|
Post by Josh on Feb 8, 2007 20:43:14 GMT -8
1/6/06:
The parable in verses 1-14 is a great parable of God's priority verses the things valued by men, as well as a great look into God's perspective of Israel at the time of Christ's ministry.
The one part that stands out (and frankly, seems a little out of place is 5-7):
5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
Clearly, we have the destruction of Jerusalem in view here, but it kinda stretches the allegory a bit (at least from a literary perspective).
Again, though, Matthew is highly focused on the impending national judgment for the mainstream rejection of the Messiah.
See the comments on the Matthew 21 thread for more about the centrality of the destruction of Jerusalem theme in Jesus' parables.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 18:54:43 GMT -8
1/6/06:
10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless. 13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
So, what's Matthew/ Jesus up to here by including this section about this misdressed character do you think?
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 9, 2007 18:55:39 GMT -8
1/11/06:
I take this parable more as an eternity parable, not a destruction of Jerusalem parable, though as many of the parables do, I'm sure it has double meaning. I also think it refers to the Jews (the ones invited that didn't come) who were God's "first choice" but denied him and the new convenant and the Gentiles (all of the people that were gathered in the streets) that came to the wedding party. I guess this is how the destruction of Jerusalem is brought into the mix.
I think the misdressed character represents someone who has heard the word and been invited into the kingdom, but has refused Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 9, 2007 18:56:54 GMT -8
1/11/06:
How does the misdressed guest differ from the ones originally invited?
I mean, the original people on the guest list (presumably, the Jewish nation) were also invited, but refused to come.
This guest seems to have actually COME in, but somehow missed something.
At the time of the writing of Matthew, Matthew would have been keenly aware of "false prophets" and "apostates" in the Church. It's no wonder Matthew includes these sort of little asides, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 9, 2007 19:00:46 GMT -8
1/11/06: 23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?" 29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
33When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
It's always blown me away that Mormons can believe in celestial marriage with the above scripture, which speaks so clearly.
|
|