They are honored by the invitation, and the host is honored by their acceptance of this invitation and their attendance at the banquet. (The importance of the concept and nature of honor is indispensable in understanding the cultures of the ancient Near East and the context in which Jesus pursued his ministry.) In the small villages of Galilee and Judea, everyone knows everyone else’s business. This banquet would have been the topic of gossip and talk among all the villagers.
All the guests make lame excuses as they tell the servant that they cannot attend the dinner. (Three examples of this refusal to attend are given in the parable. We are told at the beginning of this story that the man invited “many” to his dinner. Often the number “three” represents the “many” that may be intended in a story. Also, the third example in particular is important in appreciating the intent of the story.) One guest says that he has bought a field and must go out to inspect it. Another guest says that he has bought five yoke of oxen and must examine them. Such excuses reveal that these men are wealthy. Palestinian peasants could barely keep food on the table, much less buy fields or five yoke of oxen. The ridiculous nature of these excuses is obvious. No one buys a field or five yoke of oxen without first examining his purchases. And why should such inspections have to occur on that day and at the hour of the banquet? For some reason, these men simply do not want to attend the banquet.
The third man offers the excuse that is perhaps a key to interpreting this parable. He says, “I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.” The combination of a banquet and the excuse of a married man not being able to attend this dinner would have alerted Jesus’ hearers to a tradition of hope within the Jewish religion. The Jewish (and Christian) faith was an eschatological faith in the first century of the Common Era. Among the images of hope cherished by the Jews was the eschatological banquet held at the end of time when all of God’s promises of justice, peace, and liberation are finally fulfilled, and the people of God feast in deep and celebrative joy. Isaiah 25:1-9 was one text which presented this hope. But this Eschatological Banquet occurs only after the defeat of Israel’s enemies. The ruthless nations must first be dealt with and silenced (Isaiah 24:17-25:9). Celebration comes only after the defeat of the enemies of God and Israel. A holy war precedes the eschatological banquet. God and Israel win through violence. They celebrate this victory through extravagant feasting.
But how does the excuse of the third guest who has just been married relate to this war and feast? In the wars of Israel, certain men were excused from conscription and among those excused were those just married. All three accounts of this parable have references to a wedding and/or a newly married man. This was undoubtedly an original part of this parable. Just as the man asked to be excused from attending the banquet, so a newlywed man could be excused from fighting in Israel’s wars. Jesus’ hearers would have been familiar with the nature of the eschatological banquet and the war that preceded that banquet as they listened to this parable.
What if this parable was intended to point to three truths about the Kingdom of God and the final victory of God over evil and Israel’s enemies?
- Those who will enjoy the eschatological banquet are the same type of people with whom Jesus broke bread during his ministry—sinners, outcasts, the poor, the maimed, the blind, the deaf, the lame, the disreputables, the marginalized. “Guess who’s coming to dinner?” takes on a whole new meaning with this Messiah.
- There will be an eschatological banquet celebrating God’s victory over evil, but that banquet will not be preceded by or made possible by violence. Banquet, yes. War, no. What might that say to the firebrands within Judaism? What might that say to us?
- In the parable, the host has been dishonored by the guests he has invited. By refusing his invitation, they have belittled him in the eyes of the community. They have violated his honor. So, what does the host do? He invites guests whose attendance will also dishonor him. The prevailing belief throughout the ancient Mediterranean world could be summed up in our phrase, “If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.” The host lowers himself as he breaks bread with the poor, the sick, the afflicted, and the homeless. What kind of host in that kind of world does such a thing? Taking revenge on those who reject his gracious invitation would be more what people in that time would expect. That would be a way of restoring one’s honor. But this host does not follow that expected path. By eating his meal with the riffraff and discounted of his village, he embraces his solidarity with the “least of these” in his world.
This God is more concerned about restoring the wellbeing and honor of the oppressed and discounted than She is in maintaining His honor at the expense of others.
I suggest this parable presents a God who sacrifices His “honor” (an honor which reflects a patriarchal God and culture) as She descends into solidarity with those in the highways and byways of life. This God is more concerned about restoring the wellbeing and honor of the oppressed and discounted than She is in maintaining His honor at the expense of others. This is the same God revealed in a Babe in a manger, a strange rabbi who had no place to lay his head, and a condemned man who died a most contemptible death like millions of other victims of injustice and oppression. Sometimes, the Good News takes your breath away!
Gospel of Thomas 64:
Jesus said, “A man had received visitors. And when he has prepared the dinner, he sent his servant to invite the guests. He went to the first one and said to him, ‘My master invites you.’ He said, ‘I have claims against some merchants. They are coming to me this evening. I must go and give them my orders. I ask to be excused from the dinner.’ He went to another and said to him, ‘My master has invited you.’ He said to him, ‘I have just bought a house and am required for the day. I shall not have any spare time.’ He went to another and said to him, ‘My master invites you.’ He said to him, ‘My friend is going to be married, and I am to prepare the banquet. I shall not be able to come. I ask to be excused from the dinner.’ He went to another and said to him, ‘My master invites you.’ He said to him, ‘I have bought a farm, and I am on my way to collect the rest. I shall not be able to come. I ask to be excused.’ The servant returned and said to his master, ‘Those whom you invited to the dinner have asked to be excused.’ The master said to his servant, ‘Go outside to the streets and bring back those whom you happen to meet so that they may dine.’ Businessmen and merchants will not enter the places of My Father.’”]
Deuteronomy 20:5-7:
Then the officers shall speak to the people saying, “What man is there that has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicates it. And what man is there that has planted a vineyard and has not enjoyed its fruit? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man enjoy its fruit. And what man is there that has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her.”]
[If we are correct regarding the thrust of this parable, we will find that thrust most instructive in understanding one of the most profound chapters in the Bible: I Corinthians 1 which focuses on the perceived “foolishness and weakness of God.”]
