Ezra 10:1-17

The People's Response

10:1 While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and throwing himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children gathered to him out of Israel; the people also wept bitterly. 2 Shecaniah son of Jehiel, of the descendants of Elam, addressed Ezra, saying, "We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. 3 So now let us make a covenant with our God to send away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. 4 Take action, for it is your duty, and we are with you; be strong, and do it." 5 Then Ezra stood up and made the leading priests, the Levites, and all Israel swear that they would do as had been said. So they swore.

Mass Divorce of Foreign Wives

6 Then Ezra withdrew from before the house of God, and went to the chamber of Jehohanan son of Eliashib, where he spent the night. He did not eat bread or drink water, for he was mourning over the faithlessness of the exiles. 7 They made a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the returned exiles that they should assemble at Jerusalem, 8 and that if any did not come within three days, by order of the officials and the elders all their property should be forfeited, and they themselves banned from the congregation of the exiles.

9 Then all the people of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days; it was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. All the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain. 10 Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, "You have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. 11 Now make confession to the LORD the God of your ancestors, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives." 12 Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, "It is so; we must do as you have said. 13 But the people are many, and it is a time of heavy rain; we cannot stand in the open. Nor is this a task for one day or for two, for many of us have transgressed in this matter. 14 Let our officials represent the whole assembly, and let all in our towns who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every town, until the fierce wrath of our God on this account is averted from us." 15 Only Jonathan son of Asahel and Jahzeiah son of Tikvah opposed this, and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levites supported them.

16 Then the returned exiles did so. Ezra the priest selected men, heads of families, according to their families, each of them designated by name. On the first day of the tenth month they sat down to examine the matter. 17 By the first day of the first month they had come to the end of all the men who had married foreign women. (Ezra 10:1-17, NRSV)

On November 11, 2007 (Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the Sunday closest to November 9, Year One), comments were based on, that is, largely rewritten from comments of November 6, 2005 (the Sunday closest to November 9, Year One). The revised comments are repeated here with some editing:

The people join in with Ezra’s prayer of confession (Ezra 9:5-15). “While Ezra prayed and made confession,” we are told, “weeping and throwing himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children gathered to him out of Israel; the people also wept bitterly” (10:1). Tamara Cohn Eskenazi says, “Ezra’s confession attracts a crowd and inspires remorse and repentance” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Ezra 10:1-6). The first person to speak up to Ezra is “Shecaniah son of Jehiel, of the descendants of Elam,” who says,

We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women (tOy0r9k4n! Myw9n! bw,nov1, wannōšev nāšîm nokrîyôth) from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. So now let us make a covenant with our God to send away (xyc9Ohl4, l^ehôtsî’) all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. Take action, for it is your duty, and we are with you; be strong, and do it. (Ezra 10:2-4, NRSV)

Eskenazi says that the words “Have married” literally mean “have been settled ,” that is, “established in the land”; and she adds, “Inheritance of land is a concern (see Ezra 9:12; Deut. 7)” (ibid., on v. 2). However, the phrase in question, “have married foreign women,” is not in the passive voice. William L. Holladay translates it, “make (a foreign woman) a resident, marry Ezr. 10:2” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. bw1y!, yāšav, hif.). David J. A. Clines says, “Strangely, a Jehiel of the family of Elam was among those who had married foreign wives (see 10:26); so, if it is the same Jehiel, Shecaniah would have been advocating his own excommunication!” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Ezra 10:2; cf Eskenazi, on v. 2). But Hindy Najman offers, if not a different understanding, at least a different perspective: “Shecaniah speaks in the first person plural. For this reason, he is listed in rabbinic traditions as one of several exemplary leaders who take responsibility for the sins of the community and are thereby able to take the lead in resolving a problem (b Sanh. 11a)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 1685, on Ezra 10:2).

Clines interprets “send away” (v. 3) as “divorce,” and comments on the phrase, “According to the law”: “The law sanctions divorce in the case of a man finding some “uncleanness” in his wife (Deut. 24:1-4); apparently the law is here being applied to the case of the ritual ‘uncleanness’ of foreign birth. Previously, although the law forbade certain intermarriage, there was no rule about what action should be taken once it had occurred” (op. cit., on Ezra 10:3). “Remarkably,” says Eskenazi, “the children of such marriages are to be sent away too” (on v. 3). According to Najman, “The decision to expel all foreign wives and the children who were born to them is understood in rabbinic traditions to be the basis for the laws concerning matrilineal descent as a defining marker of Jewish identity (Gen. Rab. 7.2); biblical narratives suggest the priority of patrilineal descent in matters of genealogy and inheritance” (op. cit., on v. 3). Eskenazi says of Shecaniah’s words, “Take action, for it is your duty, and we are with you; be strong, and do it” (v. 4), that “The people authorize Ezra to act” (on v. 4).

Ezra responds by putting the proposal articulated by Shecaniah into effect. “Then Ezra stood up and made the leading priests, the Levites, and all Israel swear that they would do as had been said. So they swore” (v. 5). Eskenazi observes that “Only after he has been invited to do so does Ezra assume leadership” (on v. 5). But as Najman observes, “Ezra requires the leadership of the returning community to take an oath to act in accordance with the law. Perhaps this is necessary in light of the charges that are made against the community leaders in 9:2” (on vv. 6-11). Due to the seriousness with which Ezra regards the situation, he withdraws and fasts overnight. “Then Ezra withdrew from before the house of God, and went to the chamber of Jehohanan son of Eliashib, where he spent the night. He did not eat bread or drink water, for he was mourning over the faithlessness of the exiles” (v. 6). “The sin,” says Najman, “is seen as so extreme that, like Moses after the construction of the golden calf, Ezra fasts completely (see Exod. 34:28; Deut. 9:18). All the “returned exiles” are summoned by proclamation to a meeting at Jerusalem (v. 7), with severe sanctions for failure to come: “and that if any did not come within three days, by order of the officials and the elders all their property should be forfeited, and they themselves banned from the congregation of the exiles” (v. 8). So the assembly was held in “the ninth month [Kislev = Nov.-Dec.], on the twentieth day of the month” (v. 9a). The unfavorable weather conditions perhaps symbolized the mood of the people, who “sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain” (v. 9b). Clines refers to the month as “December, when the heavy winter rains, and sometimes even snow, fall in Jerusalem, which lies 2,000 feet above sea level” (on v. 9).

When Ezra addresses the people, he says: “You have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now make confession to the LORD the God of your ancestors, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives” (vv. 10-11). As Eskenazi notes, the phrase “married foreign women” implies “settled” here as in v. 2 (on vv. 10-11; cf. above). The people respond to Ezra, “"It is so; we must do as you have said” (v. 12). And the people propose a course of action. “But the people are many, and it is a time of heavy rain; we cannot stand in the open. Nor is this a task for one day or for two, for many of us have transgressed in this matter. Let our officials represent the whole assembly, and let all in our towns who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every town, until the fierce wrath of our God on this account is averted from us” (vv. 13-14). “This section of the narrative,” says Najman, “is deeply influenced by numerous Torah narratives involving the Israelites’ willingness to accept the authority of Moses and to agree to obey particular laws” (op. cit., on vv. 12-14). “Again,” says Eskenazi, “the community is responsible for action, devising a representative form (our officials) of governing for itself” (on v. 14). And the next verse describes a dissenting opinion. “Only Jonathan son of Asahel and Jahzeiah son of Tikvah opposed this, and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levites supported them” (v. 15). Eskenazi notes this dissent also. “A minority opposition is registered, establishing that majority decision carries even without unanimity” (on v. 15). Clines, offers a less optimistic appraisal. “The appointment of a commission to examine the individual cases casts a veneer of propriety and legality over the proceedings, which had, however, been decided on by a popular assembly of which the vast majority had nothing to lose by the decision” (on vv. 10-14). He also has a different perspective on the minority opinion. “The opposition may be to the proposal to postpone the investigations, and these four men may be more rigorous, not more liberal, than the majority; the Levite Meshullam may well be Ezra’s companion in 8:16, and Shabbethai’s name suggests that he came from a strict ly religious family (cf. Isa. 58:13).

So the decision of the assembly is carried out. “Then the returned exiles did so. Ezra the priest selected men, heads of families, according to their families, each of them designated by name” (v. 16a). A procedure is initiated that is completed in about three months. “ On the first day of the tenth month [Tevet = Dec.-Jan.] they sat down to examine the matter. By the first day of the first month [Nissan = Mar.-Apr.] they had come to the end of all the men who had married foreign women” (vv. 16b, 17).

or Nehemiah 1:1-11 (alternative reading, Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions)

For the text and comments of this reading see the text and comments of Thursday, October 29, 2009, ten days ago.

Acts 24:10-21

Paul's Defense before Felix

10 When the governor motioned to him to speak, Paul replied:

"I cheerfully make my defense, knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation. 11 As you can find out, it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem. 12 They did not find me disputing with anyone in the temple or stirring up a crowd either in the synagogues or throughout the city. 13 Neither can they prove to you the charge that they now bring against me. 14 But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets. 15 I have a hope in God--a hope that they themselves also accept--that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. 16 Therefore I do my best always to have a clear conscience toward God and all people. 17 Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation and to offer sacrifices. 18 While I was doing this, they found me in the temple, completing the rite of purification, without any crowd or disturbance. 19 But there were some Jews from Asia--they ought to be here before you to make an accusation, if they have anything against me. 20 Or let these men here tell what crime they had found when I stood before the council, 21 unless it was this one sentence that I called out while standing before them, 'It is about the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today.' “ (Acts 24:10-21, NRSV)

On August 20, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year One), comments on Acts 24:1-23 were repeated with some editing and supplement from October 9, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two), when comments were repeated from August 23, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year One), when comments were repeated from October 12, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two), when comments were combined with some revision from October 7, 2004 (Thursday of the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two) and from August 18, 2005 (Thursday of the week of the 13^th Sunday after Pentecost, Year One). Relevant comments from August 20, 2009, and earlier are repeated here, including comments related to the larger context, with some editing:

After Paul’s appearance in the temple in Jerusalem led to a riot and the arrest of Paul (Acts 21:27-40), and after further events, including the discovery of a plot against his life (23:12-35), Paul is moved to Caesarea, where he remains in custody for two years (Acts 24:27). But when Paul first arrives in Caesarea, he soon gets what amounts to an initial hearing before Felix the governor. “Five days later,” says Luke, “the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and an attorney ( rJhvtwr, hrētōr), a certain Tertullus, and they reported their case against Paul to the Governor” (Acts 24:1). Ananias (cf. 23:2-6), according to Allan J. McNicol, was “the son of Nedebaeus who was Jewish high priest ca. A.D. 47-58” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Ananias, citing Josephus [Ant. 20.103, 131, 179, 205, refs. from Loveday Alexander, The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, on Acts 22:30-23:10]). Tertullus is called a rJhvtwr (hrētōr), an “orator, advocate, attorney” (cf. F. Wilbur Gingrich, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 1965, s.v. rJhvtwr, hrētōr). According to McNicol, Tertullus was “the prosecutor . . . who represented the Jewish leaders from Jerusalem before the Roman procurator Felix when charges were brought against Paul in Caesarea. . . . . [He] may have been a Jew or he may have been a professional Roman advocate (the name is Roman). . . . The fact that Felix postponed Paul’s trial suggests that Tertullus was not entirely successful in his plea (Acts 24:22-23)” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Tertullus).

“When Paul had been summoned,” continues Luke, “Tertullus began to accuse him” (24:2a). And Luke records his speech, or the essence of it. “Your excellency, because of you we have long enjoyed peace, and reforms have been made for this people because of your foresight. We welcome this in every way and everywhere with utmost gratitude” (vv. 2b, 3). According to Christopher R. Matthews, Tertullus’ opening flattery is apparently “the customary method of opening a speech with praise that is intended to attract the attention and sympathy of the one being addressed” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Acts 24:2-4). Beverly Roberts Gaventa agrees. “Capturing the audience’s attention by flattery was customary, but this introduction exceeds the norm (cf. v. 10; 26:2-3)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Acts 24:2-4). Given the character of Felix, flattery exceeding the norm may be an understatement. McNicol says, “According to the historians Tacitus and Josephus, he [i.e., Felix] was brutal in his rule. He owed his position to his influential brother Pallas, but, because of immorality and incompetence, he was eventually replaced” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Felix, Antonius).

But Tertullus’s politeness–if we can call it that–continues as he presents the case against Paul. “But, to detain you no further, I beg you to hear us briefly with your customary graciousness” (v. 4). And he gets specific, with charges contrary to Luke’s narrative (cf. 21:26). “We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, and so we seized him” (24:5-6). At this point in the text, some manuscripts, not the earliest, include a long addition: “Other ancient authorities add and we would have judged him according to our law. 7But the chief captain Lysias came and with great violence took him out of our hands, 8commanding his accusers to come before you” (NRSV text note f). Manuscripts supporting the shorter reading include P⁷⁴ (7^th c.) x A B P 049 and others (cf. K. Aland et al., edd., The Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., 1975, apparatus on Acts 24:6-8, where the shorter reading is used in the text with probability of “D,” that is, “a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text. Bruce M. Metzger characterizes the manuscripts with the longer reading, and some variation in wording (E [6^th c.] Y 056 0142 33 88 and others), as “the Western reading, which passed into the Textus Receptus,” and says that,

In the opinion of some scholars (e.g. Blass, Clark, Lagrange, Lake and Cadbury) . . . [it] is necessary to the sense of the verses, for the aorist evkrathvsamen [ekratēsamen, ‘we seized him/whom we seized’] seems to require some sequel. On the other hand, however, the abruptness of evkrathvsamen [ekratēsamen] may have prompted a desire for addition and completeness, and it is difficult to account for the omission of the disputed words if they were original. One of the effects of the addition is to change the reference of ou| [hou, ‘him,’ object of par=, par-, lit. ‘from’] in ver. 8 from Paul to Lysias, but whether this is to be interpreted as favoring or opposing the addition is disputed. (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971, on Acts 24:6-8)

It’s possible that some later scribe elaborates a bit on the enormity of this false accusation. Christopher R. Matthews, referring to the “erroneous charge” that Paul “tried to profane the temple” (v. 6), says, “See 21:28-29 for this erroneous charge,” and Matthews adds, “and so we seized him omits any reference to the riot in 21:27-36” (op. cit., on v. 6). Tertullus concludes his speech: “By examining him yourself you will be able to learn from him concerning everything of which we accuse him” (v. 8). After reporting the lawyer’s speech, Luke adds that “the Jews also joined in the charge by asserting that all this was true” (v. 9).

When the governor gives Paul the floor (v. 10a), his opening recognition of the governor is more restrained: “I cheerfully make my defense, knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation” (v. 10b). Paul begins his own defense by claiming to be innocent. “As you can find out,” he says to Felix, “it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem” (v. 11). “They did not find me disputing with anyone in the temple,” he says, “or stirring up a crowd either in the synagogues or throughout the city” (v. 12; cf Tertullus’s charge of agitation “throughout the world,” v. 5). “On Paul’s behavior in Jerusalem,” says Gaventa, “see 21:17-30” (op. cit., on v. 12). “Neither,” says Paul, “can they prove to you the charge that they now bring against me” (v. 13).

Paul continues: “But this I admit (oJmologevw, homologeō ) to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets” (v. 14). He thus changes the subject with a play on the word “confess” (oJmologevw, homologeo), translated “admit” in verse 14. “The Greek word,” says Gaventa, “can refer to a judicial confession or to a confession of faith” (op. cit., Acts 24:14). And she adds, “Paul uses that ambiguity by offering what appears to be a confession of wrongdoing and then shifting the topic dramatically” (ibid.). “I have a hope in God” he says “–a hope that they themselves also accept–that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous” (v. 15). Paul strives, doing “my best always to have a clear conscience toward God and all people” (v. 16). For the words, “a clear conscience,” Matthews refers to 20:20, 27, 33; 23:1 (op. cit., on 24:16). His business in the temple was “to bring alms to my nation” and “sacrifices” (v. 17), in particular, “the rite of purification.” “To bring alms,” says Matthews, “may connect to 21:23-26 but is reminiscent of Paul’s plan in Rom. 15:25-29 to deliver the collection” (op. cit., on v. 17). “But this,” says Gaventa, “would be an unusual way to describe it [i.e., the collection]” (op. cit., on v. 17). “While I was doing this,” says Paul, “they found me in the temple, completing the rite of purification, without any crowd or disturbance” (v. 18).

Paul adds that his real accusers should be present. “But there were some Jews from Asia,” he says, who “ought to be here before you to make an accusation, if they have anything against me” (v. 19). For “some Jews from Asia,” Gaventa refers to 21:27 (ibid., on v. 19). Either the accusers from Asia should come, or, says Paul, “let these men here tell what crime they had found when I stood before the council” (v. 20, cf. 21:40-22:21). And Paul recalls the one issue that divided the council in Jerusalem, adding, “unless it was this one sentence that I called out while standing before them, ‘It is about the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today’ ” (v. 21). This concluded the earlier council hearing, and it concludes Paul’s speech before Felix on the present occasion..

“But Felix,” says Luke, “who was rather well informed about the Way, adjourned the hearing with the comment, ‘When Lysias the tribune comes down, I will decide your case’ ” (v. 22). By “the Way,” Luke refers to the term for the Christian movement (cf. v. 14; 9:2). Felix was probably aware of the movement as an outsider, perhaps considering it a source of trouble; but he was certainly at this point not as well-informed as a true believer would have been. According to Gaventa, “Felix’s response seems benign, even generous, although the promised decision is not forthcoming” (ibid., on v. 22). So Felix “ordered the centurion to keep him in custody, but to let him have some liberty and not to prevent any of his friends from taking care of his needs” (v. 23). “Custody,” says Matthews, was “perhaps protective custody” (op. cit., on v. 23). “Letting his friends take care of his needs,” says Gaventa, “is not an act of generosity, since prisoners routinely relied on outsiders even for basic necessities” (op. cit., on v. 23).

Luke 14:12-24

This reading from Luke and the parallel passage in Matthew on the Parable of the Great Dinner are presented in the following table.

The following comments are repeated here from November 10, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two):

Recent comments on Matthew’s version of the parable may be found in the Archive for July 5, 2009 (the Sunday closest to July 6, Year One). On November 10, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), comments were repeated from November 11, 2007 (the Sunday closest to November 9, Year One), when comments were based on those of November 6, 2005 (the Sunday closest to November 9, Year One), and of November 13, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), when comments were used from November 8, 2004, (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), and from May 21, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 18, Year One)

Luke presents a paragraph of Jesus’ teaching on humility (Lk. 14:7-14) which has no parallel passage in the other Gospels except for a brief saying, “All who exalt themselves will be humbled, and all who humble themselves will be exalted” (Mt. 23:12; cf. Lk. 18:14). His remarks about humility and hospitality (Lk. 14:7-11) lead to advice about inviting people to a banquet. He tells his host to give banquets for “the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind” (Lk. 14:13), rather than for “your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors” (v. 12). The principle is giving with no expectation of reciprocation, not giving “in case they may invite you in return” (v. 12). There are a few churches in Houston that take this advice literally, maintaining food pantries, some even feeding “street people” regularly on Sunday. “And you will be blessed,” says Jesus, “because they cannot repay you, for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous” (v. 14).

The occasion for this teaching is a meal in the home of “a leader of the Pharisees” (v. 1). “One of the dinner guests,” says Luke, “on hearing this [i.e., this teaching on humility and generosity], said to him, ‘Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God’ ” (v. 15). This guest apparently expects to have the blessing of sharing in the “eschatological banquet.” Jesus responds with the “parable” of the great dinner, and the reasons or excuses given by many for not coming.

The setting in Matthew is different, more confrontational, one might say, than the setting in Luke. In any event, Matthew has no reference to Jesus being a dinner guest in the home of a Pharisee. After Jesus’ Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem (Mt. 21:1-9; Mk. 11:1-10; Lk. 19:28-40), Matthew follows Mark for the most part in presenting what is mainly a series of Jesus’ confrontations with the Jewish leaders (Mt. 21:10-22:46; cf. Mk. 11:11-12:37; Lk. 19:45-20:44). Within this series, the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Mt. 21:33-46; Mk. 12:1-12; Lk. 20:9-19) stands out, as clearly indicting the Jewish leadership. But Matthew adds two parables that have parallels earlier in Luke, the Parable of the Two Sons (Mt. 21:28-32; cf. Lk. 7:29-30) and the Parable of the Great Supper (Mt. 22:1-14; Lk. 14:15-24). Compare Kurt Aland’s outline of “the Final Ministry [of Jesus] in Jerusalem” (Synopsis of the Four Gospels, rev. printing, 1985, p. 351). “Once more,” says Matthew, “Jesus spoke to them in parables” (Mt. 22:1).

According to Luke, Jesus responds to the Pharisee’s dinner guest by introducing the parable. “Someone gave a great dinner and invited many. At the time for the dinner he sent his slave to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come; for everything is ready now’ ” (Lk. 14:16-17). In Matthew, Jesus says, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son” (Mt. 22:2). We may compare Luke’s “dinner guest,” who blesses “anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God” (Lk. 14:15), and other references to the “eschatological banquet” such as “the Marriage Supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:6-10). According to Matthew’s version, the king “sent his slaves [plural] to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet (v. 3a). In both accounts the response is similar. Those first invited refuse to come, presenting excuses. In Luke’s version the excuses of three persons are presented. “The first [one invited] said to him [i.e., the slave who brought the invitation], ‘I have bought a piece of land, and I must go out and see it; please accept my regrets’ ” (Lk. 14:18). “Another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please accept my regrets’ ” (v. 18). Another said, ‘I have just been married, and therefore I cannot come’ ” (v. 19). These excuses bear a striking resemblance to the three excuses for not following Jesus presented earlier (Lk. 9:57-62; Mt. 8:18-22). And the point here as there is surely the supreme importance of the kingdom of God. On that occasion, Jesus said, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (Lk. 9:62).

In Matthew, the excuses are abbreviated, but a sinister note appears. The first people invited “would not come” (Mt. 22:3b). When the invitation to them is repeated (v. 4), “they made light of it and went away, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his slaves, mistreated them, and killed them” (vv. 5-6). We can hardly miss the clear reference, as Matthew the evangelist reflects upon the final days before the crucifixion of Jesus, to the part the Jewish leadership played in his indictment and execution, as also in the preceding Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt. 21:33-46; Mk. 12:1-12; Lk. 20:9-19). The one who gave the invitation is angered by the refusal, and appears to act out of spite. Luke says that “the slave returned and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and said to his slave, ‘Go out at once into the streets and lanes of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame’ ” (Lk. 14:22). When that is done and room remains (v. 23), the slave is ordered to “'Go out into the roads and lanes, and compel people to come in, so that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those who were invited will taste my dinner” (vv. 23b, 24).

In Matthew’s version of the parable, if those invited responded with violence, the king retaliates in kind, and more so. “The king was enraged. He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city” (Mt. 22:7). Again, we can hardly miss the clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in the war of AD 66-70 (cf. J. Andrew Overman, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Mt. 22:7). And, upon the king’s orders, the slaves “went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both good and bad; so the wedding hall was filled with guests” (v. 10).

Matthew’s version of the parable adds a scene where one who accepted the invitation and came was excluded for “not wearing a wedding robe” (Mt. 22:11). The king challenged him: “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?” says Matthew, adding that the man “was speechless,” that is, he failed to respond (v. 12). So, the king orders the attendants, “Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (v. 13). “This,” according to Overman, “may originally have been a separate parable dealing with preparedness, like the parables of judgment in chs 24-25. Otherwise, given the way in which the substitute guests have been gathered (vv. 9-10), this guest’s lack of a wedding robe would be surprising” (ibid., on Mt. 22:11-14). Overman adds that “outer darkness . . . weeping . . . gnashing of teeth [are] images of hell (1 Enoch 9-10)” (ibid., on v. 13).

We may say that both versions of the parable put an emphasis on responding to God's invitation, but the incident of the guest who lacked the wedding robe (Mt. 22:11-14) focuses on the need to be worthy of entering the kingdom, whereas Luke's parable illustrates the instruction about hospitality. Both themes call for our serious consideration. We may take courage from the fact that those excluded from the banquet were not merely overlooked. There was a conscious rejection of the invitation on the part of those who did not come, but the invitation was thrown open to “everyone” (Mt. 22:9), to “the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame” (Lk. 14:21). Most of us are probably “crippled” in one way or another, but we are all invited.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net