Proper interpretation of a parable of Jesus Christ requires consideration of chronological context. However, these can be experienced within the gospel. False explanations also require a “very flexible” view of history and this could in turn be used to mix the poisonous wine of Babylon. A Jesuit offers such an exemplary interpretation of the parable of the Royal Wedding.
Inhalt / Content
- 1 The anger over a lost monopoly
- 2 Reformation spoiled the billion-dollar business
- 3 Still revenge for Reformation
- 4 Modified memory of the past
- 5 “Flexible viewing” of a parable
- 6 The parable in Matthew 22
- 7 The Royal Wedding Reception
- 8 The message of the parable
- 9 Historical offset of 40 years
- 10 The “true humanity”
- 11 Vermischung zum Wein Babylons
The anger over a lost monopoly
The gospel, the word of God, must be kept away from the common man. This has always been the intention of the Roman Catholic Church. Until the beginning of the 16th century, this institution succeeded in suppressing the truth of the Bible. Prohibition of the possession of one’s own Bible, sermons in Latin and the claimed monopoly of being able to interpret the Bible were the recipes for success in spreading, largely unhindered, one’s own teachings, which were based on paganism, as Christianity.
This ended for the time being with the Reformation from 1517. Martin Luther got the ball rolling around 100 years after Han Hus (murdered by the Church of Rome in 1415). Luther translated the Bible into German and the printing press, which was already in use, helped the Bible to be distributed very quickly and, above all, relatively inexpensively. From now on, people could read and understand God’s truth in their own language.
Reformation spoiled the billion-dollar business
Just at the start of the Reformation, under Pope Leo The planned St. Peter’s Basilica cost a lot of money. The loan taken out from the Fugger family of bankers had to be serviced. The extensive business, which today would be said to be worth billions, was in danger of collapsing.
The fact that the Church of Rome’s sale of indulgences was able to run so well in the numerous German kingdoms and principalities is, among other things, thanks to the commission paid to the bishops. Albrecht of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Magdeburg and Archbishop of Mainz, received a whopping 50 percent of the proceeds from the sale of indulgences. In addition, the Reformation confronted the Church of Rome with numerous other heresies that cannot be reconciled with the Gospel.
Of course, Martin Luther knew about the unspeakable interaction with the Fugger “money dynasty” and had his appropriate comment: “One should really put a bridle in the mouth of the Fugger and the like.“.
In short: For the Roman Church, the Reformation and the publication of the Bible were a theological and financial catastrophe.
Still revenge for Reformation
It is understandable that the Roman Catholic Church still speaks of a tragedy today and is not really well disposed towards the Reformation and Martin Luther. But as is anchored in the nature of this Roman institution, one does not stop from kicking someone who is lying on the ground. The official Reformation after Luther has already been shelved (Info), but the remaining mica underground still needs to be extinguished.
Since its founding in 1534, the Order of the “Society of Jesus” (Jesuit Order, SJ) has been responsible for eradicating the Reformation and restoring the interpretive sovereignty of the Roman Catholic Church. Released from the leash by the Pope in 1540, the monks fanned out in all directions to carry out the work with “perinde ac cadaver”. The Jesuit order was very successful and now that the rough work has been completed, which has already become a sure-fire success, we are now putting the finishing touches to the finishing touches.
Modified memory of the past
Ultimately, the erasure of biblical truth in people’s minds is inextricably linked to the fight against the Reformation. For this purpose, the deadly inquisition is no longer used, but rather the education of people. A “new look” at the past appears to be very helpful. The statement published in the context of ecumenism makes clear how this order deals with historical facts in the present:
What happened in the past cannot be changed. However, what is remembered from the past and how it happens can actually change over time. Memory makes the past present. While the past itself is unchanging, the presence of the past in the present is changeable. Looking ahead to 2017, it’s not about telling a different story, it’s about telling that story differently.
(“From conflict to community”, 2017, Chapter II, page 12, paragraph 16)
In simple words: You bend history until it corresponds to today’s ideas and wishes. A very “flexible view” of history.
“Flexible viewing” of a parable
The Jesuit Eberhard von Gemmingen apparently undertook such a “processing” of history in order to reconsider the motives of Jesus Christ. In Catholic News Agency (CNA), the Jesuit shares his perspective on a parable of Jesus Christ contained in the Gospel of Matthew. In the introduction, Gemmingen emphasizes that Martin Luther described the Gospel as “too complicated” so that ordinary people could not understand it.
However, this is the guiding principle of the Church of Rome. Admittedly, the majority of so-called theologians studied at universities, be they Protestant or Roman Catholic, still claim this today. How then should the countless disciplines be justified within the aspect of “science”? (Info) Schließlich sind heute Lehrstühle von Professoren besetzt, die die “Vielgeseschlechtlichkeit” der Menschheit “wissenschaftlich” untersuchen und auch entsprechende Thesen des aktuellen “Kenntnisstandes” verbreiten. Die moderne Priesterschaft der Säkularität sind diejenigen, die in weißen Priestergewändern ihren eigenen Glauben als das “Evangelium der Wissenschaft” behaupten.
The parable in Matthew 22
The focus is on the parable of the wedding, to which numerous guests are invited (Matthew 22:1-14). But instead of diving straight into the parable and the message it contains, Gemmingen SJ attempts to undermine the credibility of the gospel. To do this, he uses the “flexible perspective” of history in the present.
Accordingly, Matthew only wrote his gospel around the year 80, i.e. 10 years after the destruction of Jerusalem by the general Titus. This would mean that around 50 years have passed since the Ascension of Christ. But at this point the Jesuit emphasizes the death of Jesus, just as if Jesus Christ were still dead today (Eucharist, Info).
To this end, Matthew did not create his gospel as an eyewitness report, but rather as a collection of writings and reports from third parties.
However, the fundamental question arose as to why not a single syllable about the actual destruction of Jerusalem can be found in the entire New Testament. Jesus Christ even announced this destruction and even proclaimed that the house (of the Pharisees) would remain desolate forever. But wouldn’t the fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus Christ have been the reason to report on it in detail and highlight it?
In his letter to the church in Rome, Paul also mentioned no concerns about the persecution of Christians there between the years 54 and 68 AD. Not a single word about it. It is obvious that the letter was written before the year 54. The book of Revelation is written by John around 80 AD. was written and it describes the persecution of Christians that had already begun (Revelation 2:8-11)
Apparently the Jesuit moved the chronology a few decades into the future in his “flexible view” of history. The Gospels and the letters were written much earlier than Gemmingen’s view.
The Royal Wedding Reception
The Parable of the Royal Wedding describes the invitation of guests to a wedding feast. The king sends his servants to invite the chosen wedding guests. The invitees cancel and all have an excuse not to attend the wedding party. Some of those invited even mistreated and killed the servants. The king punished the murderers and also burned down their city. Then the king sent his servants out again to invite the “normal rank and file”, whether good or bad, regardless of social status, to the wedding. They’re all coming. The king came into the wedding hall and wanted to look at the guests who had come. One of these guests was not wearing wedding attire. The king ordered this one guest to be thrown out of the wedding hall. The parable ends with the actually explanatory verse (Matthew 22:14):
“For many are called, but few are chosen.“
The message of the parable
This parable is about the once chosen people of God who were called to spread the gospel and celebrate the “marriage” with Jesus Christ after righteous conduct. But they got rid of everyone, wandered in false teachings, followed worldly ideas and also killed God’s messengers (prophets). The repeated judgments of God against this people are documented many times in the Old Testament. The gospel subsequently passed to the Gentiles.
This parable also makes it clear that simply confessing Jesus Christ is not enough if there are no visible fruits. These include, among other things, keeping God’s commandments, bearing the testimony of Jesus Christ and living according to God’s will. This is also the preparation for the day (wedding robe) when Jesus Christ returns and “celebrates his wedding” with his community. These are the redeemed people.
Historical offset of 40 years
The Jesuit moved the book of Matthew to the area of 80 AD in order to be able to project the city destroyed by the king in the parable onto the city of Jerusalem, which has since been destroyed by the Romans.
According to the Jesuit, Matthew therefore understands the “destruction of the holy city” as God’s punishment for the behavior of the Jews, especially those responsible. They all went about their business and even killed the king’s servants. Gemmingen explains that Matthew wanted to interpret Jesus’ failure with this story.
In this sense, it was not a parable from Jesus Christ himself, but an idea from Matthew, who put this into the mouth of Jesus Christ.
The Jesuit does correctly associate the final invited guests with passing on the Gospel to the Gentile peoples, but this only occurs after the destroyed city of Jerusalem. But the Gospel itself has something completely different to say here. The Gospel went to the Gentiles around 3.5 years after the Ascension of Christ. Above all through Paul, who transformed from Saul into Paul, and also soon after the stoning of the apostle Stephen by the Pharisees.
There is a discrepancy of around 40 years between reality and the Jesuit’s “flexible view”. Approximately the period in which this order was officially banned by papal orders (1773 to 1814). It seems as if this period of time had left a historical gap in the collective memory of this brotherhood.
The “true humanity”
The Jesuit Gemmingen wonders how someone who was invited “off the street” and apparently had no ceremonial attire could be thrown out again. A formulation often used by Pope Francis could help with the correct answer.
Accordingly, the Pope repeatedly speaks of “the fact that everyone, everyone, all people are invited by Christ and are therefore also invited by the Church.”
But this is also a misunderstanding and the media probably gets this wrong. It doesn’t matter how people live, the “Catholic Church is happy to accept them.” But this is a mistake. However, Jesus Christ accepts people and guides them as they “come to their true humanity through him”. According to the Jesuit, true humanity consists in “becoming a new person, going out of oneself, reaching out to others, turning lovingly toward one’s neighbor.”
After entering the church, people must become a new person. “Jesus calls it repentance,” says Gemmingen, and the old person must be cast off. The guest thrown out of the wedding party is therefore only a professing Christian, but not really converted.
Being a Christian is always “a provocative thing” and it never gets boring. “Jesus is a provocateur” and there are already enough bores, the Jesuit concluded.
Vermischung zum Wein Babylons
In fact, the guest who was thrown out because of a lack of ceremonial attire symbolizes a Christian who professes Christianity, but this is not actually evident in his way of life. It is like the fig tree full of leaves but without fruits (Matthew 21:18-22). But the goal is something completely different than “true humanity” in the sense of this order.
A Jesuit understands “true humanity” to mean the deification of man himself, as already described in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (Info). In this sense, God created man in His image so that God could become visible through man. Jesus Christ came to earth to give man his divinity.
This presentation of the parable of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Matthew is another prime example of how “the son of perdition” knows how to transform the pure wine (true teaching) of the gospel with a few drops of lies into a poisonous brew of the “whore of Babylon”.
And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
Bible verses from King James Version