Insurrection

Jesus’ parable of the wedding feast seems grotesquely exaggerated. Invitees killing the messenger? A wedding host destroying a city? A poor slob without a tux being thrown into “outer darkness”?

In a 1996 JBL article, Richard Bauckham addresses these oddities by highlighting the political dimensions of the parable. The feast is not only a wedding feast, not only a king’s banquet, but the wedding feast of the king’s son, his successor: “The attendance of the great men of the kingdom at the wedding feast of the king’s son would be expected not only as a necessary expression of the honor they owe the king but also as an expression of their loyalty to the legitimate succession to his throne. Political allegiance is at stake . . . . To refuse the invitation is tantamount to rebellion. In refusing it, the invitees are deliberately treating the king’s authority with contempt. They know full well that their behavior will be understood as insurrection. That is what they intend, and those who kill the king’s messengers only make thie intention known more emphatically. The king responds as kings do to insurrection.”

Similarly, the man’s unfit clothing shows “contempt for the occasion, a refusal to join in the king’s rejoicing. Though this would be serious at a royal banquet, it certainly cannot be tolerated at the marriage of his son. Once again, this is no ordinary act of dishonor to a host but a matter of political significance.” In effect, “he has not really accepted the invitation, since the invitation is not just to be physically present at the feast but to participate in the king’s rejoicing over the marriage of his son.”