According to our present study of N.T. Wright’s book, Simply Jesus,[1] Jesus was going about Galilee preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, vis-à-vis God was returning to his people and was now in charge. Repent and believe the Gospel (Mark 1:14-15). The problem was that Jesus wasn’t preaching what the people expected would occur, once God had returned to his people. The Jewish authorities had taught that the Messiah would be a great general that would lead the Jews from victory to victory, and no one would be able to kill him (John 12:34; cp. Matthew 16:21-22). Everyone expected an Exodus out of their bondage to gentile powers on the order of the Exodus under Moses, because the Messiah would be someone like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19).
Therefore, the New Covenant text presents two opposing points of view of Israel’s returning God. Would it be as the Jews expected, who waited for the return of the Lord (Luke 2:25, 39; 23:51; 24:21), or would it be as Jesus claimed it would be (Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9, 11; cp. Daniel 2:44; 9:25)? The one looked for the event to occur soon, but the other claimed, “The time is fulfilled” (Mark 1:15; Daniel 2:44; 9:25), and this is what the return of God looks like!
While no one would be able to miss the return of God, if such an event would occur according to the Jewish worldview,[2] they could miss it, if the truth about the return of God to his people was according to Jesus’ Gospel. The problem, of course, is that the ancient Jews rejected Jesus’ version of God’s return to his people and continue to do so today. Their hope for a successful candidate for Messiah hasn’t changed, and their hope, which they vested in the Bar Kochba revolt would tell us, their hope has nothing to do with righteousness or even the return of God, and everything to do with being a sovereign nation, exactly like their gentile oppressors (cp. 1Samuel 8:5, 20).
According to Jesus, God had sent his Son to make a covenant with his people, and the covenant feast was ready for his invited guests to attend. Nevertheless, they who were invited refused to come, making light of the invitation, they considered their daily concerns over their farms and businesses more important (Matthew 22:1-5). Some of the invited guests even persecuted those who were sent to summoned them (Matthew 22:6).
Jesus’ listeners knew perfectly well that the parable wasn’t about a literal invitation to a literal royal wedding. Instead, it concerned the covenant relationship the Lord had with his people. It was understood to be similar to a marriage covenant (Isaiah 54:5; 62:4-5), and breaking that covenant is like the Lord giving his people a bill of divorcement (Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 3:1, 8; Hosea 2:2-4). No, the wedding in Jesus’ parable had to do with the Lord’s return to offer his people a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31). Yet, they made light of Jesus’ interpretation of that covenant (John 12:34), and, although he warned them about rejecting it (John 12:35-36), yet they refused to listen and rejected him, even those, who realized Jesus was sent by God, were more concerned with offending their brethren or their places in Jewish society than they were with their relationship with God in a new covenant context (John 12: 37-43; cp. Jeremiah 31:31).
Therefore, considering the parable once again, the king became angry with his people and destroyed them (AD 70), and sent out invitations to whomsoever would attend the marriage feast for his son (Matthew 22:8-10). Nevertheless, even among these there were some who trusted in themselves (Matthew 22:11-12; cp. Matthew 5:20) and were ashamed to be associated with Jesus (Acts 5:2-11; 8:20-23; Galatians 3:27), and such would be cast out of the light and into the darkness with all those who have rejected the New Covenant (Matthew 22:13-14).
_____________________________________
[1] These studies follow the content of Dr. Wright’s book, Simply Jesus. However, some of the conclusions I draw from the book’s content are not the same conclusions that Dr. Wright draws from the scriptures he uses. Therefore, the reader should be advised that this study isn’t an exact interpretation of the book. Dr. Wright may not agree with what I’m doing here. Therefore, consult the scriptures to make certain the conclusions I’m drawing are reasonable and correct.
[2] A point that might be worthy of consideration is, modern Christianity’s understanding of the return of Christ is more in like the Jewish worldview of the return of God to his people, than it is the return of God to his people according to Jesus’ Gospel.
Smoodock's Blog 