The Kingdom of the Heavens v. The Kingdom of a Human King

Below is a rough translation and some preliminary comments regarding Matthew 22:1-14, the Revised Common Lectionary gospel text for the 19th Sunday after Pentecost. 

 

This is a difficult parable to read, difficult to understand, and difficult to hear as a meaningful expression of the gospel. This parable is usually represented as a parable that explains what the kingdom of God is like, with a certain queasiness over the degree of violence and retribution in the story. In some lections, the pericope ends with v.10. In others, vv. 11-14 are included, which makes the parable even more uncomfortable, with some poor schmuck from the byways being invited to a wedding feast, then cast into outer darkness because he isn’t dressed appropriately. It is a difficult parable-and-a-half, to be sure.

 

One tendency – as Stan Saunders points out – is to allegorize this parable into a supercessionist expression of how the church is called to replace Israel. I have heard that implication come from preachers who reject supercessionism itself. This parable and last week’s parable of the vineyard lend themselves to that kind of preaching if we presume that every reference to an authoritative male figure in parables is supposed to be God and any reference to that figure’s son is supposed to be Jesus. I want to question whether one ought to allegorize parables in that way. As Saunders says, “when read without allegorical accretions, the parable is a parody of the ancient Mediterranean social and political conventions of honor and shame, and of the violence that lies just beneath their surface and props them up.”

 

Apart from the particular question of how to interpret the parable, the story itself is jarring and alien to modern readers. What does it mean for the servants to invite those who have been invited and who did not choose to come? Why do Matthew’s parables seem to take for granted that people find it advisable to kill the servants of their landowner/king/homeowner? Is burning down an entire city the way that the Reign of God models responding to insult and violence? And what is up with the guy in the wrong clothing? He’s not merely asked to leave. IN typical Matthean fashion, he’s bound hand and foot and thrown into outer darkness, with weeping and gnashing of teeth. 

 

People shaped by the Sermon on the Mount find this depiction of the Reign of God not just jarring but entirely inordinate. So, at the end of the rough translation I will offer some ways that I think this parable fits within Matthew’s gospel as a whole.  

 

Throughout the translation, I want to explore the direction that this parable is not a representation of what the kingdom of the heavens is like. Quite the contrary, I believe it is a critical description of how the kingdom of heaven is often depicted, perhaps with an eye glancing toward the Chief Priests and Elders/Pharisees, with whom Jesus is contending in this part of Matthew’s gospel. So, this is a warning. Anything that could be read as supporting this interpretation is what I will be pointing out. I’m sure there are plenty of other resources that will put the onus directly on the unworthy invitees and make the man king out to be a God figure, however dissonant that image may be with other ways that God is depicted in Matthew and the rest of the New Testament. 

 

¹ Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν εἶπεν ἐν παραβολαῖς αὐτοῖς λέγων, 

And having answered Jesus again spoke in parables to them saying, 

ἀποκριθεὶς: AAPart nsm, ἀποκρίνομαι, 1) to give an answer to a question proposed, to answer

εἶπεν: AAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

λέγων: PAPart nsm, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

1. The "them" may refer directly to the chief priests and Pharisees or to the crowd to whom Jesus is speaking about the chief priests and Pharisees. See 21:45-46.

2. This story is the 3^rd of 3 parables that Jesus tells in the temple after the chief priests and - first the elders of the people, then the Pharisees - question his authority to do what he is doing. The first is the parable of the two sons who answer their father’s command one way and respond to it another (21:28-32). That parable is wrapped inside of the question of authority and of John’s baptism. The second is the parable of the vineyard (21:33-46) that was the lection for last week. 

 

²  Ὡμοιώθηἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ, ὅστις ἐποίησεν 

γάμους τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ. 

“The kingdom of the heavens has been likened to a man king, who made a wedding for his son. 

Ὡμοιώθηἡ: API 3s, ὁμοιόω, 1) to be made like 2) to liken, compare  2a) illustrate by comparisons

ἐποίησεν: AAI 3s, ποιέω, 1) to make  1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct,  form, fashion, etc

1. I think it is important to notice the passive form of Ὡμοιώθηἡ (was likened). (It is also in the aorist or simple past tense.) Perhaps this is an idiomatic way of saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like,” where it takes the force of an active voice. But, to keep the passive force would render this “The kingdom of the heavens has been likened to…” which could be a set-up for a wrong way of thinking about God’s reign that needs correction. In contrast, the parable in 20:1 of the laborers in the field begins  Ὁμοία γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶνοὐρανῶν, “For the kingdom of the heavens is like,” where the verb ἐστιν is the active verb “is” and the adjective Ὁμοία (homo) is the predicate nominative “like/same.” That is quite different from how this parable begins. The parable that begins in 22:18 – of a king who forgives an enormous debt to a man who does not forgive a paltry debt so the king takes back his original forgiveness – also begins with the passive voice (ὡμοιώθη). 

Young’s Literal Translation retains both the passive force of this word and the strict aorist tense with “The reign of the heavens was likened.” The NRSV tries to reflect the passive voice, but ends up making it something like a subjunctive mood, “The kingdom of God may be compared to …” 

My own familiarity with first century Greek is limited, but I really lean into this difference and wonder if, when Jesus uses the passive voice, the point is something like, “This is what people say the Reign of God is like,” and when he uses the active voice it is more like, “This is what the Reign of God is like.”

2. The words “human” and “king” (ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ) are both dative singular nouns without a definite article. It could read “human king” or “a human a king.” That is similar to the way the parable of the laborers begins in 20:1 ἀνθρώπῳ οἰκοδεσπότῃ, “A human a landowner …” and exactly the wording that begins the parable of the man king who settles accounts with his slaves in Mt. 18:23ff. It is different from how the parable of the parable from last week began in 21:33, Ἄνθρωπος ἦν οἰκοδεσπότης, “A human who was a landowner …” 

3. I typically translate βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν as “the reign of the heavens,” but I wanted to use “kingdom” here in order to keep the connection between the root of βασιλεία (kingdom) and βασιλεῖ (king). 

4. The fact that a king is inviting people to the wedding feast of his son is why many folks automatically assume this a story about God inviting people to the wedding feast of Jesus. One doesn’t have to push that metaphor too far to reach a breaking point. I suggest that when we put together the passive voice of “likened” and the double noun of man king, we could say that Jesus begins this parable with, “People often describe the kingdom of heaven as if God were like Herod.” At the risk of being redundant or wrong, I do not believe Jesus is saying this man/king is representing what God is like. 

5. I’ll just leave these here: 

Isaiah 40:18 To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him? 

Isaiah 46:5: To whom will you liken me and make me equal, and compare me, as though we were alike? 

 

³ καὶ ἀπέστειλεν τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ καλέσαι τοὺς κεκλημένους εἰς τοὺς γάμους, καὶ οὐκ ἤθελον ἐλθεῖν. 

And he sent his slaves to invite the ones who have been invited to the wedding, and they were not willing to come. 

ἀπέστειλεν: AAI 3s, ἀποστέλλω, 1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed, 2) to send away, dismiss

καλέσαι: AAInf, καλέω, 1) to call  1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice  1b) to invite

κεκλημένους: PerfPPart apm, καλέω, 1) to call  1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice  1b) to invite

ἤθελον: IAI 3p, 1) to will, have in mind, intend 

ἐλθεῖν: AAInf, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come 

1. While the verb καλέσαι and participle κεκλημένους are both forms of the word καλέω, many translations will make them “call” and “invited,” possibly because the practice of sending an invitation without a definite starting time is odd to modern western ears. I wonder how many of the “keep awake” and “be ready” teachings are based on this practice, which seems to be that an invitation to a wedding/event will go out, but in place of a precise date and time there would be the promise of ‘we will call you when its ready.’ The kind of response one would make to an invitation without a specific date might be different from how one would respond to a time-dated invitation. It means keeping the options open, remembering the promise of being called, giving the invitation first priority of choice when making plans, etc., rather than dressing up and showing up at a precise moment. 

2. Jesus doesn’t say why the people were not willing to come in this initial response. The language is specifically about their will, not of unforeseen circumstances. Matthew employs the word for will, θέλω, quite often. For someone who sees this parable as a parable about God sending Jesus, etc. Matthew 23:37 would sum it up using this term twice.  

3. As this is a king issuing the invitation, and the king’s heir is the one getting married, it seems not to be just a social event, but a political one. In that case, to refuse would not be a faux pas as much as a rebellion. The invitees doing the refusing, as well as the ones using violence as their form or refusing/rebelling are not like the good-and-bad folks who are rounded up later in the story. The late invitees seem to have no say in the matter; or perhaps are desperate enough for a banquet to know better than to say anything. The original invitees are, one assumes, wealthy and powerful enough people to risk defying a king that they despise. 

 

⁴ πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν ἄλλους δούλους λέγων, Εἴπατε τοῖς κεκλημένοις, Ἰδοὺ τὸ ἄριστόν μου ἡτοίμακα, οἱ ταῦροί μου καὶ τὰσιτιστὰ τεθυμένα, καὶ πάντα ἕτοιμα: δεῦτε εἰς τοὺς γάμους. 

Again he sent other slaves saying, ‘Say to the ones who have been invited, “Behold my dinner I have prepared, my oxen and the fatlings having been killed, and all things [are] ready. Come to the wedding.”’ 

ἀπέστειλεν: AAI 3s, ἀποστέλλω, 1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed  2) to send away, dismiss 

λέγων: PAPart nsm, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

Εἴπατε: AAImpv 2p, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak

κεκλημένους: PerfPPart apm, καλέω, 1) to call  1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice  1b) to invite

ἡτοίμακα: PerfAI 1s, ἑτοιμάζω, 1) to make ready, prepare 

τεθυμένα: PPPart npm, θύω, 1) to sacrifice, immolate 2) to slay, kill 

1. With all of these arrangements it is no wonder that a practice of that time might have been, “Be ready and we’ll call you when it is time to come.” Perhaps that is why the last “Come” is not often represented in lexicons as an imperative and not even a verb, but an interjection, more like, “hey!” or “behold!” than “Move it!” 

 

⁵ οἱ δὲ ἀμελήσαντες ἀπῆλθον, ὃς μὲν εἰς τὸν ἴδιον ἀγρόν, ὃς δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν 

ἐμπορίαν αὐτοῦ: 

But the ones having neglected went away, one to his own field, and another to his market. 

ἀμελήσαντες: AAPart npm, ἀμελέω, 1) to be careless of, to neglect  

ἀπῆλθον: AAI 3p, ἀπέρχομαι, 1) to go away, depart

1. The verb ἀ-μελέω, is to disregard or neglect. This is the only instance of the verb in the gospels and it seems to reinforce that the lack of response to the invitation was a matter of will, not circumstance or misunderstanding.

 

⁶ οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ κρατήσαντες τοὺς δούλους αὐτοῦ ὕβρισαν καὶ ἀπέκτειναν. 

Yet the rest having overpowered his servants mistreated and killed [them]. 

κρατήσαντες: AAPart npm, κρατέω, 1) to have power, be powerful 1a) to be chief, be master of, to rule

ὕβρισαν: AAI 3p, ὑβρίζω, 1) to be insolent, to behave insolently, wantonly, outrageously 

ἀπέκτειναν: AAI 3p, ἀποκτείνω, 1) to kill in any way whatever 

1. This verse seems to introduce a fairly abrupt and violent turn. I think we would do the Scriptures a disservice to interpret this story through the lens of a modern wedding invitation, even one that we might be inclined to reject. This invitation is a political statement, and the refusal is a political rebellion. That puts the whole story in less of a ‘church wedding’ kind of setting and more of a politically combustible setting. 

2. The pattern of mistreating then killing slaves of a man/king or man/landowner is familiar in Matthew’s parables.  

3. What is curious here is what Matthew means by “the rest” (λοιποὶ). The ones who were invited were not willing (v.3). The ones who neglected went elsewhere (v.5). Now, “the rest” abuse and kill the messengers. Who are “the rest”? 

 

⁷ ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ὠργίσθη, καὶ πέμψας τὰ στρατεύματα αὐτοῦ ἀπώλεσεν 

τοὺς φονεῖς ἐκείνους καὶ τὴν πόλιν αὐτῶν ἐνέπρησεν. 

Then the king was angered, and having sent his troops he destroyed those murderers and burned down their city. 

ὠργίσθη: API 3s, ὀργίζω, to provoke, arouse to anger; pass. to be provoked to anger, be angry, be wroth,

πέμψας: AAPart, nsm, πέμπω, 1) to send 1a) to bid a thing to be carried to one

ἀπώλεσεν: AAI 3s, ἀπόλλυμι, 1) to destroy 1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin

ἐνέπρησεν: AAI 3s, ἐμπιπράω  to burn, set on fire;

1. When is a wedding not a wedding? When is an invitation not an invitation? It strikes me that – even within the parameters of the parable itself – we are to take the “wedding” as an event where patrons are “invited” to come an honor the man king’s display of generous hospitality. Or else. I’ve often read that the words ‘hospitality’ and ‘hostile’ are connected etymologically. Now, I see it. 

2. Honestly, the man king’s response reminds me of a "generous" man on a date who realizes that he’s not going to get the sex that he's plotting to get and suddenly turns violent. In that case, the generosity is revealed as a pretense, a means to a desired end, rather than a genuine quality. One gets the same impression about the king's invitation here. 

3. I should include a reference to "The Red Wedding" here, but I never watched Game of Thrones and only know that it was about a wedding and lots of blood, so there you go. 

4. What the human king’s response does not do is remind me of God. Herod, perhaps, but not God. Rome, for sure, but not God.

 

⁸τότε λέγει τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ, Ὁ μὲν γάμος ἕτοιμός ἐστιν, οἱ δὲ κεκλημένοι οὐκ ἦσαν ἄξιοι: 

Then he says to his slaves, “The wedding is ready, but those who were called were not worthy; 

λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

ἐστιν: PAI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 

κεκλημένοi: PerfPPart npm, καλέω, 1) to call  1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice  1b) to invite

ἦσαν: IAI 3p, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 

1. “Those who were called were not worthy”? This seems to be a conclusion that the man king only comes to after seeing how they do not respond to his invitation, rather than having been his assumption in offering the invitation. 

2. Calvinists throughout the world – particularly of the supralapsarian variety - cringe at the thought that God's election would follow human response.  

3. (PREACHERS: Do not, by any means, make a parallel between the man king’s statement of worthiness here and the recent event when a President invited a championship basketball team to the White House and they refused because of their dislike for the President and then the President tweeting that they were not invited and weren’t worthy of coming anyway. Do not do it. Don’t even think about it. Where would you even get such an idea?) 

 

⁹ πορεύεσθε οὖν ἐπὶ τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν, καὶ ὅσους ἐὰν εὕρητε 

καλέσατε εἰς τοὺς γάμους. 

Therefore continue your journey to exits of the ways, and whoever you may see invite to the wedding. 

πορεύεσθε: PMImp 2p, πορεύομαι, 1) to lead over, carry over, transfer  1a) to pursue the journey on which one has entered, to continue on  one's journey

εὕρητε: AASubj 2p, εὑρίσκω, 1) to come upon, hit upon, to meet with  1a) after searching, to find a thing sought

καλέσατε: AAImpv 2p, καλέω, 1) to call  1a) to call aloud, utter in a loud voice  1b) to invite

1. The word διεξόδους [phonetically, dee-ex'-od-os] means 1) a way out through, and outlet, or an exit. 

2. The reason that this parable is often embraced by Christian interpreters as a parable depicting the kingdom of God is because of this turn to the hinterlands, where those who were originally not invited to the feast are now invited, since the original invitees blew it. There is an unfortunate tone of anti-Semitism that often laces that interpretation. I don’t think that is the true intention in many cases, but it seems to be an underlying presumption that shapes the way one interprets and presents this parable.

3. Even in the best case, however, it stretches the imagination to see these new invitations to “whoever you may see” as expressions of God’s expansive love. They seem to be less about the man king wanting others to enjoy the feast than ensuring that the feast is well-attended. Is it grace or an egotistical photo op behind this expansive invitation? 

 

¹⁰καὶ ἐξελθόντες οἱ δοῦλοι ἐκεῖνοι εἰς τὰς ὁδοὺς συνήγαγον πάντας οὓς 

εὗρον, πονηρούς τε καὶ ἀγαθούς: καὶ ἐπλήσθη ὁ γάμος ἀνακειμένων. 

And those slaves, having gone into the ways, gathered all whom they found, evil as well as good, and the wedding was filled with those who were seated. 

ἐξελθόντες: AAPart npm, ἐξέρχομαι, 1) to go or come forth of  1a) with mention of the place out of which one goes, or the  point from which he departs

συνήγαγον: AAI 3p, συνάγω, 1) to gather together, to gather  1a) to draw together, collect 

εὗρον: AAI 3p, εὑρίσκω, 1) to come upon, hit upon, to meet with  1a) after searching, to find a thing sought 

ἐπλήσθη: API 3s, πίμπλημι 1) to fill, fill up. Passive to become full of, be satisfied, have enough of

ἀνακειμένων: PMPart gpm, ἀνάκειμαι, 1) to lie at a table, eat together, dine “seated” to reflect the middle voice.

1. The question of “worthy” v. “not worthy” seems to be simply a matter of who responds and who does not, since the gathering is of good and evil persons. 

2. The verb for “gather” is συνάγω, the nominal form of which is “synagogue.”  

3. Again, this could be a way of speaking to the generosity of the feast of God, where the only thing that matters is that one answers the invitation and comes to the feast. Or, it could be a way of showing that the only thing that matters to human kings is a full banquet and the display of popularity. 

 

¹¹ εἰσελθὼν δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς θεάσασθαι τοὺς ἀνακειμένους εἶδεν ἐκεῖ 

ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἐνδεδυμένον ἔνδυμα γάμου: 

Yet the king having come in to examine the ones who were seated at the tables, saw this man not dressed up in wedding garments. 

εἰσελθὼν: AAPart nsm, εἰσέρχομαι, 1) to go out or come in: to enter  1a) of men or animals, as into a house or a city

θεάσασθαι: AMInf, θεάομαι, 1) to behold, look upon, view attentively, contemplate (often  used of public shows)

ἀνακειμένους: PMPart apm, ἀνάκειμαι, 1) to lie at a table, eat together, dine 

εἶδεν: AAI 3s, ὁράω, 1) to see with the eyes 

ἐνδεδυμένον: PMPart asm, ἐνδύω, 1) to sink into (clothing), put on, clothe one's self. “dressed up” to reflect the middle voice. 

1. I have to admit, this is where the parable – whatever perspective one might have in looking at it – loses me. Maybe it’s the cultural distance, but I’m lost here. 

 

¹² καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Ἑταῖρε, πῶς εἰσῆλθες ὧδε μὴ ἔχων ἔνδυμα γάμου; ὁ 

δὲ ἐφιμώθη. 

And says to him, ‘My dear fellow, how did you get in here without having wedding garments?’ But he was speechless/muzzled. 

λέγει: PAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

εἰσῆλθες: AAI 2s, εἰσέρχομαι, 1) to go out or come in: to enter  1a) of men or animals, as into a house or a city 

ἔχων: PAPart nsm, ἔχω, 1) to have, i.e. to hold  1a) to have (hold) in the hand, in the sense of wearing, 

ἐφιμώθη: API 3s, φιμόω, 1) to close the mouth with a muzzle, to muzzle   2) metaph.   2a) to stop the 

mouth, make speechless, reduce to silence   2b) to become speechless   3) to be kept in check 

1. See note 1 of v.11. Again.

 

¹³ τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶπεν τοῖς διακόνοις, Δήσαντες αὐτοῦ πόδας καὶ χεῖρας ἐκβάλετε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ξώτερον: ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων. 

Then the king said to the servants, ‘Binding him foot and hand throw him into the outer darkness; where the there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.’ 

εἶπεν: AAI 3s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak 

Δήσαντες: AAPart npm, δέω, 1) to bind tie, fasten  1a) to bind, fasten with chains, to throw into chains  1b) metaph

ἐκβάλετε: AAImpv 2p, ἐκβάλλω 1) to cast out, drive out, to send out  1a) with notion of violence  1a1) to drive out (cast out)

ἔσται: FMI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present 

1. The “outer darkness” is a Matthean motif, also appearing in 8:12 and 25:30. 

2. “Weeping and gnashing of teeth” is another Matthean motif, also appearing in 8:12, 13:42, 13:50, 24:51, and 25:30. 

 

¹⁴ πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοὶ ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί. 

For many are called, but few chosen (called out/elected).”

εἰσιν: FAI 3p, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

1. Again, this is a hard conclusion for me to understand, for either the main portion of the parable or for the addendum portion of the ill-dressed person. 

 

I think it is imperative for the interpreter of this text – whether it is a teacher, preacher, or someone reading the text for their own edification – to ask this question: Is this a parable that demonstrates what God is like? 

 

I think it is possible to make the case for “yes,” but it would require many caveats and, in the end, seems to present a God whose “steadfast love endures … for a little bit.” I would make the case for “no.” Here are my thoughts on the matter.I would make the case for “no.” Here are my thoughts on the matter. 

 

1. From the very beginning, the phrase “chief priests and scribes” has not just depicted a religious group representing a theological perspective, such as the “law of Moses” or the “original covenant” or some other form of God’s actions that are now being replaced by what Jesus brings. Even in the birth narrative, the “chief priests and scribes” are representative of Herod’s imperial control over Jerusalem. When Herod hears that magi asking for “the child who has been born king of the Jews,” Matthew says that he was frightened “and all of Jerusalem with him.” Then, he calls “the chief priests and scribes” to inquire into where the child is to be born. From the very beginning these ‘religious’ leaders are not just religious leaders. What makes them significant is not that they represent “Judaism.” They are identified with the Herodian dynasty, both Herod the father in the birth narrative and Herod Antipas the son in the adult stories of Jesus. 

 

2. In a telling episode from Matthew 20, the mother of James and John tries to obtain chief seats for her sons in Jesus’ “kingdom.” The other disciples hear about it and are angry. Then this:

But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” 

The issue for Jesus is not religious affiliation, but whether one – Jew, Galilean, follower of Jesus, whomever – follows the way of the Son of Man and not of the imperial pattern of Rome. 

 

3. The parallel between the form of this parable and the form of the preceding Parable of the Vineyard from last week’s lection is clear. The vineyard owner sends servants, who are mistreated, killed, and stoned. The man king sends servants who are ignored. The vineyard owner sends a second round of servants, who are treated again like the first. The man king sends a second round of servants who are mistreated and killed. Jesus asked the chief priests and Pharisees what the vineyard owner should do and they prescribe revenge. The man king executes revenge. One thing to bear in mind is that the answer “revenge” in the Parable of the Vineyard was a wrong answer. Vengeance is the answer of those who have not perceived in the Scriptures God’s way of taking the stone that was rejected and making it the chief cornerstone. In my own terms, the return of the cornerstone is a resurrection motif (which is all over the Scriptures, OT and NT). If you don’t believe in resurrection (understood in this larger sense), the only answer to violence is retributive violence. For Jesus, resurrection is the alternative to retribution.

 

Addendum: 

There are parallels to this story in the Gospel of Thomas (saying 64) and in Luke 14:15-24. Those parables emphasize the openness of the feast after the initial invitees decline, without the violence or retribution. 

 

Thomas 64

Jesus said: A man had guests; and when he had prepared the dinner, he sent his servants to invite the guests. He went to the first, and said to him: My master invites you. He said: I have money with some merchants; they are coming to me this evening. I will go and give them my orders. 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 house, and I am asked for a day. I shall not have time. He went to another (and) said to him: My master invites you. He said to him: My friend is about to be married, and I am to arrange the dinner. I shall not be able to come. I ask to be excused from dinner. He went to another, he said to him: My master invites you. He said to him: I have bought a farm; I am going to collect the rent. I shall not be able to come. I ask to be excused. The servant came back (and) said to his master: Those whom you have invited to dinner have asked to be excused. The master said to his servant: Go out to the roads, bring those whom you find, that they may dine. Traders and merchants [shall] not [enter] the places of my Father

 

Luke 14:15-23

One of the dinner guests, on hearing this, said to him, ‘Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!’ Then Jesus said to him, ‘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.” But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, “I have bought a piece of land, and I must go out and see it; please accept my apologies.” Another said, “I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to try them out; please accept my apologies.” Another said, “I have just been married, and therefore I cannot come.” So 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.” And the slave said, “Sir, what you ordered has been done, and there is still room.” Then the master said to the slave, “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.”’