分类： 主日证道

沒有穿婚宴禮服的賓客
福音：瑪竇22:1-14

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

我們心裡有一扇門，是我們自己甚至沒有察覺，卻一直把它關著。它不是木門，也不是鐵門，而是一扇心門。而在這扇門的後面，是所有那些被我們認定「不屬於這裡」的人，是那些我們認為不值得我們注意的人，是那些我們覺得無關緊要的人，是那些我們悄悄地排除在我們的圈子、我們的談話、我們的關心之外的人。我們不會公開宣布要排斥他們，也不會掛上一個牌子說：「你不能進來。」我們只是慢慢地不再看見他們，慢慢地不再聽見他們，慢慢地不再邀請他們。

今天耶穌所講的比喻，是關於一場婚宴。而這場婚宴不只是一頓豐盛的宴席。這場婚宴，就是天主的國。這是耶穌一次又一次用來描述與天主同在的圓滿生命的圖像——在那張餐桌前，飢餓的人得到飽飫，被排斥的人得到接納，陌生人成為朋友。這場婚宴所呈現的，是一個每一個人都有位置、沒有人被拒於門外的世界。

有一位國王，為自己的兒子準備了一場盛大的婚宴。他派遣僕人去召請那些原本受邀的人。可是，他們拒絕前來。一個去了自己的田地，另一個忙著自己的生意，還有一些人竟然抓住國王的僕人，凌辱他們，甚至殺害了他們。國王非常憤怒。他派遣軍隊去消滅那些兇手。然後，他做了一件令人意想不到的事。他再次派遣僕人到街道上去：「你們如今就到各條大路上去，凡遇到的，不論好人壞人，都召來赴婚宴。」於是，他們真的去了。他們把所有遇到的人都召集來——好人也好，壞人也好。結果，婚宴廳裡坐滿了客人。

這就是福音最令人震撼的地方。那些原本應該在那裡的人，卻沒有來；那些原本從來不被認為會出現在那裡的人，反而來了。那些受人尊敬的、被視為虔誠的、被揀選的人——他們找了各種理由推辭；而那些被排斥的人、罪人、被人看不起的無名小卒——他們卻來了。於是，餐桌坐滿了人。

可是，比喻接下來還有第二部分。國王進來看看賓客。他看見一個人沒有穿婚宴的禮服，於是問他：「朋友，你怎麼沒有穿婚宴的禮服，就進來了呢？」那人啞口無言。於是國王命人把他捆起來，扔到外面的黑暗中。

這就是我們最難理解的一部分。這似乎太嚴厲了，似乎也不公平。國王明明邀請了所有人，為什麼最後卻因為一個人沒有穿對衣服，就把他拒絕在外？但是，這裡的婚宴禮服，其實並不是指衣服。它不是在說外在的行為，也不是在說我們是否完美，更不是在說我們是否「夠好」。這件禮服，代表的是一種內在的態度。是一顆願意接受的心，是一顆願意敞開自己、接受這場宴席的心。是一份謙卑——知道自己是以客人的身分來到這裡；也是一份感恩——知道自己原本並不配得這份邀請。這件禮服，其實就是一顆心，在說：「我並不配坐在這裡。你也不配。可是，我們兩個現在都在這裡。不是因為我們配得，而是因為恩寵，因為慈悲，因為國王慷慨的恩賜。所以，我們一起赴宴。」

那個沒有穿婚宴禮服的人，就是那個「來了，卻沒有真正來」的人。他進去了，卻沒有真正進入；他坐在餐桌前，卻沒有真正成為這張桌子的一分子；他人在那裡，心卻沒有參與；他在賓客中間，卻沒有真正成為其中的一員。他是那個批判這場宴席的人，是那個衡量其他客人的人，是那個與別人保持距離的人，是那個把自己放在別人之上的人。他拒絕穿上慈悲的禮服。

而就在這裡，這個比喻開始與我們每一個人有關。因為，那個人就是我。我是那個喜歡判斷別人的人，我是那個心中存有偏見的人，我是那個把某些人排除在中心之外的人，我是那個決定誰屬於這裡、誰不屬於這裡的人。我是那個坐在婚宴中，環顧四周，心裡想：「他們怎麼也來了？」

我為自己建立了一個小小的王國。在這個王國裡，我決定誰可以進來，誰必須出去。我決定哪些人值得我的注意，哪些人不值得。我決定哪些人可以坐在餐桌旁，哪些人應該留在街上。我決定誰值得被接納，誰不值得。而這一切，我甚至從來沒有大聲說出來。我只是用沉默去做，用距離去做，用看似客氣的排斥去做，用拒絕看見對方去做。

可是，這個比喻告訴我：最後被留在外面的，竟然是我。不是那些我所判斷的人，不是那些我排斥的人，不是那些我曾經看不起的人。他們進去了，他們坐在餐桌旁，他們參加了婚宴；而最後被捆起來、扔到黑暗中的，卻是我。因為我拒絕穿上那件禮服，因為我拒絕接受，因為我拒絕以一個客人的身分來到天主面前，因為我堅持要成為那個審判別人的人。

那些曾經被我看不起的人，在宴席上；那些被我輕視的人，在宴席上；那些曾經被我排斥的人，在宴席上。而我，卻在外面。不是因為天主拒絕了我，而是因為我拒絕了他們；不是因為天主排斥了我，而是因為我排斥了他們；不是因為天主審判了我，而是因為我審判了他們。我為自己建立了一場宴席，卻把它變成一場空空的宴席。我為自己建立了一張餐桌，卻把它變成一張排斥他人的餐桌。最後，我只剩下自己一個人。

這就是這個比喻更深的意義。這場宴席不是在問：「誰配得？」而是在問：「誰願意？」這場宴席不是在問：「誰是好人？」而是在問：「誰願意敞開自己的心？」這場宴席不是在問：「誰值得得到這一切？」而是在問：「誰願意接受？」而那些願意接受的人，就進入了宴席；那些不斷審判別人的人，反而被留在門外。

所以，今天，我要問自己：我排斥了誰？我審判了誰？我把誰拒於餐桌之外？我拒絕看見誰？這些問題的答案，也許會讓我們感到不舒服。但是，這個答案也正是通往那件禮服的道路，是通往婚宴的道路，是通往那張餐桌的道路——那裡，那些曾經被我看不起的人，其實早已經坐在那裡，而我，也被邀請去與他們一起坐席。不是以審判者的身分，而是以客人的身分；不是作為那個決定誰能進來的人，而是作為那個願意接受的人；不是作為那個排斥別人的人，而是作為那個自己也被接納的人。

婚宴已經準備好了，餐桌已經坐滿了，那些曾經被我排斥的人，已經在那裡。現在唯一的問題是：我願不願意穿上那件禮服，走進去？還是，我要繼續站在門外，繼續判斷別人？選擇在我手中。禮服已經為我準備好了，門也已經敞開，而天主的國，其實已經開始了。

© 全屬於祢& 樂仁出版社（中國澳門）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2026

没有穿婚宴礼服的宾客
福音：玛窦22:1-14

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

我们心里有一扇门，是我们自己甚至没有察觉，却一直把它关着。它不是木门，也不是铁门，而是一扇心门。而在这扇门的后面，是所有那些被我们认定「不属于这里」的人，是那些我们认为不值得我们注意的人，是那些我们觉得无关紧要的人，是那些我们悄悄地排除在我们的圈子、我们的谈话、我们的关心之外的人。我们不会公开宣布要排斥他们，也不会挂上一个牌子说：「你不能进来。」我们只是慢慢地不再看见他们，慢慢地不再听见他们，慢慢地不再邀请他们。

今天耶稣所讲的比喻，是关于一场婚宴。而这场婚宴不只是一顿丰盛的宴席。这场婚宴，就是天主的国。这是耶稣一次又一次用来描述与天主同在的圆满生命的图像——在那张餐桌前，饥饿的人得到饱饫，被排斥的人得到接纳，陌生人成为朋友。这场婚宴所呈现的，是一个每一个人都有位置、没有人被拒于门外的世界。

有一位国王，为自己的儿子准备了一场盛大的婚宴。他派遣仆人去召请那些原本受邀的人。可是，他们拒绝前来。一个去了自己的田地，另一个忙着自己的生意，还有一些人竟然抓住国王的仆人，凌辱他们，甚至杀害了他们。国王非常愤怒。他派遣军队去消灭那些凶手。然后，他做了一件令人意想不到的事。他再次派遣仆人到街道上去：「你们如今就到各条大路上去，凡遇到的，不论好人坏人，都召来赴婚宴。」于是，他们真的去了。他们把所有遇到的人都召集来——好人也好，坏人也好。结果，婚宴厅里坐满了客人。

这就是福音最令人震撼的地方。那些原本应该在那里的人，却没有来；那些原本从来不被认为会出现在那里的人，反而来了。那些受人尊敬的、被视为虔诚的、被拣选的人——他们找了各种理由推辞；而那些被排斥的人、罪人、被人看不起的无名小卒——他们却来了。于是，餐桌坐满了人。

可是，比喻接下来还有第二部分。国王进来看看宾客。他看见一个人没有穿婚宴的礼服，于是问他：「朋友，你怎么没有穿婚宴的礼服，就进来了呢？」那人哑口无言。于是国王命人把他捆起来，扔到外面的黑暗中。

这就是我们最难理解的一部分。这似乎太严厉了，似乎也不公平。国王明明邀请了所有人，为什么最后却因为一个人没有穿对衣服，就把他拒绝在外？但是，这里的婚宴礼服，其实并不是指衣服。它不是在说外在的行为，也不是在说我们是否完美，更不是在说我们是否「够好」。这件礼服，代表的是一种内在的态度。是一颗愿意接受的心，是一颗愿意敞开自己、接受这场宴席的心。是一份谦卑——知道自己是以客人的身分来到这里；也是一份感恩——知道自己原本并不配得这份邀请。这件礼服，其实就是一颗心，在说：「我并不配坐在这里。你也不配。可是，我们两个现在都在这里。不是因为我们配得，而是因为恩宠，因为慈悲，因为国王慷慨的恩赐。所以，我们一起赴宴。」

那个没有穿婚宴礼服的人，就是那个「来了，却没有真正来」的人。他进去了，却没有真正进入；他坐在餐桌前，却没有真正成为这张桌子的一分子；他人在那里，心却没有参与；他在宾客中间，却没有真正成为其中的一员。他是那个批判这场宴席的人，是那个衡量其他客人的人，是那个与别人保持距离的人，是那个把自己放在别人之上的人。他拒绝穿上慈悲的礼服。

而就在这里，这个比喻开始与我们每一个人有关。因为，那个人就是我。我是那个喜欢判断别人的人，我是那个心中存有偏见的人，我是那个把某些人排除在中心之外的人，我是那个决定谁属于这里、谁不属于这里的人。我是那个坐在婚宴中，环顾四周，心里想：「他们怎么也来了？」

我为自己建立了一个小小的王国。在这个王国里，我决定谁可以进来，谁必须出去。我决定哪些人值得我的注意，哪些人不值得。我决定哪些人可以坐在餐桌旁，哪些人应该留在街上。我决定谁值得被接纳，谁不值得。而这一切，我甚至从来没有大声说出来。我只是用沉默去做，用距离去做，用看似客气的排斥去做，用拒绝看见对方去做。

可是，这个比喻告诉我：最后被留在外面的，竟然是我。不是那些我所判断的人，不是那些我排斥的人，不是那些我曾经看不起的人。他们进去了，他们坐在餐桌旁，他们参加了婚宴；而最后被捆起来、扔到黑暗中的，却是我。因为我拒绝穿上那件礼服，因为我拒绝接受，因为我拒绝以一个客人的身分来到天主面前，因为我坚持要成为那个审判别人的人。

那些曾经被我看不起的人，在宴席上；那些被我轻视的人，在宴席上；那些曾经被我排斥的人，在宴席上。而我，却在外面。不是因为天主拒绝了我，而是因为我拒绝了他们；不是因为天主排斥了我，而是因为我排斥了他们；不是因为天主审判了我，而是因为我审判了他们。我为自己建立了一场宴席，却把它变成一场空空的宴席。我为自己建立了一张餐桌，却把它变成一张排斥他人的餐桌。最后，我只剩下自己一个人。

这就是这个比喻更深的意义。这场宴席不是在问：「谁配得？」而是在问：「谁愿意？」这场宴席不是在问：「谁是好人？」而是在问：「谁愿意敞开自己的心？」这场宴席不是在问：「谁值得得到这一切？」而是在问：「谁愿意接受？」而那些愿意接受的人，就进入了宴席；那些不断审判别人的人，反而被留在门外。

所以，今天，我要问自己：我排斥了谁？我审判了谁？我把谁拒于餐桌之外？我拒绝看见谁？这些问题的答案，也许会让我们感到不舒服。但是，这个答案也正是通往那件礼服的道路，是通往婚宴的道路，是通往那张餐桌的道路——那里，那些曾经被我看不起的人，其实早已经坐在那里，而我，也被邀请去与他们一起坐席。不是以审判者的身分，而是以客人的身分；不是作为那个决定谁能进来的人，而是作为那个愿意接受的人；不是作为那个排斥别人的人，而是作为那个自己也被接纳的人。

婚宴已经准备好了，餐桌已经坐满了，那些曾经被我排斥的人，已经在那里。现在唯一的问题是：我愿不愿意穿上那件礼服，走进去？还是，我要继续站在门外，继续判断别人？选择在我手中。礼服已经为我准备好了，门也已经敞开，而天主的国，其实已经开始了。

© 全属于祢& 乐仁出版社（中国澳门）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2026

 The Guest Without a Garment
Matthew 22:1-14

Fr. Jijo Kandamkulathy CMF
Claretian Missionaries

There is a door we keep closed without knowing it. It is not a door of wood or iron. It is a door in the heart. And behind it are all the people we have decided do not belong. The ones we have judged unworthy of our attention. The ones we have dismissed as unimportant. The ones we have quietly excluded from our circle, our conversation, our concern. We do not announce this exclusion. We do not put up a sign. We simply stop seeing them. We simply stop hearing them. We simply stop inviting them.

The parable Jesus tells today is about a wedding banquet. And the banquet is not just a feast. The banquet is the Kingdom of God itself. It is the image Jesus uses again and again to describe the fullness of life with God—the table where the hungry are fed, the outcast is welcomed, and the stranger becomes a friend. The banquet is the vision of a world where everyone has a place and no one is turned away.

A king prepares this feast for his son. He sends his servants to call the invited guests. And they refuse to come. One goes to his farm. Another to his business. Others seize the servants, mistreat them, and kill them. The king is angry. He sends his troops. He destroys the murderers. And then he does something unexpected. He sends his servants to the streets. “Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast whomever you find.” And they do. They gather all they find, bad and good alike. And the hall is filled with guests.

This is the scandal of the gospel. The ones who were supposed to be there are not. The ones who were never supposed to be there are. The respectable, the religious, the chosen—they made excuses. The outcasts, the sinners, the nobody—they came. And the table is full.

But then there is the second part of the parable. The king comes in to see the guests. He sees a man without a wedding garment. And he asks, “Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?” The man is speechless. And the king orders him to be bound and cast out into the darkness.

This is the part we struggle with. It seems harsh. It seems unfair. Why would the king invite everyone and then reject someone for not having the right clothes? But the wedding garment is not about clothing. It is not about works. It is not about perfection. It is not about being good enough. The garment is a disposition. It is the willingness to receive. It is the openness to the feast. It is the humility to be there as a guest. It is the gratitude of one who knows they did not deserve the invitation. The garment is the heart that says, “I do not deserve to be here. Neither do you. But we are both here. By grace. By mercy. By the generosity of the king. And so we feast together.”

The man without the garment is the one who came but did not come. He entered but did not enter. He was at the table but not of the table. He was present but not participating. He was among the guests but not one of them. He is the one who judges the feast. He is the one who measures the other guests. He is the one who keeps his distance. He is the one who holds himself above. He is the one who refuses to put on the garment of mercy.

And this is where the parable becomes personal. Because I am that man. I am the one who judges. I am the one who holds prejudices. I am the one who keeps people away from the center. I am the one who decides who belongs and who does not. I am the one who sits at the feast and looks around and thinks, “What are they doing here?”

I have built my own little kingdom of who is in and who is out. I have decided which people deserve my attention and which do not. I have decided which people belong at the table and which should be left in the streets. I have decided which people are worthy and which are not. And I have done all of this without ever saying it out loud. I have done it in my silences. In my distance. In my polite exclusion. In my refusal to see.

And the parable tells me that I am the one who ends up outside. Not the ones I judged. Not the ones I excluded. Not the ones I looked down upon. They enter. They sit at the table. They are at the banquet. And I am the one who is bound and cast out. Because I refused to put on the garment. Because I refused to receive. Because I refused to be a guest. Because I insisted on being the judge.

The ones I looked down upon are at the feast. The ones I dismissed are at the feast. The ones I excluded are at the feast. And I am outside. Not because God rejected me. But because I rejected them. Not because God excluded me. But because I excluded them. Not because God judged me. But because I judged them. I made my own banquet. And I made it empty. I made my own table. And I made it exclusive. And I ended up alone.

This is the deeper meaning of the parable. The banquet is not about who is worthy. It is about who is willing. The banquet is not about who is good. It is about who is open. The banquet is not about who deserves. It is about who receives. And the ones who receive are the ones who enter. The ones who judge are the ones who are cast out.

So on this day, I am asking myself: Who have I excluded? Who have I judged? Who have I kept away from the table? Who have I refused to see? And the answer is uncomfortable. But the answer is the path. The path to the garment. The path to the feast. The path to the banquet where the ones I looked down upon are already seated. And I am invited to join them. Not as the judge. But as a guest. Not as the one who decides. But as the one who receives. Not as the one who excludes. But as the one who is welcomed.

The feast is ready. The table is full. The ones I excluded are already there. The only question is whether I will put on the garment and enter. Or whether I will stand outside and judge. The choice is mine. The garment is waiting. The door is open. And the Kingdom of God has already begun.

© Claretian Publications, Macau 2026
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica

喜樂與希望的聖言
甲年常年期第廿八主日
瑪竇福音 22:1–14
Fernando Armellin神父的 講道

祝各位主日喜樂！

聖經時代的以色列社會，是由過著相當艱苦生活的牧羊人和農夫所組成的，他們只是普通人，不得不在山上大片佈滿石子的地裡勞作，因為地中海沿岸的沙龍（Sharon）大平原和厄斯德隆（Esdraelon）平原，都掌握在大地主手中。這些貧苦的農民本該得享自由，他們先要在石地裡開荒耕種；若要掙得一頓粗茶淡飯，養活自己與家人，就得頂著烈日，用最粗陋的工具長時間幹活。

這些“世上的窮人”也偶爾擺些筵席，但他們夢寐以求的盛筵，只有那些剝削窮苦工人的富人才辦得起。對“地上的窮人”而言，以色列歷史上曾有過一個充滿希望的時刻，正如聖經裡所稱呼他們的那樣。流亡以後，有幾批被擄到巴比倫的人，回到了猶大，回到以色列。當然，他們不是拿步高（Nebuchadnezzar）所流放的那一代，而是他們的子孫，子又生孫。因為拿步高沒有放逐老人，也沒有放逐患病者或跛足者；他只擄去了有一技之長的人——工匠，正是他們把巴比倫建造起來。那麼，回到祖先之地的人，究竟是些什麼人呢？是在美索不達米亞沒能積攢下錢財的人。當他們回到先祖的土地時，發現早已有人占住了。為了活命，他們只得去服事這些新主人，而這些新主人開始剝削他們，對他們百般虐待。
就在這樣的背景下，西元前五世紀，以色列興起了一位先知，受上主派遣，給這片土地上的窮人傳報希望的聖言。這位先知許下了什麼？眾人期盼的又是什麼？他們期盼社會有所改變，盼一個與他們嚮往相符的不同世界。先知用圖像來呈現上主將要引入的新實況。他該選什麼圖像來描繪這新世界？最能讓他們明白的，莫過於一場盛大的筵席。他們從未辦過盛筵，只能在夢裡見過。這正是本主日讀經一提到的先知許諾。先知宣告：萬軍的上主，要在耶路撒冷所在的那座山上，為萬民預備一場盛筵。他是這樣描述的：“在那裡要有美味的食物、醇酒、豐盛的佳餚……”聽的人揉揉眼睛，直搖頭，因為他們從來沒見過這樣的筵席。可是再說一遍：這筵席不是只留給以色列人的，而是一張為所有人擺開、向全體開放的桌子，因為這新世界要容納全人類。
自那預言之後，四個世紀過去了，什麼都沒變。世界仍和從前一樣：對世上的窮人而言，同樣的不義、同樣的苦、同樣的淚。他們忍不住問：“上主真要履行祂的話嗎？祂借先知之口許下的，難道不算數嗎？”然而以色列仍信靠上主的忠信，常說：“我們的天主言出必行；既已許諾，必會成就。”有一天，在窮人的土地上，納匝肋人耶穌出現了，使這預言應驗。筵席開始了，且聽：

“耶穌又用比喻回答他們說：‘天國好比一個君王，為自己的兒子擺設婚宴。’”

在以色列，人人都背得出我們方才說的那句預言，拉比們也常引用這許諾，存記在心。他們用這兩個世界來指稱它：一個是現今的世界，充滿苦楚與悲傷、眼淚與不義的世界——沒人喜歡的世界；另一個是未來的世界，或“來世”，那是要充滿喜樂、永恆筵席的世界。他們稱它為“大伊甸”，希伯來語意為“喜樂”，就是說“喜樂的樂園”。這原是屬於未來世界、“那另一個”世界才要實現的事。
但耶穌來了，說：這新世界決不是將來的事，天主的國就在此刻、在這現世實現了。因為天主決意要在這世界上擺設筵席。祂願意自己所有的兒女，在現世就得到喜樂；“那另一個世界”自會由天主照顧。天主的國要在這裡建成。耶穌呈上的這筵席圖像，是取自先知的，並非新造。我們知道，耶穌還用過別的圖像講天主的國。他說：天主的國好比一粒芥菜種子，從舊世界裡就開始，雖是微小的種子，卻大有力量。裡頭蘊著屬天的生命，發展開來，生出人意料、超乎尋常的事。耶穌也說：它像一塊田地，裡頭長著好莊稼，好麥子長得旺，但莠子也在，而且會一直都在。今天，耶穌給我們看的，是祂從先知書取來的那個圖像：天主的國是一場筵席，是一場婚宴。現在，我們要展開這圖像，好明白從先知書借來的這幅畫裡，究竟包著什麼含義。

首先，這是筵席，是盛筵。我們常悲戚地反問自己：我們跟隨基督、守祂福音，怎麼竟蒙上了一層“悲苦主義”的紗——仿佛人受的苦越多，在來世預備得越好。聖父派聖子來，單單是要為祂所有的兒女，築一個喜樂的世界。記得天使在耶穌誕生時說的那句話：他們向牧羊人宣告極大的喜樂。耶穌來到這世界，正是為了開啟這新世界。在舊世界裡，不可能有真正的喜樂。那裡有人吃飽擺宴，可四圍全是餓殍、病者、無家可歸的人，處在那樣的世界，人怎麼可能盡情歡笑、盡情喜樂？他們或許能嘗到放縱、昏醉、享樂、醉酒，但在舊世界裡，決不可能有真正的喜樂。耶穌對眾人說：“你若想嘗到喜樂，就必須答應那邀請，進天國之宴。”

我們要留意的第二件事：這筵席圖像裡的新世界，是個喜樂的世界，那麼，誰是這宴會的籌辦者？不是賓客。比喻說，是“一個君王”，明顯指天主。是祂在備宴。但還有一層：這是給所有人預備的免費筵席。宴會廳就是我們的世界，我們都是作為賓客來到這裡，發現宴廳早已為我們擺好。我們都是赴宴的人，沒有誰擁有這廳。古世界裡一切敗壞，都出自有人忘了自己只是客，竟扮起主人來。

天主為祂的兒女預備的，是一個美好的世界，不是“涕泣之穀”。凡維持生命所需的食糧，祂都已擺在他們手邊。有人忘了自己是客，以為拿到什麼就能隨意處置，像主人一樣，於是把市場的法則帶進來：價高者得，從交易裡牟利，讓自己富起來，越來越堆積貨財。這“我是主人”的謊言，一旦進到宴廳——也就是我們的世界——就生出傾軋、競爭、怨恨、戰爭。君王所備的婚宴，恰恰提醒我們一個真相：一切屬於天主，沒有一樣真是我們的。我們只是受託看管不屬於自己的財物；所有“我的、你的”這類佔有詞，都是謊話。一旦接納了“白白相贈”的邏輯，一切都變了。

於是，你把那糊口的餅，遞給急需的弟兄——這原是天主交給我們各人該得的食糧。我們受造本就這樣：為那份愛的關係，為與弟兄姐妹互換所需而被造，因為進到宴廳——進到我們這個世界——的人，同是有一位聖父的兒女。在天國邏輯裡，我不是“大方”才分一點給你的，而是把別人真正需要的都分出去，因為連我手裡的，也是要送給你們的恩賜。它本不屬於我；你手裡握著的一切，原是給急難者的。這來自“顧念他人所需”的邏輯，來自愛的邏輯，來自那孕育新世界的邏輯。

第三點：人在婚宴上，不會把自己關起來獨食。動物只要填飽自己的肚子，就心滿意足了。人不是被造成獨個兒吃飯的，而是為共融——為看著四圍的人都歡樂，自己才真歡樂。所以天主的國宴，不是亞毛斯先知所斥的那些貪饞之徒的吃喝，不是那些躺在象牙床上、歪在軟榻上，吃著羊群裡的羔羊，彈琴高唱，大杯灌酒，對窮人漠不關心，還靠榨取窮人發財之人的宴席。塞滿肚腹，不等於幸福。唯有接納新世界邏輯的人，才嘗得到這喜樂——那邏輯就是共融、手足般的分享、顧及他人，關心他們的悲愁、喜樂、失望與盼望。

從這宴席圖像裡，我們抓出的第四點，是彼此接納。進到宴廳——也就是我們這個世界——的有各樣的人：不同文化、不同民族、不同國家、不同語言。在宴席上，人因他的“不一樣”而被接納；一切不合天主國的，才被摒除。差異是豐富，不是裂痕。這“接納”的圖像，正是取自婚宴比喻。在新世界裡，每個人都帶著自己的長處和局限，被接進來。
此刻你可以問問自己：你接不接這邏輯？你還要照舊宴的脾氣繼續築這世界，還是答應那邀請，進到新世界裡？許多人想留在舊世界，獨自做那富宴中的食客。可是這樣的人，決不會真幸福。

比喻接著推出三組僕人，由他們去領人入宴。宴主是天主，祂要人人都來赴宴，也就是說，接納那新世界的邏輯。且聽：

“他打發自己的僕人，去召被請的人來赴婚宴，他們卻不肯來。他又派別的僕人去，說：‘你們對被請的人說：看，我的宴會已備好，我的牛犢和肥畜都宰了，一切齊備，來赴宴罷。’有人不理會，轉身就走，一個回自己的莊田，一個去做自己的生意。剩下的，揪住他的僕人，虐待一番，殺了。”

這比喻講的是一個“派遣”。備宴的君王，先後派出兩批僕人，先一批，後一批。這兩批人代表誰？他們去找的是些什麼賓客？他們代表上主先前派到亞巴郎子孫、到以色列人那裡的先知，向他們宣告默西亞要來，請他們接納那新世界——也就是耶穌所講天國宴席——的提議。但回應是否定的。拒絕這邀請的是誰？他們又代表誰？是以色列的精神領袖：經師、長老、大司祭，他們不聽先知的話，還自創了一套與先知所教不符的、和天主的關係。先知說過：上主不在乎祭獻、全燔祭、馨香，祂只要愛德的實行。這原是天主默西亞耶穌後來要擺的宴之前的鋪墊。他們卻拒絕這邀請，拒絕洗者若翰要他們悔改的話。為何拒絕？因為他們中意那為他們擺好的“自辦宴”：滿是人為的宗教行為、規矩和條文——正如耶穌說的，這些是壓在百姓肩頭扛不動的重擔。顯然，他們所教所講的那種與天主的關係，傳不出共融的喜樂；像迦納婚宴上沒酒的時刻。那裡只有取潔的石罐，裝的是他們那套宗教、條文、罪、潔淨禮。它沒給任何人帶來喜樂，是場老宴。可偏偏這種“熱心”讓那些精神領袖得意，他們喜歡那位“立法者兼判官”式的天主，只愛義人、只降福好人，絕不把恩澤給那些敢破戒、得罪祂的罪人。他們決不肯接受耶穌所呈現的那位天主——那位坐下來和稅吏、罪人一同吃飯的天主。

終於，那些精神領袖拒絕了邀請，對這新宴毫無興趣。要當心：耶穌時代的法利賽人死了，但“法利賽主義”還活著。今天，拒絕耶穌這宴的，可能就是我們——因為我們更愛那套由守禮、賞報、懲罰、功勞拼成的舊宗教。這種虔誠讓人安心，叫我們在天主前“感覺良好”，或者更准地說：覺得自己“有功績”，因為行了許多善工，理當受賞。這不是天國的宴，這還是法利賽人的宴。天國的宴，特徵是天主白白給我們的愛，以及我們流向眾弟兄姐妹的白白之愛。

現在，看看第二批使者出去找賓客時，發生了什麼。這批賓客不再是百姓的精神領袖，而是沉溺於物質事務的人。比喻裡提到了莊田和生意。就是說：指向那些投資置產的大地主，有農莊要照管、要走訪。讓他們滿意的宴，是那場“生意宴”、“積錢積貨宴”——他們不想被別種生活提議打擾。越縮進這物質宴裡，就越不肯接受那“不積財、只分享”的宴。他們想方設法延續這場宴：各人顧各人，能撈到就撈到，沒撈著？那你自己想辦法去！第二批人也拒了邀請，因為他們太清楚天國宴要人怎樣活：要人彼此無私地顧惜、分享。可他們自欺，以為用財富和享樂，就能填滿人心深處對無限喜樂的渴求——就像每個人心裡都有的那個空缺。有人對邀請不屑一顧，只繼續自己的宗教宴或物質宴。有人卻被這訊息刺得不舒服——正是那些執迷於物質宴的人，他們一眼就看出，耶穌這宴的邏輯，揭了他們那場宴的不義。使者若再叨叨兩句，他們就動手，用暴力叫人閉嘴、把人攆走。今日敢指斥這世上經濟宴、政治宴裡不義的先知，命運也是如此。

面對第二批的拒絕，君王怎麼辦？且聽：

“君王大怒，派自己的軍隊去，滅了那些殺人兇手，燒了他們的城。”

在介紹第三組僕人之前，我們讀到這段“燒城”的奇特插筆。且試著看懂它要說什麼。先注意：這節經文不屬於耶穌講的那則比喻本身，它打斷了敘述；你若把這句抽掉，立刻會發現——故事反而流得通順。再說，很難想像宴剛開始，中間插一場戰爭。仗打完了，菜還擺在桌上，客人等著打完再吃……這是瑪竇插進的一節，為點亮一段意義——關於大約十五年前那樁慘事：耶路撒冷城的毀滅。

初期教會的基督徒想知道：聖城怎會落得如此下場？他們用舊約的語言作答，說是“懲罰”。但舊約說“天主的懲罰”，到底是什麼意思？我們知道：人偏行己誤入歧途時，天主並不外加懲罰，也不給人添更多惡，舊約裡說“天主的懲罰”，指的是罪帶來的後果——是罪在罰人，有時還延到第三代、第四代，因為罪的後果向來是慘烈的。這語言今天不能直接搬用，因為它太古舊；我們必須轉譯、重整這圖像，讓現代人聽得懂。今天還講“天主的懲罰”，近乎褻瀆，因為我們這話的意思，早已不是聖經裡那層意思了——聖經那裡，只講“罪的後果”。今天的訊息可以翻成下面這句：誰若拒絕天國宴的邀請，誰就要對這世上持續的虐待、暴力、戰爭、毀壞負責。這不是天主的懲罰，而是要繼續走舊世界“競爭邏輯”的自食其果。而這後果，向來是慘烈的。以色列的罪，是拒了耶穌提出的“和平與仁愛世界”的提議，反倒揀了暴力。這罪的後果，就是那城被毀。這節經文用“天主懲罰”的古語，把罪的後果包裹起來講了。

這段插曲之後，耶穌的比喻隨著第三組僕人的派出，接下去。且聽：

“於是，他對自己的僕人說：‘宴已備好，但那些被請的人，配不來；婚宴已齊備，但賓客配不上。所以，你們到大路口去，凡遇著的，都請來赴宴。’僕人上街去，把碰到的都聚來，好壞不分，一併招進，大廳裡坐滿了客人。”

君王派第三批僕人，去請的是誰？不是顯貴，不是富人，不是熱心的司祭，也不是那些已經說過“不”的人。按希臘文，第三批被派到“街口交匯處”。街口交匯處是哪兒？就是市集廣場，他們就得往那兒去——常人聚集的地方：窮人在那兒，各色人等都在：老實商人、騙子、小偷、毒販。他們得去那兒，把進宴廳的邀請，送給所有這些被我們視為“外面的人”。所以他們走向窮人、被邊緣的、被人看不起的，走向稅吏、走向娼妓，走向所有的人——好壞都算，沒人不在這邀請之外。

那麼第三組僕人是誰？不再是向以色列人說話的先知。第三組，是那些被耶穌親自差出去的人——就是說，宗徒。而我們眾人，就是那些把生命交托給天主世界計畫的天使（使者）。要讓我們的使命有效、成功，先決條件是：我們自己得先嘗過進這宴的喜樂；得真接了天國的邏輯，並意識到它給我們喜樂、使我們幸福，給生活滿全的意義。有了這經驗，我們自然覺得非出去邀人不可——我們愛他們，願意他們也在宴廳裡嘗到這滋味。若沒有，若沒這迫切需要，就說明我們沒嘗過宴的喜樂，要麼就是不愛那些還在外面的人，覺得沒必要邀他們。宣報福音的迫切需要，是從愛裡生出來的。

在市集上，我們要碰的是什麼人？什麼都有：壞人，好人。有時我聽這些被派到市集傳邀請的天使——那些善良、慷慨、滿腔熱火的人——講他們的困惑：說他們不敢去，因為百姓對福音沒興趣。對宴筵沒興趣：“他們自己開過派對了，幹嘛去打擾？他們不聽我們的，還是些疏遠的人，有時還取笑我們……”對不敢出門的人，我總說：“這些在市集上的人，若早已在宴廳裡，納匝肋人耶穌就不會打發你們去邀了；正打發你們去，就因為那些人還在外面。”所以碰到沒受邀請的人，別大驚小怪，也別讀不懂耶穌這般美好的提議。

現在，試著想：我們在那廣場會遇見誰，會得什麼回答。先說一類：猶豫的人，不想立刻答應，不想換掉自己的宴，因為他們有自己的宴，還想再多享受一陣。這類人多半遲些會進來。好，我們耐著性子；提議已經遞出去了。也許還會碰見有人說：“我知道那宴是給來世的，所以眼下嘛，我繼續吃我的宴，等生命末了再進天國。”我們會對他說：“看哪，那就晚了；你連這輩子的喜樂機會都丟了，因為天主的國不是為‘以後’備的，而是耶穌要在‘這裡’築的世界。”他們或許不懂，但邀請已經發了，願他們答應，進這宴廳。當然，宴上也會有那種立刻進來、卻不是因為愛，只怕不下地獄的人——“不進就完了……”所以裡面會有不是因愛、是因怕才進的人。市集上也會有這種反應。但必定有人一聽就明白：天主的國是一場宴會，於是果斷進來，毫不遲延，因為不想錯過任何一刻擺上的喜樂。

要記住：進來的人不會立刻成全；他們沒完全接住宴的所有邏輯，仍帶著些可憐處和道德軟弱。常常，他們還被買賣交換的邏輯拴著，想偷偷再積一點；不會把一切交到弟兄手裡……耐住性子。天主的國裡有好麥，但也永遠有莠子。

比喻的結尾很動人。屋裡坐滿了人！全家都聚齊了，到處是斜倚而坐的人——這姿態象徵：不黏財物、不沾敗壞、不懷怨恨、不戀惡習。屋裡滿是人。沒少一個。所有兒女終有一日，要在這屋裡被接納。但他們先得接到那邀請。而能不能接得好，很大程度上看我們怎麼遞出這提議。我們若做得好，人不能被這新世界的提議吸引都難。

比喻本可在此落幕。但它沒這麼結束，接著來了一段像要掀翻一切的小插曲。且聽：

“君王進來會見客人時，看見一個人沒穿婚宴禮服。他對那人說：‘朋友，你到這裡來，怎麼不穿婚宴禮服？’那人啞口無言。於是君王對侍從說：‘把他的手腳綁起來，丟到外面黑暗裡去，那裡要有哀號和切齒。’被召的人多，被選上的人少。”

實話先講：這位君王的反應，讓我們一時說不出話。好像面對雙重人格：先前那麼慷慨、體恤困苦人的那位，現在為一樁小失禮，神經崩斷，冷硬到殘忍；我們幾乎認不出他了。顯然，這段和前面不連，對不上前面講過的調子。比喻本在“滿廳客人、主人與大家同宴”處收尾了。那怎麼還會有人沒穿禮服？人剛從市集來；若真穿著禮服，才奇怪哩。清清楚楚：這是又一則比喻，另一個小故事，要答一個已經浮出來的問題。浮出的問題是：光對邀請說“是”、人進到宴廳就算數了嗎——就是說，領了洗就算了？還是日後具體生活裡，得把所作的選擇活出來？瑪竇用一則新比喻，回答了這個問題。

聖史瑪竇為什麼要引入第二個比喻呢？因為當時他是對第一世紀末的團體講話，五十年過去了，自從逾越節事件以後，這些教會起初非常熱心，對福音說了“是”，進入了宴會廳，但過去幾十年後失去了熱情。許多基督徒又回到了與福音格格不入的外邦習慣，比如依附於這個世界的貨物。瑪竇作為靈魂的牧者，關心他們，因為他們正冒著喪失性命的風險。雖然他們已經領受了洗禮，卻又變得像先前那些拒絕邀請的人一樣。這就是瑪竇導入耶穌教導我們的、關於基督徒新禮服的比喻。

人一進到宴會廳，就是接納了天主的國，他必須穿上禮服。在聖經中，禮服代表人的道德生活，代表周圍人看待他的方式；比方說，他們可能穿著驕傲的禮服，或者穿著關懷他人的禮服，或是穿著慷慨的禮服。保祿在新約中一再重申：人進入宴會廳，就是進到天主的國，因此他必須穿上基督。凡遇見他的人，必須把他看作主的門徒，並在他身上認出救主，因為他們穿著相同的禮服。我們想知道：納匝肋人耶穌所穿的禮服是怎樣的。如同若望記述的那樣，讓我們回到最後晚餐時所發生的事。在最後晚餐時，耶穌脫去自己的外袍，只留下纏腰布。這是當時猶太人的穿著方式，他們用纏腰布、內衣、外袍層層遮蓋自己。耶穌脫去外袍，只留纏腰布在身，這正是奴僕所穿的服裝，因為祂開始以奴僕的身份服事，去給門徒洗腳。

那件纏腰布，就是耶穌作為僕人所穿的服裝。耶穌的真門徒，就是蒙召去服事、成為自己弟兄的僕人，時常準備好答應那些向他尋求幫助的人提出的請求。那些有需要的人就是主人，門徒必須時常穿著這件禮服。在天國的婚宴上，新郎是基督，新娘是基督徒團體，必須穿上禮服，穿上與新郎相同的禮服，就是奴僕的禮服。在那些不接受這奴僕禮服的人身上，會發生什麼呢？這裡有救主所說的幾句嚴厲的話：“把他的手腳綁起來，把他扔到外面的黑暗裡去，在那裡要有哀號和切齒。”讓我們留心這話，這話與拉比們所說的話相契合。正如瑪竇對絕大多數基督徒所說的那樣，他們都是猶太人，因此他們很理解他，這就是拉比想要激發他們良心的方式。在這裡，瑪竇想要動搖他們的良心，因為這些基督徒處於回到外邦服裝的風險中。這就是為什麼他要用拉比的語言。也有“哀號和切齒”以及“黑暗”的表達，這些表達只有在瑪竇福音中才能找到。

讓我們試圖翻譯這些拉比們的圖像。耶穌想要對那些答應祂的人說什麼呢：“你們要小心，要接受這僕人的行為，如果你不接受宴會的邏輯——就是要分擔、服事你的兄弟姐妹——你就離了這個宴會。”在那些離開的人身上發生了什麼？他們留在舊世界、充滿競爭的社會中，因此，他們就處於一個不是伊甸園式的社會，而是地獄般的社會中，那個社會是不人道的。沒必要為此提供證明。我們的社會產出什麼呢？舊時社會的邏輯，競爭和與人爭鬥的邏輯。有哀號和切齒的地方，就是地獄的地方。因此，如果我們不接受天國的邏輯，我們就留在外面。我們可能會贏一次兩次，但是，我們最終會被某個強大的人壓垮，這就是耶穌用嚴厲的方式所表達的話的含義。

這段福音用這些話作結尾：“許多人受到邀請，被揀選的人卻很少。”耶穌講這話的含義，不是說許多人蒙召，而是很少有人進到天國。所有的人都受到邀請，但是，並非所有的人都認真對待，就是，並非所有的人都容許自己參與到這個新世界的邏輯中。我想，這就是耶穌對我們所說的話，我們就是這第三組僕人。讓我們不要灰心，讓我們不要期望所有的人都參與到這個新的邏輯中，有些人願意，但是，還有一些人，即使他們堅守一點福音的邏輯，在他們的生活中，仍然會保留一些外邦人的習慣。你們，第三組特使的天使，你們謹記。
我祝你們主日喜樂，週末愉快！

© 全屬於祢 & 樂仁出版社（中國香港）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2026

喜乐与希望的圣言
甲年常年期第廿八主日
玛窦福音 22:1–14
Fernando Armellin神父的 讲道

祝各位主日喜乐！

圣经时代的以色列社会，是由过着相当艰苦生活的牧羊人和农夫所组成的，他们只是普通人，不得不在山上大片布满石子的地里劳作，因为地中海沿岸的沙龙（Sharon）大平原和厄斯德隆（Esdraelon）平原，都掌握在大地主手中。这些贫苦的农民本该得享自由，他们先要在石地里开荒耕种；若要挣得一顿粗茶淡饭，养活自己与家人，就得顶着烈日，用最粗陋的工具长时间干活。

这些“世上的穷人”也偶尔摆些筵席，但他们梦寐以求的盛筵，只有那些剥削穷苦工人的富人才办得起。对“地上的穷人”而言，以色列历史上曾有过一个充满希望的时刻，正如圣经里所称呼他们的那样。流亡以后，有几批被掳到巴比伦的人，回到了犹大，回到以色列。当然，他们不是拿步高（Nebuchadnezzar）所流放的那一代，而是他们的子孙，子又生孙。因为拿步高没有放逐老人，也没有放逐患病者或跛足者；他只掳去了有一技之长的人——工匠，正是他们把巴比伦建造起来。那么，回到祖先之地的人，究竟是些什么人呢？是在美索不达米亚没能积攒下钱财的人。当他们回到先祖的土地时，发现早已有人占住了。为了活命，他们只得去服事这些新主人，而这些新主人开始剥削他们，对他们百般虐待。
就在这样的背景下，公元前五世纪，以色列兴起了一位先知，受上主派遣，给这片土地上的穷人传报希望的圣言。这位先知许下了什么？众人期盼的又是什么？他们期盼社会有所改变，盼一个与他们向往相符的不同世界。先知用图像来呈现上主将要引入的新实况。他该选什么图像来描绘这新世界？最能让他们明白的，莫过于一场盛大的筵席。他们从未办过盛筵，只能在梦里见过。这正是本主日读经一提到的先知许诺。先知宣告：万军的上主，要在耶路撒冷所在的那座山上，为万民预备一场盛筵。他是这样描述的：“在那里要有美味的食物、醇酒、丰盛的佳肴……”听的人揉揉眼睛，直摇头，因为他们从来没见过这样的筵席。可是再说一遍：这筵席不是只留给以色列人的，而是一张为所有人摆开、向全体开放的桌子，因为这新世界要容纳全人类。
自那预言之后，四个世纪过去了，什么都没变。世界仍和从前一样：对世上的穷人而言，同样的不义、同样的苦、同样的泪。他们忍不住问：“上主真要履行祂的话吗？祂借先知之口许下的，难道不算数吗？”然而以色列仍信靠上主的忠信，常说：“我们的天主言出必行；既已许诺，必会成就。”有一天，在穷人的土地上，纳匝肋人耶稣出现了，使这预言应验。筵席开始了，且听：

“耶稣又用比喻回答他们说：‘天国好比一个君王，为自己的儿子摆设婚宴。’”

在以色列，人人都背得出我们方才说的那句预言，拉比们也常引用这许诺，存记在心。他们用这两个世界来指称它：一个是现今的世界，充满苦楚与悲伤、眼泪与不义的世界——没人喜欢的世界；另一个是未来的世界，或“来世”，那是要充满喜乐、永恒筵席的世界。他们称它为“大伊甸”，希伯来语意为“喜乐”，就是说“喜乐的乐园”。这原是属于未来世界、“那另一个”世界才要实现的事。
但耶稣来了，说：这新世界决不是将来的事，天主的国就在此刻、在这现世实现了。因为天主决意要在这世界上摆设筵席。祂愿意自己所有的儿女，在现世就得到喜乐；“那另一个世界”自会由天主照顾。天主的国要在这里建成。耶稣呈上的这筵席图像，是取自先知的，并非新造。我们知道，耶稣还用过别的图像讲天主的国。他说：天主的国好比一粒芥菜种子，从旧世界里就开始，虽是微小的种子，却大有力量。里头蕴着属天的生命，发展开来，生出人意料、超乎寻常的事。耶稣也说：它像一块田地，里头长着好庄稼，好麦子长得旺，但莠子也在，而且会一直都在。今天，耶稣给我们看的，是祂从先知书取来的那个图像：天主的国是一场筵席，是一场婚宴。现在，我们要展开这图像，好明白从先知书借来的这幅画里，究竟包着什么含义。

首先，这是筵席，是盛筵。我们常悲戚地反问自己：我们跟随基督、守祂福音，怎么竟蒙上了一层“悲苦主义”的纱——仿佛人受的苦越多，在来世预备得越好。圣父派圣子来，单单是要为祂所有的儿女，筑一个喜乐的世界。记得天使在耶稣诞生时说的那句话：他们向牧羊人宣告极大的喜乐。耶稣来到这世界，正是为了开启这新世界。在旧世界里，不可能有真正的喜乐。那里有人吃饱摆宴，可四围全是饿殍、病者、无家可归的人，处在那样的世界，人怎么可能尽情欢笑、尽情喜乐？他们或许能尝到放纵、昏醉、享乐、醉酒，但在旧世界里，决不可能有真正的喜乐。耶稣对众人说：“你若想尝到喜乐，就必须答应那邀请，进天国之宴。”

我们要留意的第二件事：这筵席图像里的新世界，是个喜乐的世界，那么，谁是这宴会的筹办者？不是宾客。比喻说，是“一个君王”，明显指天主。是祂在备宴。但还有一层：这是给所有人预备的免费筵席。宴会厅就是我们的世界，我们都是作为宾客来到这里，发现宴厅早已为我们摆好。我们都是赴宴的人，没有谁拥有这厅。古世界里一切败坏，都出自有人忘了自己只是客，竟扮起主人来。

天主为祂的儿女预备的，是一个美好的世界，不是“涕泣之谷”。凡维持生命所需的食粮，祂都已摆在他们手边。有人忘了自己是客，以为拿到什么就能随意处置，像主人一样，于是把市场的法则带进来：价高者得，从交易里牟利，让自己富起来，越来越堆积货财。这“我是主人”的谎言，一旦进到宴厅——也就是我们的世界——就生出倾轧、竞争、怨恨、战争。君王所备的婚宴，恰恰提醒我们一个真相：一切属于天主，没有一样真是我们的。我们只是受托看管不属于自己的财物；所有“我的、你的”这类占有词，都是谎话。一旦接纳了“白白相赠”的逻辑，一切都变了。

于是，你把那糊口的饼，递给急需的弟兄——这原是天主交给我们各人该得的食粮。我们受造本就这样：为那份爱的关系，为与弟兄姐妹互换所需而被造，因为进到宴厅——进到我们这个世界——的人，同是有一位圣父的儿女。在天国逻辑里，我不是“大方”才分一点给你的，而是把别人真正需要的都分出去，因为连我手里的，也是要送给你们的恩赐。它本不属于我；你手里握着的一切，原是给急难者的。这来自“顾念他人所需”的逻辑，来自爱的逻辑，来自那孕育新世界的逻辑。

第三点：人在婚宴上，不会把自己关起来独食。动物只要填饱自己的肚子，就心满意足了。人不是被造成独个儿吃饭的，而是为共融——为看着四围的人都欢乐，自己才真欢乐。所以天主的国宴，不是亚毛斯先知所斥的那些贪馋之徒的吃喝，不是那些躺在象牙床上、歪在软榻上，吃着羊群里的羔羊，弹琴高唱，大杯灌酒，对穷人漠不关心，还靠榨取穷人发财之人的宴席。塞满肚腹，不等于幸福。唯有接纳新世界逻辑的人，才尝得到这喜乐——那逻辑就是共融、手足般的分享、顾及他人，关心他们的悲愁、喜乐、失望与盼望。

从这宴席图像里，我们抓出的第四点，是彼此接纳。进到宴厅——也就是我们这个世界——的有各样的人：不同文化、不同民族、不同国家、不同语言。在宴席上，人因他的“不一样”而被接纳；一切不合天主国的，才被摒除。差异是丰富，不是裂痕。这“接纳”的图像，正是取自婚宴比喻。在新世界里，每个人都带着自己的长处和局限，被接进来。
此刻你可以问问自己：你接不接这逻辑？你还要照旧宴的脾气继续筑这世界，还是答应那邀请，进到新世界里？许多人想留在旧世界，独自做那富宴中的食客。可是这样的人，决不会真幸福。

比喻接着推出三组仆人，由他们去领人入宴。宴主是天主，祂要人人都来赴宴，也就是说，接纳那新世界的逻辑。且听：

“他打发自己的仆人，去召被请的人来赴婚宴，他们却不肯来。他又派别的仆人去，说：‘你们对被请的人说：看，我的宴会已备好，我的牛犊和肥畜都宰了，一切齐备，来赴宴罢。’有人不理会，转身就走，一个回自己的庄田，一个去做自己的生意。剩下的，揪住他的仆人，虐待一番，杀了。”

这比喻讲的是一个“派遣”。备宴的君王，先后派出两批仆人，先一批，后一批。这两批人代表谁？他们去找的是些什么宾客？他们代表上主先前派到亚巴郎子孙、到以色列人那里的先知，向他们宣告默西亚要来，请他们接纳那新世界——也就是耶稣所讲天国宴席——的提议。但回应是否定的。拒绝这邀请的是谁？他们又代表谁？是以色列的精神领袖：经师、长老、大司祭，他们不听先知的话，还自创了一套与先知所教不符的、和天主的关系。先知说过：上主不在乎祭献、全燔祭、馨香，祂只要爱德的实行。这原是天主默西亚耶稣后来要摆的宴之前的铺垫。他们却拒绝这邀请，拒绝洗者若翰要他们悔改的话。为何拒绝？因为他们中意那为他们摆好的“自办宴”：满是人为的宗教行为、规矩和条文——正如耶稣说的，这些是压在百姓肩头扛不动的重担。显然，他们所教所讲的那种与天主的关系，传不出共融的喜乐；像加纳婚宴上没酒的时刻。那里只有取洁的石罐，装的是他们那套宗教、条文、罪、洁净礼。它没给任何人带来喜乐，是场老宴。可偏偏这种“热心”让那些精神领袖得意，他们喜欢那位“立法者兼判官”式的天主，只爱义人、只降福好人，绝不把恩泽给那些敢破戒、得罪祂的罪人。他们决不肯接受耶稣所呈现的那位天主——那位坐下来和税吏、罪人一同吃饭的天主。

终于，那些精神领袖拒绝了邀请，对这新宴毫无兴趣。要当心：耶稣时代的法利赛人死了，但“法利赛主义”还活着。今天，拒绝耶稣这宴的，可能就是我们——因为我们更爱那套由守礼、赏报、惩罚、功劳拼成的旧宗教。这种虔诚让人安心，叫我们在天主前“感觉良好”，或者更准地说：觉得自己“有功绩”，因为行了许多善工，理当受赏。这不是天国的宴，这还是法利赛人的宴。天国的宴，特征是天主白白给我们的爱，以及我们流向众弟兄姐妹的白白之爱。

现在，看看第二批使者出去找宾客时，发生了什么。这批宾客不再是百姓的精神领袖，而是沉溺于物质事务的人。比喻里提到了庄田和生意。就是说：指向那些投资置产的大地主，有农庄要照管、要走访。让他们满意的宴，是那场“生意宴”、“积钱积货宴”——他们不想被别种生活提议打扰。越缩进这物质宴里，就越不肯接受那“不积财、只分享”的宴。他们想方设法延续这场宴：各人顾各人，能捞到就捞到，没捞着？那你自己想办法去！第二批人也拒了邀请，因为他们太清楚天国宴要人怎样活：要人彼此无私地顾惜、分享。可他们自欺，以为用财富和享乐，就能填满人心深处对无限喜乐的渴求——就像每个人心里都有的那个空缺。有人对邀请不屑一顾，只继续自己的宗教宴或物质宴。有人却被这讯息刺得不舒服——正是那些执迷于物质宴的人，他们一眼就看出，耶稣这宴的逻辑，揭了他们那场宴的不义。使者若再叨叨两句，他们就动手，用暴力叫人闭嘴、把人撵走。今日敢指斥这世上经济宴、政治宴里不义的先知，命运也是如此。

面对第二批的拒绝，君王怎么办？且听：

“君王大怒，派自己的军队去，灭了那些杀人凶手，烧了他们的城。”

在介绍第三组仆人之前，我们读到这段“烧城”的奇特插笔。且试着看懂它要说什么。先注意：这节经文不属于耶稣讲的那则比喻本身，它打断了叙述；你若把这句抽掉，立刻会发现——故事反而流得通顺。再说，很难想象宴刚开始，中间插一场战争。仗打完了，菜还摆在桌上，客人等着打完再吃……这是玛窦插进的一节，为点亮一段意义——关于大约十五年前那桩惨事：耶路撒冷城的毁灭。

初期教会的基督徒想知道：圣城怎会落得如此下场？他们用旧约的语言作答，说是“惩罚”。但旧约说“天主的惩罚”，到底是什么意思？我们知道：人偏行己误入歧途时，天主并不外加惩罚，也不给人添更多恶，旧约里说“天主的惩罚”，指的是罪带来的后果——是罪在罚人，有时还延到第三代、第四代，因为罪的后果向来是惨烈的。这语言今天不能直接搬用，因为它太古旧；我们必须转译、重整这图像，让现代人听得懂。今天还讲“天主的惩罚”，近乎亵渎，因为我们这话的意思，早已不是圣经里那层意思了——圣经那里，只讲“罪的后果”。今天的讯息可以翻成下面这句：谁若拒绝天国宴的邀请，谁就要对这世上持续的虐待、暴力、战争、毁坏负责。这不是天主的惩罚，而是要继续走旧世界“竞争逻辑”的自食其果。而这后果，向来是惨烈的。以色列的罪，是拒了耶稣提出的“和平与仁爱世界”的提议，反倒拣了暴力。这罪的后果，就是那城被毁。这节经文用“天主惩罚”的古语，把罪的后果包裹起来讲了。

这段插曲之后，耶稣的比喻随着第三组仆人的派出，接下去。且听：

“于是，他对自己的仆人说：‘宴已备好，但那些被请的人，配不来；婚宴已齐备，但宾客配不上。所以，你们到大路口去，凡遇着的，都请来赴宴。’仆人上街去，把碰到的都聚来，好坏不分，一并招进，大厅里坐满了客人。”

君王派第三批仆人，去请的是谁？不是显贵，不是富人，不是热心的司祭，也不是那些已经说过“不”的人。按希腊文，第三批被派到“街口交汇处”。街口交汇处是哪儿？就是市集广场，他们就得往那儿去——常人聚集的地方：穷人在那儿，各色人等都在：老实商人、骗子、小偷、毒贩。他们得去那儿，把进宴厅的邀请，送给所有这些被我们视为“外面的人”。所以他们走向穷人、被边缘的、被人看不起的，走向税吏、走向娼妓，走向所有的人——好坏都算，没人不在这邀请之外。

那么第三组仆人是谁？不再是向以色列人说话的先知。第三组，是那些被耶稣亲自差出去的人——就是说，宗徒。而我们众人，就是那些把生命交托给天主世界计划的天使（使者）。要让我们的使命有效、成功，先决条件是：我们自己得先尝过进这宴的喜乐；得真接了天国的逻辑，并意识到它给我们喜乐、使我们幸福，给生活满全的意义。有了这经验，我们自然觉得非出去邀人不可——我们爱他们，愿意他们也在宴厅里尝到这滋味。若没有，若没这迫切需要，就说明我们没尝过宴的喜乐，要么就是不爱那些还在外面的人，觉得没必要邀他们。宣报福音的迫切需要，是从爱里生出来的。

在市集上，我们要碰的是什么人？什么都有：坏人，好人。有时我听这些被派到市集传邀请的天使——那些善良、慷慨、满腔热火的人——讲他们的困惑：说他们不敢去，因为百姓对福音没兴趣。对宴筵没兴趣：“他们自己开过派对了，干嘛去打扰？他们不听我们的，还是些疏远的人，有时还取笑我们……”对不敢出门的人，我总说：“这些在市集上的人，若早已在宴厅里，纳匝肋人耶稣就不会打发你们去邀了；正打发你们去，就因为那些人还在外面。”所以碰到没受邀请的人，别大惊小怪，也别读不懂耶稣这般美好的提议。

现在，试着想：我们在那广场会遇见谁，会得什么回答。先说一类：犹豫的人，不想立刻答应，不想换掉自己的宴，因为他们有自己的宴，还想再多享受一阵。这类人多半迟些会进来。好，我们耐着性子；提议已经递出去了。也许还会碰见有人说：“我知道那宴是给来世的，所以眼下嘛，我继续吃我的宴，等生命末了再进天国。”我们会对他说：“看哪，那就晚了；你连这辈子的喜乐机会都丢了，因为天主的国不是为‘以后’备的，而是耶稣要在‘这里’筑的世界。”他们或许不懂，但邀请已经发了，愿他们答应，进这宴厅。当然，宴上也会有那种立刻进来、却不是因为爱，只怕不下地狱的人——“不进就完了……”所以里面会有不是因爱、是因怕才进的人。市集上也会有这种反应。但必定有人一听就明白：天主的国是一场宴会，于是果断进来，毫不迟延，因为不想错过任何一刻摆上的喜乐。

要记住：进来的人不会立刻成全；他们没完全接住宴的所有逻辑，仍带着些可怜处和道德软弱。常常，他们还被买卖交换的逻辑拴着，想偷偷再积一点；不会把一切交到弟兄手里……耐住性子。天主的国里有好麦，但也永远有莠子。

比喻的结尾很动人。屋里坐满了人！全家都聚齐了，到处是斜倚而坐的人——这姿态象征：不黏财物、不沾败坏、不怀怨恨、不恋恶习。屋里满是人。没少一个。所有儿女终有一日，要在这屋里被接纳。但他们先得接到那邀请。而能不能接得好，很大程度上看我们怎么递出这提议。我们若做得好，人不能被这新世界的提议吸引都难。

比喻本可在此落幕。但它没这么结束，接着来了一段像要掀翻一切的小插曲。且听：

“君王进来会见客人时，看见一个人没穿婚宴礼服。他对那人说：‘朋友，你到这里来，怎么不穿婚宴礼服？’那人哑口无言。于是君王对侍从说：‘把他的手脚绑起来，丢到外面黑暗里去，那里要有哀号和切齿。’被召的人多，被选上的人少。”

实话先讲：这位君王的反应，让我们一时说不出话。好像面对双重人格：先前那么慷慨、体恤困苦人的那位，现在为一桩小失礼，神经崩断，冷硬到残忍；我们几乎认不出他了。显然，这段和前面不连，对不上前面讲过的调子。比喻本在“满厅客人、主人与大家同宴”处收尾了。那怎么还会有人没穿礼服？人刚从市集来；若真穿着礼服，才奇怪哩。清清楚楚：这是又一则比喻，另一个小故事，要答一个已经浮出来的问题。浮出的问题是：光对邀请说“是”、人进到宴厅就算数了吗——就是说，领了洗就算了？还是日后具体生活里，得把所作的选择活出来？玛窦用一则新比喻，回答了这个问题。

圣史玛窦为什么要引入第二个比喻呢？因为当时他是对第一世纪末的团体讲话，五十年过去了，自从逾越节事件以后，这些教会起初非常热心，对福音说了“是”，进入了宴会厅，但过去几十年后失去了热情。许多基督徒又回到了与福音格格不入的外邦习惯，比如依附于这个世界的货物。玛窦作为灵魂的牧者，关心他们，因为他们正冒着丧失性命的风险。虽然他们已经领受了洗礼，却又变得像先前那些拒绝邀请的人一样。这就是玛窦导入耶稣教导我们的、关于基督徒新礼服的比喻。

人一进到宴会厅，就是接纳了天主的国，他必须穿上礼服。在圣经中，礼服代表人的道德生活，代表周围人看待他的方式；比方说，他们可能穿着骄傲的礼服，或者穿着关怀他人的礼服，或是穿着慷慨的礼服。保禄在新约中一再重申：人进入宴会厅，就是进到天主的国，因此他必须穿上基督。凡遇见他的人，必须把他看作主的门徒，并在他身上认出救主，因为他们穿着相同的礼服。我们想知道：纳匝肋人耶稣所穿的礼服是怎样的。如同若望记述的那样，让我们回到最后晚餐时所发生的事。在最后晚餐时，耶稣脱去自己的外袍，只留下缠腰布。这是当时犹太人的穿着方式，他们用缠腰布、内衣、外袍层层遮盖自己。耶稣脱去外袍，只留缠腰布在身，这正是奴仆所穿的服装，因为祂开始以奴仆的身份服事，去给门徒洗脚。

那件缠腰布，就是耶稣作为仆人所穿的服装。耶稣的真门徒，就是蒙召去服事、成为自己弟兄的仆人，时常准备好答应那些向他寻求帮助的人提出的请求。那些有需要的人就是主人，门徒必须时常穿着这件礼服。在天国的婚宴上，新郎是基督，新娘是基督徒团体，必须穿上礼服，穿上与新郎相同的礼服，就是奴仆的礼服。在那些不接受这奴仆礼服的人身上，会发生什么呢？这里有救主所说的几句严厉的话：“把他的手脚绑起来，把他扔到外面的黑暗里去，在那里要有哀号和切齿。”让我们留心这话，这话与拉比们所说的话相契合。正如玛窦对绝大多数基督徒所说的那样，他们都是犹太人，因此他们很理解他，这就是拉比想要激发他们良心的方式。在这里，玛窦想要动摇他们的良心，因为这些基督徒处于回到外邦服装的风险中。这就是为什么他要用拉比的语言。也有“哀号和切齿”以及“黑暗”的表达，这些表达只有在玛窦福音中才能找到。

让我们试图翻译这些拉比们的图像。耶稣想要对那些答应祂的人说什么呢：“你们要小心，要接受这仆人的行为，如果你不接受宴会的逻辑——就是要分担、服事你的兄弟姐妹——你就离了这个宴会。”在那些离开的人身上发生了什么？他们留在旧世界、充满竞争的社会中，因此，他们就处于一个不是伊甸园式的社会，而是地狱般的社会中，那个社会是不人道的。没必要为此提供证明。我们的社会产出什么呢？旧时社会的逻辑，竞争和与人争斗的逻辑。有哀号和切齿的地方，就是地狱的地方。因此，如果我们不接受天国的逻辑，我们就留在外面。我们可能会赢一次两次，但是，我们最终会被某个强大的人压垮，这就是耶稣用严厉的方式所表达的话的含义。

这段福音用这些话作结尾：“许多人受到邀请，被拣选的人却很少。”耶稣讲这话的含义，不是说许多人蒙召，而是很少有人进到天国。所有的人都受到邀请，但是，并非所有的人都认真对待，就是，并非所有的人都容许自己参与到这个新世界的逻辑中。我想，这就是耶稣对我们所说的话，我们就是这第三组仆人。让我们不要灰心，让我们不要期望所有的人都参与到这个新的逻辑中，有些人愿意，但是，还有一些人，即使他们坚守一点福音的逻辑，在他们的生活中，仍然会保留一些外邦人的习惯。你们，第三组特使的天使，你们谨记。
我祝你们主日喜乐，周末愉快！

© 全属于祢 & 乐仁出版社（中国香港）
Cum Approbatione Ecclesiastica 2026

TWENTY-EIGHTH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME – YEAR A

Matthew 22:1-14

Commentary of Fr. Fernando Armellini

A good Sunday to all.

The society of Israel in biblical times was composed of shepherds and farmers who carried a rather hard life; they were simple people who had to work in a land full of stones in the mountains because the great plains of Sharon along the shores of the Mediterranean and that of Esdraelon, were in the hands of the big landowners.

These poor peasants were to free first the field of stones to be able to till it. And they were forced to work long hours under the scorching sun and with very rudimentary tools if they wanted to earn a frugal meal to feed themselves and their families.

These “poor of the earth” also organized some feasts from time to time, but the sumptuous banquets they dreamed of could only be afforded by the rich, who exploited the poor workers.

In the history of Israel, there was a hopeful moment for these “poor of the land,” as they are called in the Bible. After the exile, several groups deported to Babylon returned to Judea, to Israel. Of course, they were not those whom Nebuchadnezzar had exiled but their children and their children’s children. Most of them had made their fortune because Nebuchadnezzar had not deported the elders neither the sick nor the lame. He had only taken the skilled people—the artisans—and these, after a few years, were well established in Babylon.

Who were those who had returned to the land of their fathers? Those who failed to amass wealth in Mesopotamia. And when they returned to the land of their forefathers, they found that others had already occupied it. So, to survive, they had to put themselves in the service of these new owners who began to exploit them and committed all kinds of abuses against them.

It is in this context that, in the 5th century B.C., a prophet appears in Israel, sent by the Lord to announce a word of hope to these poor of the land. And what did this prophet promise? What everyone expected: That something would change in society. That the world they desired and aspired to would be different. The prophet used an image to present the new reality that the Lord would introduce. What image could he choose to present this new world? The one they could best understand: a great banquet. They had never had grand banquets; they could only dream of them.

This is the promise of the prophet to which this Sunday’s First Reading refers. The prophet proclaims that the Lord of the Universe will prepare a banquet for all peoples on this mountain on which the city of Jerusalem stands. And then he describes it: “There will be tasty food, fine wines, succulent food….” Those who heard it were rubbing their eyes and shook their heads because they had never seen such a banquet. But then again, it would not be reserved for the Israelites, but it would be a table set and open to everyone because the new world would involve all humanity.

Four centuries had passed since this prophecy, and nothing different had happened. The world remained the same as before: The same injustices, the same pains, the same tears for the poor of the earth. They wondered: “But will the Lord be true to his words? He promised by the mouth of the prophet.” Nevertheless, the Israelites continued to believe in the faithfulness of the Lord. Israel always said, “Our God is of his word; if he has promised, he will perform.” And one day, among the poor of the land, Jesus of Nazareth appeared and fulfilled the prophecy. And the banquet began. Let us hear:

“Jesus again in reply spoke to them in parables, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son.”

In Israel, everyone knew by heart the prophecy we had spoken of, and the rabbis kept the memory of this promise alive by quoting it often. They represented it with the image of two worlds: the present world, full of misery and sorrow, of tears and injustice—a world that no one likes—and the future world or the world to come, which will be full of joy, of eternal feast. They called it “the Great Eden,” which, in Hebrew, means “delight.” That is, “the Garden of Delights.” This would be in the future world, in ‘the other’ world that would be realized.

But Jesus comes and says that this new world is not the future, that the kingdom of God is realized here, in the present, because God has decided to prepare the banquet in this world. It’s here that God wants his sons and daughters to be all happy; in the other world God will take care. The kingdom of God will be built here, and Jesus presents it with this image of the banquet, which he took from the prophet, which is not new.

We know other images of the kingdom of God used by Jesus. He said that the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed which begins in the old world, is a small seed, but it is powerful. This seed harbors within it a divine life which develops and produces something unexpected and extraordinary. Jesus also said that it is like a field in which there is a good grain that develops, in which good wheat grows, but also tares are present and will continue to be present.

Today, Jesus presents us with the image he took from the prophet. The kingdom of God is a banquet, a wedding feast. Now, we want to develop this image to understand what is contained in this image that he took from the prophet.

First of all, it’s a banquet, a feast. We sadly wonder for what reason the adhesion to Christ, to his Gospel, was shrouded in a veil of sadness in ‘dolorism’ (the more one suffered, the more one prepared oneself for the other world). The Father sent his Son into the world only because he wants a world of joy to be built for all his sons and daughters. Let us remember what the angels said at the moment of the birth of Jesus; they announced to the shepherds a great joy, and Jesus came into the world precisely to begin this new world. In the old world, there can be no joy. Those who are satiated feast. But how can these people feast and smile while all around them are the hungry, the miserable, the sick, and the homeless? They will be able to experience the pleasures, the madness, the daze, the hedonism, the drunkenness, but joy is not possible in the old world.

This is what Jesus says to all: “If you want to experience joy, you must accept the invitation to enter the banquet of the kingdom of God.”

The second matter we must consider in this image of the banquet is the new world, a world of joy, and who is the organizer of the feast. Who is the organizer? It is certainly not the guests. The parable says that it is a man, a king, clearly alluding to God. He is the one who organizes the feast. But there is something else: the banquet is free, and it is for all. The banquet hall is our world in which we all come as guests, and we find the hall prepared for us. We are all diners; no one owns it. All the evils we find in the ancient world come from someone acting as a master.

God has prepared a beautiful world for his sons and daughters, not a valley of tears. He has made available to them everything they need: the food necessary to have a full life. Someone has forgotten that he is a guest and has thought that he could dispose of whatever he could get as if he was the master, and so he introduced the law of the market: to hoard by selling to the highest bidder and to profit from the exchange, and then to enrich himself accumulating more and more goods. This lie of considering oneself the master of something gives place in the banquet hall, which is our world, to rivalries, competition, grudges, wars.

The banquet organized by the king reminds us of this truth: All is God’s; nothing is ours. We are stewards of goods that are not ours; all possessive adjectives are lies. If one accepts the logic of gratuitousness, everything changes; thus, one surrenders to the needy brother the bread he needs for his life, and from God, we receive the food that each one needs. We are well made; we are programmed for this relationship of love and exchange of goods with our brothers and sisters because all who come to the banquet hall, our world, are sons and daughters of the same Father.

In the logic of the kingdom of God, I don’t give something of mine because I am generous, but I share everything the others need because I have these gifts to give them. They do not belong to me; that which you have in your hand is to be given to people in need; it is from the logic of attention to the needs of others, from the logic of love, where the new world is born.

The third characteristic: At a wedding banquet, one does not isolate oneself to eat alone. The animals are fully satisfied when they can satisfy their cravings alone. Man is not programmed to eat alone but for conviviality, to experience the joy of watching around him that everyone is happy. Therefore, the banquet of the kingdom of God is not the orgy of the greedy of whom the prophet Amos speaks, of those who, lying on beds of ivory, are cast upon their couches, eat the lambs of the flock to their fill, sing to the sound of the harp, drink wine out of great cups and are disinterested in the poor, whom they exploit to enrich themselves. It is not by gorging oneself with goods that one is happy. Joy can only be experienced by those who accept the logic of the new world, which is conviviality, fraternal sharing, attention to others, to their sorrows, their joys, their disappointments, and their hopes.

The fourth characteristic we capture of the Kingdom of God in this banquet image is the reciprocal welcome. Into the banquet hall, which is our world, come all kinds of people from different cultures, from different peoples, nations and languages. At the banquet, people are welcomed for their diversity. From the banquet of the kingdom of God all discord is excluded. Diversity is a richness, not a reason for discord. The welcome is taken in this image from the parable of the banquet. The new world is where each one is received with their qualities and limitations.

Now, you may ask yourself: Do you accept or not this logic? Do you want to continue to build the world according to the sense of the old banquets, or do you accept the invitation to enter the new world? Many would like to continue in the old world where they can feast alone as rich epulone. But those will not be happy. The parable continues now presenting three groups of servants, who are the ones in charge of bringing the guests because the master, who is God, wants everyone to enter into this banquet, that is to say, they accept the new world’s logic. Let us listen:

“He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come. A second time he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those invited: Behold, I have prepared my banquet, my calves and fattened cattle are killed, and everything is ready; come to the feast.’ Some ignored the invitation and went away, one to his farm, another to his business. The rest laid hold of his servants, mistreated them, and killed them.”

The parable tells us of a sending. The king, who organized the feast, sent two groups of servants, first some and then others. Whom do these two groups represent, and what guests did they go for? They represent the prophets whom the Lord sent first of all to the children of Abraham, to the Israelites, to announce to them the coming of the Messiah, to welcome his proposal of a new world, of the banquet of the kingdom of God made by Jesus. But their answer was negative. Who rejected the invitation? Who do they represent? They are the spiritual leaders of Israel, the scribes, the elders, and the high priests, who did not listen the words of the prophets and invented a relationship with God that was not what the prophets had taught.

The prophets had said that the Lord is not interested in sacrifices, burnt offerings, or incense and wants works of love. This was the preparation for the banquet that Jesus, the Messiah of God, later proposed. They refused the invitation to conversion that John the Baptist had addressed to them. Why did they reject it? Because they liked the banquet that had been organized for them: the religious practice replete with provisions and precepts invented by men which, as Jesus says, were an unbearable burden on the back of the people.

It is clear that this relationship with God that they taught and preached did not communicate joy; it was like a wedding feast without wine, as in the wedding at Cana, where there were only pitchers for purification. This was their religion, made up of prescriptions, sins, and purifications. It gave joy to no one; it was an old banquet. But this religiosity delighted the spiritual leaders. They liked the lawgiver and justifier god who loves and blesses the good, and only the good, and does not grant his favors to sinners who dare to defy him by transgressing his precepts. They would not accept the God presented by Jesus, who feasts and sits with tax collectors and sinners. Finally, the spiritual leaders refused the invitation and were uninterested in the new banquet.

Be careful because the Pharisees of Jesus’ time are dead, but Pharisaism continues to exist. We could be the ones today who refuse the banquet offered by Jesus because we prefer the old religiosity made of observances, rewards, punishments, and merits. This religiosity reassures our consciences: it makes us feel good with God or, rather, in credit with God because we are deserving of rewards for the many good works that we do. This is not the banquet of the kingdom of God; it is still that of the Pharisees. God’s free love for us characterizes the banquet of the kingdom of God and from us to all our brothers and sisters.

Let us now observe what happens to the second group of envoys when they go in search of their guests. These guests are no longer the spiritual leaders of the people but those who are withdrawn into material realities. The parable speaks of fields and businesses. That is to say, reference is made to people who invest in farms of large landowners who own farms that must be valued and visited. Their banquet is the one that satisfies them; they already have a banquet—that of the business, that of the accumulation of money and goods—and they do not want to be disturbed by other life proposals. And the more they withdraw into this material banquet, the less willing they are to accept the invitation to the feast where goods are not accumulated but shared. They want to continue with the banquet in which each one has to manage, where everyone has to get what he needs, and if he doesn’t find it… let him manage!

This second group does not accept the invitation either because they understand very well what life at the banquet of the kingdom of God entails: it demands attention to the other by sharing gratuitous love. And yet they deceive themselves, thinking that they can fulfill with riches and pleasures the need for infinite joy present in their hearts, as in the heart of every person.

Some are not interested in the invitation and simply continue with their religious or material banquets. But some are bothered by the messengers… Those are precisely the ones who reject the second group of messengers, i.e., the ones bent on material realities who easily notice that the logic of the banquet proposed by Jesus denounces the injustice in their banquets. And if the messengers insist a little, they resort to violence to silence and remove them. This is the fate even of the prophets of today when they dare to denounce the present injustice in the economic and political banquets of this world.

And in the face of the refusal of this second group, what does the king do? Let us listen:

“The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.”

Before introducing the third group of servants, we read the strange parenthesis of this burning city. Let’s see what it is trying to tell us. Let us notice, in the first place, that this verse does not belong to the parable told by Jesus; it interrupts the narration, and if we try to remove this verse, we realize immediately that the story flows logically. Then, it is difficult to imagine a banquet beginning and, in the middle, there is a war. At the war’s end, the food is still on the tables, and the guests are waiting for the fight to end so that the banquet can continue….

This is a verse introduced by Matthew whose purpose was to shed a light that would help to understand the meaning of a dramatic event that occurred some fifteen years earlier: the ruin of the city of Jerusalem. The early Christians wondered why the holy city had ended like that. They gave their answer in the language of the Old Testament. They spoke of a punishment. But what was meant in the Old Testament when they spoke of ‘punishments’ from God? We know that God does not punish and does not add more evil to what people do to themselves when they go astray with their sins. When in the Old Testament it speaks of God’s punishments, it refers to the consequences of sin; it is a sin that punishes man and sometimes punishes him to the third and the fourth generation because the consequences of sin are always dramatic.

We cannot use this language today because it is archaic; we must necessarily make a transposition and reformulate this image to make it understandable to the man of today. Today, it is blasphemous to speak of God’s punishments because, in our language, that expression no longer has the meaning it had in the Scriptures: there it was talking about the consequences of sin.

The message today could be translated as follows: Whoever rejects the invitation to the banquet of the kingdom of God is responsible for the abuse, violence, wars, and destruction that continues in the world. These are not God’s punishments but the consequences of wanting to continue with the logic of the old world, which is that of competition. And the consequences are always dramatic.

Israel’s sin was to reject the proposal of the world of peace and love made by Jesus and to choose violence instead. And the consequence of this sin was the ruin of the city. The result of sin is presented in this verse with the archaic language of God’s punishment. And after this intermezzo, Jesus’ parable continues with the sending of the third group of servants. Let us listen:

“Then he said to his servants: ‘The feast is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy to come. wedding feast is prepared, but the guests did not deserve it. Go out, therefore, into the main roads and invite to the feast whomever you find.’ The servants went out into the streets and gathered all they found, bad and good alike, and the hall was filled with guests.”

Whom did the king send for the third group of servants? Not the notable nor the rich, not the pious, not to the devout priests or those who have already said no. The third group is sent, according to the Greek text, “there where the streets converge.” And where do the streets converge? In the squares with markets, they have to go right there where the common people gather, where the poor are, where everything gathers, honest merchants, swindlers, thieves, drug dealers. They must go there and offer all this invitation to enter the banquet hall. That’s why they go to the poor, to the marginalized, to the despised, to the tax collectors, to prostitutes, to all, good and bad; no one is excluded from this invitation.

And who are the members of this third group of servants? They are no longer the prophets; they spoke to the people of Israel. The third group is composed of those who were sent directly by Jesus, that is, the apostles. And all of us are those angels who have placed their lives at the disposal of God’s plan for the world. For our mission to be effective and successful it is necessary, first of all, that we have the experience of the joy of this banquet we have entered; that we have truly accepted the logic of the kingdom of God and we have realized that it gives us joy, makes us happy, and gives full meaning to our lives. If we had had this experience, we would certainly feel the need to go out and invite all the people that we love so they, too, can have this experience in the banquet hall. If we don’t, if we don’t feel this need, it means that we have not had the experience of the joy of the banquet, or that we don’t love the people who are still outside, and we don’t feel this need to invite them.

The need to proclaim to evangelize arises from love. With whom will we have to deal with in the marketplace? We will find everything: bad people and good people. Sometimes, I hear these angels sent to the marketplace to spread the invitation, good people, generous, animated by much zeal, and I hear them present their perplexities and say: “But will it be worth it?” They hesitate to go out because they say the people are not interested in the Gospel, they’re not interested in the feast: “They’ve had their parties. Why should we bother them? They don’t listen to us. And they are also distant people; they even sometimes make fun of us….”

To those who hesitate to go out, I always say: “If these people who are in the marketplace were already in the banquet hall, Jesus of Nazareth would not have sent them out to invite them; if he sends them, it is because those people are outside. So don’t be surprised that the people you find there have not yet accepted the invitation and, therefore, do not understand the beauty of this proposal that Jesus of Nazareth makes”.

And now, let us try to think about whom we will meet there, in that square, to consider the answer we will get. I would say, first of all, we will find hesitant people, people who don’t feel like accepting immediately, changing their banquet, because they already have their feasts, and they want to continue to enjoy their life a little bit more; those people are likely to come in later. All right, let’s be patient; we have made our proposal. Maybe we will also find some people who say, “I understand that that banquet is for the next world, so, in the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the banquet here, and at the end of my life, I will enter the kingdom of God.” We will tell him: “Look, then it will be late; you have lost the opportunity to be happy in this world because the kingdom of God is not for the hereafter; this is where Jesus wants to build it. They may not understand, but we have offered this invitation that we would like them to accept to enter the banquet hall.

Surely, at the banquet, we will also find those who enter immediately but not for the right reason but because they fear ending up in hell if they do not enter… So, there will be people inside who are not because of love but fear. There will also be this kind of response in the marketplace. But there will undoubtedly be those who understand that the kingdom of God is a feast and will enter decisively, without delay, because they do not want to miss a single moment of the joy offered.

Let us keep in mind that those who enter do not immediately become perfect; they do not accept completely all the logic of the banquet; they will also bring some misery and moral weaknesses, frailties. And often, they will still be tied to the logic of trade and exchange so they will try to accumulate a little bit; they will not put everything at the brother’s disposal… Patience. There is the good wheat in the kingdom of God, but there will always be weeds.

The conclusion of the parable is moving. The room is full! The whole family is gathered, full of people lying down, a position symbolizing people free from attachment to possessions, free from moral corruption, of grudges, of vices… The room is full; no one is missing; all sons and daughters will one day be received in this room. They will first accept the invitation addressed to them. Our task, however, is to do it well because, whether it is accepted or not, will also depend a lot on the way we make this proposal. And if we do our task well, people cannot but be attracted to the new world proposal that we make to them.

The curtain of the parable could be closed here. However, it does not end this way. It continues with an episode that seems to come to ruin everything. Let’s listen:

“But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Many are invited, but few are chosen.’”

Let’s tell the truth right away: the behavior of this king leaves us speechless. Here, it seems that we are before a double personality; this ruler who before was generous, good to the unfortunate, now, for a minor fault, his nerves break, and he becomes hard, even cruel; we no longer recognize him. Evidently, this part of the story is unrelated to the previous one; it does not fit with what has been told before.

The parable ended with the banquet hall full of diners and the master feasting with everyone. Why be surprised then that some have no wedding garments? People were in the marketplace; it be surprising if someone wore a wedding dress.

We are clearly before a new parable. A new legend that wants to answer a question that has arisen. What is the question that arises: Will it suffice to have said yes to the invitation and to have entered materially in the banquet hall, i.e., to have received the baptism? Or will it be necessary afterwards to translate in the concrete life the choice we made? This is the question to which Matthew answers with a new parable.

And why does the evangelist Matthew need to introduce a second parable? Because he is addressing communities that are in the last decades of the first century A.D. More than 50 years have passed since the Passover and these communities, which were very fervent at the beginning, which had said yes to the Gospel and had entered the banquet hall, had lost their enthusiasm over the decades. Many Christians had returned to their pagan habits incompatible with the gospel, such as attachment to this world’s goods. And Matthew, a pastor of souls, is concerned because they risk the failure of their lives. Even though they have been baptized, they become again like those who refused the invitation. That’s why Matthew introduces this parable of Jesus which tells us about the new garment of the Christian. When one enters the banquet hall, he welcomes the kingdom of God and must change his ‘garment.’

In the Bible, the ‘garment’ represents the moral life of the people, the way those around them see these people; they may be clothed in pride, for example, or of care for others, of generosity. Paul, in the New Testament, repeats over and over again that the one who enters into the banquet hall, enters the Kingdom of God, and therefore, he must put on Christ. And those who meet him, they must recognize in him a disciple of the Lord and the Master himself because they are clothed with the same robe.

We wonder then what is the wedding garment in which Jesus of Nazareth is clothed. As John relates, let us return to what happened at the Last Supper. Sometime during the Last Supper, Jesus took off his garments and kept his loincloth. This was the manner of dress at that time in the Jewish world. They covered themselves with the loincloth, the tunic, and robe. The robe had already been taken off. Jesus remained in the loincloth, the enslaved person’s garment because he began to do the enslaved person’s service, to wash the disciples’ feet.

That loincloth, the garment of the enslaved person is the garment that characterizes Christ as a Servant. And the true disciple of Jesus, called to serve, to be the slave of his brothers must always be ready to say yes to those who ask him for help. The masters are all the needy poor, and the disciple must always be clothed in this wedding garment. At the marriage feast of the Kingdom, the bridegroom is Christ, and the bride, who is the Christian community, must be clothed with the same uniform as the Bridegroom: the uniform of the enslaved person.

And what happens to those who do not accept this wedding garment, that of the servant? Here are some very harsh expressions of the master: “Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” Let us pay attention to this language, which was proper to the rabbis. As Matthew is speaking to a majority of the Christian community that was Jewish and therefore understood him very well; that was the way the rabbis wanted to shake the consciences. And here, Matthew wants to shake these Christian communities that are in danger of returning to pagan dress. That is why he employs the language of the rabbis. Also, the expressions “wailing and grinding of teeth” and “darkness,” are only found in the gospel of Matthew.

Let us try to translate these rabbinical images. What does Jesus want to say to all those who said yes to him: “Beware, for if you do not accept this habit of being a servant, if you do not accept the logic of the banquet—which is that of sharing, of service to your brother and sister—you are left out of the banquet.” And what happens to those who are left out? They stay in the old-world society, the competitive one, the one of rivalries and, therefore, in a society that is not an Eden but a hell because it is inhuman.

There is no need to prove it. What does our society produce? The Logic of the old world, the logic of competition and rivalry. It is hell where there is wailing and grinding of teeth. So, if we do not accept the logic of the Kingdom, we stay outside. We may win, we may win once or twice, but in the end, we will be crushed by someone stronger. This is what is meant by this very severe expression used by Jesus.

The conclusion is in the last verse of this Gospel passage: “Many invited, but few are chosen.” What Jesus means by this expression is not that many are called but few go to heaven, no. All are invited, but unfortunately, not many take it seriously, that is, they allow themselves to be involved in the logic of the new world.

I think Jesus is speaking to us, the servants of the third group. Let us not be discouraged; let us not expect everyone to be involved in this new logic; some will, but others, even if they adhere a little to the logic of the Gospel, will retain some pagan aspects in their life. Keep this in mind also, you angels of the third group of envoys.

I wish you all a good Sunday and a good weekend.

Copyright © 2026 Bible Claret