Heavenly Warning

Given that last week we celebrated the Feast of the Archangels and of Guardian Angels, it is with curiosity that I notice in today’s first reading to the Galatians St. Paul writes: “But even we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!” It made me wonder what he had in mind.

In reading different commentaries, it seems that most scholars don’t think Paul has a specific angelic appearance or rival claim in mind. In Jewish tradition, angels were regarded as messengers of God. Paul himself elsewhere refers to the Law as having been mediated through angels (Gal 3:19). Given people understand angels as messengers from God, Paul is likely employing a rhetorical argument: even the highest conceivable authority cannot overturn the gospel once it has been received. And so, Paul is amazed that the Galatians are “so quickly deserting” the gospel (Gal 1:6). 

We know from Galatians that other teachers had come among Paul’s Gentile converts insisting on circumcision and observance of the Mosaic Law in order to belong fully to God’s people.  This is not a matter of church discipline; it strikes at the heart of the gospel itself. Paul is clear: Gentiles do not become Christians by first becoming Jews. Justification comes through faith in Christ and salvation is God’s gift of grace. 

Paul is saying, in effect, “You have heard the real McCoy.” In fact, he immediately corrects even the suggestion that there might be competing gospels: there is no “other gospel” at all. There is the Gospel and there are distortions of it. Paul’s point is that the truth of the gospel is not validated by the status of the messenger; the messenger is judged by fidelity to the gospel. Even a heavenly messenger must be rejected if the message contradicts the apostolic gospel. Not another missionary, not an angel and remarkably, not even Paul himself has authority to change the Gospel. Think about his claim: even his own visionary credentials are subordinate to the gospel already proclaimed.

Paul’s principle also resonates with the Church’s later discernment of claims to private revelation. An authentic private revelation cannot contradict, correct, or add something essential to the apostolic faith already handed down. Even an approved apparition adds nothing to the Deposit of Faith; at most, it helps the Church live more fully what has already been revealed in Christ.

As people of faith, then, we stand humbly before the Gospel and the apostolic faith handed down to us. Paul reminds us that no messenger stands above that Gospel: not another preacher, not an apostle, not even an angel from heaven. The Gospel is not judged by the authority of the messenger; the messenger is judged by fidelity to the Gospel.


Image credit: ChatGPT – Dalle3 AI generated using the text of the post.

The Wedding Banquet of the King

This coming Sunday is the 28th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Lectionary Cycle A. This Sunday our text is the third of three parables: (the two sons 21:28-32; the tenants in the vineyard 21:33-46; and now the wedding banquet 22:1-14). All three have images of father and son(s). The first two also have the image of a vineyard. The last two have the sending of servants, the murder of servants, and the punishment of the murderers. In each case, there is a distinction between those who do the will of the father/landlord/king and those who don’t. Scott (Hear Then the Parable) talks about all three parables starting with the first one:

The parable is the first of three that challenge the legitimacy of the Jewish leadership. They all expose Matthew’s ideology of the true Israel demonstrating the claims of the Pharisees to be false and those of the church true. The parables of the two sons, the wicked tenants, and the king who gave a marriage feast exhibit a progression from John the Baptist to the rejection of Jesus and punishment of those who rejected him through the final judgment, when those without a wedding garment will be cast out. [p. 81]

Luke’s version of the parable (Luke 14:16-24), also preserves the reversal motif and bears evidence of the evangelist’s conviction that the poor, outcasts, those otherwise marginalized from society will find a welcome in the kingdom. However, when Matthew’s rendering of this parable is compared to these other sources, there are several obvious differences. The main portion (vv. 1-10) of the parable is offered as an allegorical presentation of salvation history. The host has become a king (God) who was preparing a wedding banquet (symbol of kingdom) for his son (Jesus). The two groups of servants were probably representative of the Hebrew prophets and the Christian apostles, whereas the invited guests who repeatedly refused the king’s invitation and brutalized the servants were intended to portray Israel. People from the byroads represented the gentiles to whom the gospel was also to be extended.

The contribution of the Matthean church can also be detected in the incident regarding the guest who was ejected from the feast (vv. 11-13). Aware that God’s invitation to salvation was extended to all of humankind, good and bad alike, the early Christians were also aware that not everyone who received an invitation would remain as a guest. The improperly dressed guest represented those who had not cooperated with or appropriated the invitations that God had offered. As a result of his/her unresponsiveness, the improperly dressed guest forfeited a place at the banquet. It was then a reminder to the Matthean church that the divine invitations to love are a daily invitation. Thus one must possess a willingness to be daily transformed by God’s grace and according to God’s will. To do otherwise is to refuse the invite to the “wedding feast” or to appear improperly attired. Either open the road to an eternity of insatiable hunger and unquenchable thirst.


Image Credit: Parable of the Great Banquet by Brunswick Monogrammist (circa 1525) National Museum, Warsaw | Public Domain