In this passage, the prophet draws on experience of the past (v.1) and, despite the pain of the present (v.2), has every confidence for the future triumph of God (vv.8-9). The emerging message is that God is the Lord of all creation, not just of Judah and Israel. Isaiah speaks of the universal reign of God. This is not simply the belief that, whatever happens, God will win through. It is built upon the confidence that God is eternally trustworthy (v.1), and despite everything, all people will come to recognise him (v.3). God’s dealings with his people are the basis for true thanksgiving (v.4), and the only realistic hope for the future (v.5). Isaiah speaks of the future in terms of a heavenly banquet (v.6), something to look forward to. The prophet knows that, at the time he is speaking, this is a distant dream: Israel has been exiled, and Jerusalem – including the Temple, the very sign of God’s presence – has been destroyed. However, although things look desperate, God will turn things around. This is not idealism but real confidence – this is how God has acted throughout Israel’s history, so why should it be different now?
Gospel Matthew 22.1-14
Jesus gives his audience yet another parable. This one is explicitly set at the wedding of a king’s son (though the only reference to the son is at the very beginning). To celebrate the marriage, a banquet is given by the king. In a world when time was less precise than it is today, invitations are sent out. Then, when everything is ready, the guests are summoned (v.3). But, despite the importance of the occasion, the guests make excuses (vv.3-6), and, worse still, the violence of the situation escalates (vv.6-7) – overtones, perhaps, of the vineyard in the preceding parable (Matthew 21.33-46; see last week’s readings). The consequence is that the guest list is ‘universalised’ – everyone who can be found is invited (v.9). The metaphor is clear: the original guests are God’s people, Israel, invited to God’s heavenly banquet (as envisaged by Isaiah – see above); and the judgement is on Israel, because the party goes on, but with different guests.
But there is a problem. One of the ‘replacement’ guests, called in from the street at the last minute, is not properly dressed (v.11). Is it reasonable to expect that a casually invited guest will be correctly attired? Jesus’ hearers, then and now, will not be surprised that the guest was speechless (v.12) to be challenged in this way! But this is a parable, a story, not a factual account. Some commentators argue that we are reading two stories and an unexpected twist like this is also not beyond the imagination of a good storyteller.
So, what is to be made of this improperly dressed guest? ‘Wedding robe’ (v.11) may suggest a specific – and newly bought – outfit, but in Jesus’ day this would not have been an option. Wedding guests would wear their best clean clothes. This man, rather than nipping home to change, has just wandered in, unchanged. The man is ejected because he will not change; he assumes that he has no obligation other than to show up. Again, the meaning is clear: the wedding garment is a metaphor for righteousness; all are invited to God’s banquet, but not all are necessarily righteous. While some may interpret this to mean that God grants the gift of salvation to some, but withholds it from others, the choice – whether to change or not – actually rests with the invited guest.
It is worth remembering that in the Early Church, baptism involved removing clothes, being immersed in water and then reclothed, to symbolise putting on a new life in Christ – symbolism that Paul writes about on a number of occasions (Romans 13.14; Galatians 3.27; Ephesians 4.22-24; Colossians 3.9-17).
The links between the readings
There is a simple link that runs through our readings this week. All three readings – i.e. including Philippians – tell us that knowing God can never leave us unchanged. To encounter God will always affect and change the way we are, and the things we do. The problem in Matthew is that the first group of guests (and the guest later excluded) remain unmoved – and therefore unchanged – by the anticipation of the banquet.