The Text
Last Time on Tales of Faith
So we have made a major shift in the context from last week to this one. While Jesus had moved to the Judea area, now he is in Jerusalem itself. After telling the story of the laborers in the vineyard, Jesus prepares his disciples for a third and final time exactly what they will face in Jerusalem. Once again, they do not understand; the mother of James and John ask for places of honor in Jesus’ administration, and Jesus once again reminds them all that the kindom of God operates very differently to the kingdoms of earth. Jesus leaves Jericho with a large crowd, headed to Jerusalem. Some blind men say the quiet part out loud, and call Jesus ‘Son of David’ a definite Messianic title.
When they come to Bethpage, to the east of Jerusalem, Jesus sends two disciples to Bethany for a donkey and her colt. The instructions are either prophetic or clandestine. Jesus rides the donkey/colt in a clear allusion to Ezekiel, and a parody/copy of Julius Caesar. Jesus comes into Jerusalem with a large crowd, who spread their cloaks and palm branches (another allusion to Caesar) before him. Jesus enters into the Temple, and chases out the money changers, citing the prophet Jeramiah. Jesus then receives the blind and lame in the temple courts (where they would not normally be able to go). The chief priests and scribes are upset because of the clear political overtones of his actions, but Jesus refuses to calm down the crowd. Jesus stays outside of the city, in Bethany, for the night.
On the way into the city, Jesus curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit, linking back to his teaching on good/bad fruit (7:15-20, 12:33-37) and forward to his take-down of the religious elites (Ch. 23). When he comes back to the Temple, the chief priests and elders confront him, demanding to know where he gets his authority from. Jesus defuses them by asking where the authority of John the Baptizer came from, which they refuse to answer (so he refuses to answer their question). Jesus then tells the parables of the two sons and the vineyard tenants, both directed at the priests who have ‘authority’ and yet have not fulfilled their responsibility. The chief priests and elders want to arrest Jesus, but he is protected by the crowd. Jesus then tells the Parable of the Wedding Banquet that we have for us this week.
Overview of Matthew
Ch. 1-3 Overture
1:1-2:23 Nativity
3:1-17 John the Baptizer
Ch. 4-7 Jesus’ early ministry, culminating in giving Torah (Sermon on the Mount)
4:1-11 Jesus’ Temptation
4:12-25 Jesus begins ministry in Galilee, gathers disciples, and ministers with the message “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has drawn near.”
5:1-7:29 First set of Torah (aka Sermon on the Mount)
Ch. 8-10 Enacting the Kingdom, culminating in Jesus’ instruction to his apostles (sent ones) as they go out.
Ch. 11-13 Responses to Jesus, culminating in Parables about the Kingdom
11:2-30 Jesus questioned by John’s disciples, and Jesus teaches on John the Baptizer and the Kingdom of Heaven
12:1-46 Jesus questioned by Pharisees, and Jesus teaches about Leaders and Unclean Spirits
12:46-50 Jesus’ family tries to (presumably) question him, Jesus teaches on his true family
13:1-58 Torah on the Lake
Ch. 14-20 Various Expectations of Messiah, culminating in Jesus preparing his disciples/apostles for his death
Ch. 21-25 Direct Confrontation with the Religious elites, culminating with a blistering critique of the Pharisees
21:1-17 Jesus’ first day in Jerusalem
21:1-11 Jesus’s Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem
21:12-17 Jesus cleanses the temple
21:18-23:39 Confrontation with religious elites
21:18-22 Jesus curses the fig tree
21:23-22:14 Confrontation with chief priests and elders
21:23-27 Jesus’s authority is questioned
21:28-32 Parable of the two sons
21:33-43 Parable of the Vineyard tenants
22:1-14 Parable of the Wedding Banquet
22:15-22 Pharisees question Jesus about taxes
22:23-33 Sadducees question Jesus about the Resurrection
22:34-46 Dialogue with Pharisees
22:34-40 Pharisee Lawyer asks what the greatest commandment is
22:41-46 Jesus asks about whose son the Messiah is
23:1-36 Jesus rips the Pharisees and Sadducees and new one
23:37-25:46 Apocalyptic Torah
23:37-39 Lament over Jerusalem
24:1-2 Destruction of the temple foretold
24:3-35 Signs of the end
24:3 Disciples ask for signs of Jesus’ coming and end
24:4-8 Birth Pangs
24:9-14 Persecution
24:15-28 Desolating Sacrilege
24:29-31 The coming of the Human One
24:32-35 Illustration of the Fig Tree
24:36-25:46 Being prepared
24:36-44 Always ready
24:45-51 Parable of the Faithful and Unfaithful Slaves
25:1-13 Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids
25:14-30 Parable of the Talents
25:31-46 Parable of the Sheep and Goats
Ch. 26-28 Crucifixion and Resurrection
Today’s Story
Setting: All of this teaching takes place in the temple courts, which Jesus has claimed as his rightful place. He is conducting a teach-in as a non-violent direct action. In addition, he is welcoming the blind and lame into the temple courts, even though their presence is prohibited. The chief priests and elders have just questioned Jesus’ authority, and he has told two parables which implicate them.
Jesus Spoke to Them: Presumably, Jesus is continuing to direct his speech at the chief priests and elders, so they are the ‘them.’ The ‘them’ could also be the crowd, but they have not been referred to for a while. The Greek here is, “Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν εἶπεν” (and answering Jesus again spoke). The use of both ‘answer’ and ‘again’ suggests that this teaching continues the answer, even though there has been a short aside about their wanting to arrest him, but cannot because of the crowd (21:45-46). However, because of those comments, I presume that they have become an even more hostile audience, and so Jesus is also performing for the benefit of the crowd as well.
A King: The language here is interesting. The Kingdom of God is here compared to a “human who rules” (ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ), which follows the language of parables (a human who owns land, a human who plants beautiful seeds, etc). I bring this up, because the kingdom of God is compared to this human, but this human is also particularly human, caught up in the passions of honor and shame, and responds in ways that we might expect from humans, but not so much the kindom of God! So there is an open question, is this a king like YHWH God, King of the universe, or is it a human king like Herod or Caesar.
Wedding Banquet: The setting for this parable is the marriage banquet of a king’s son. This would be a great feast put on by the king, to celebrate the marriage of his son, which could certainly have some political overtones. First of all, this would be the must-attend event of the season, no seriously you must attend, you have no choice. If the king compels you to come to a wedding feast, you better have a really good reason not to come (more on that later). It would be like being invited to a dinner at the White House (or the palace in Pyongyang, depending on the temperament of the king). Secondly, the marriage of the king’s son probably has some greater political context as well. Perhaps he is marrying the daughter of another sovereign, which could mean greater peace for the land.
The Greek, γάμους, stands as a wedding banquet, and this story is one of the few times that this word is used throughout Scripture. It is used eight times here, twice in Luke, twice in John, once in Hebrews, and once in Revelation. That final use connects this idea of a wedding banquet with the revelation of God’s kingdom coming from heaven to earth, connecting it to Jesus, the bridegroom, and his bride, the church.
In the web of connected images for this wedding banquet, we have the image of a feast. God gives redemption through the feast of Passover, and calls the people to feast in the wilderness. In the exile, Isaiah invites the people back to the land to feast on rich foods (Isaiah 1-3). The wisdom book of Proverbs features Sophia, lady wisdom, inviting all to the extravagant feast of God’s instruction and way (Proverbs 8, 9). Matthew’s gospel has already used feast imagery in the feeding of 5,000, the feeding of 4,000, and feasting with tax collectors and sinners (which got him into trouble with the religious elites).
Feasts and feasting are used throughout scripture, and often have a direct connection to the ‘little feast’ of Sabbath and the marking of sacred time. Every week, the Hebrews were called to celebrate the weekly rest of Sabbath. When the Hebrews were freed from Egypt, it is marked and remembered in the feast of Passover. The Law later lays out feast days in the seventh month of Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot. Every seven years they were to celebrate a Sabbath year, where fields were the land itself was given a rest (though there is no evidence that they did this), and every seven of these was a Feast and Year of Jubilee where enslaved regained their freedom, debts were forgiven, and land was returned to its ancestral heritage (there is definitely no evidence that they ever did this). The Psalms and book of Hebrews directly connects entering into the Promised Land with the metaphorical image of entering into God’s rest.
Another connected image to marriage, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures, is that of Covenant. Many of the prophets refer to the covenant between YHWH and the people as a marriage (Hosea, Jeremiah 2:2-3, 3:1-10; Ezekiel 16:8-63). In Matthew's account, Jesus has been identified with the bridegroom (Matthew 9:15).
This galaxy of connected images with this wedding banquet are certainly coming to bear, and may provide some interesting insight and perspective on our reading of this parable.
The Son: The image of the king’s son, coming immediately after the previous parable of the wicked tenants, sets us to think of this king as God, and Jesus as the son. The son was a major focus in the previous parable, the culmination of the story. These three parables tell a story: the parable of the two sons is about those who said that they would do what the father asked, but actually did not (the religious elite); and those who initially said that they would not do what the father asked, but ultimately did (prostitutes and tax-collectors). The parable of the wicked tenants is about prophets, messengers, and finally the son being sent to those who have been put in charge of the vineyard, and how they mistreated them, especially the son. And this parable tells what happens to those who were invited, but ultimately did not accept the invitation. The through line is the son.
Slaves: As with the previous parable, the enslaved messengers stand for the prophets, sent to the religious and political elite to bring the message of the YHWH. This call of the prophet was a challenging one, and most of them were killed for saying the things that they said. Only after their death, sometimes hundreds of years later, were they recognized for being true prophets of YHWH. Isaiah, in his dramatic call narrative in chapter 6, is given the unfulfilling job to,
“Go and say to this people:
“Keep listening, but do not comprehend;
Keep looking, but do not understand.”
Make the mind of this people dull,
and stop their ears,
and shut their eyes,
so that they will not look with their eyes,
and listen with their ears,
and comprehend with their minds,
and turn and be healed.” (Isaiah 6:9-10)
This task was not to cause the people to not listen, but to serve as witness against a people who refused to listen. This text has already been referenced in Matthew’s account as a reason that Jesus teaches in parables in the first place (Matthew 13:10-17).
Paul describes himself a “slave of Christ,” accepting his role and purpose as one who goes at the bidding of a master. In Romans 6 he claims that while we once were enslaved to sin, we are now enslaved to righteousness. He notes that this is simply a metaphor (I am speaking in human terms, Rom. 6:19), but an instructive way to consider our own role. We too have been sent as enslaved servants of the king, to share the invitation.
Those Invited: In this parable, as in the previous two, invitations are given. In the first parable, the father himself asks the sons. In the second parable, enslaved messengers are sent to the tenants to collect the produce of the vineyard. Here, enslaved persons are sent to invite to the wedding banquet. As with the previous parable, those invited do not heed the message, and simply do not come. Again, enslaved people are sent, this time with more information about the feast, as well as the immediacy of the invitation. These are again ignored, some going to their field, others to their business, and still others (like the previous parable) mistreat and kill the enslaved people. Israel’s history is full of those elites refusing to hear the message of the prophets. One of the most dramatic stories in Jeremiah where king Jehoiakim hears the words of YHWH from Jeremiah’s scroll, and every three or four columns, “the king would cut them off with a penknife and throw them into the fire burning in the brazier before him” (Jeremiah 36:23). Jesus has had multiple interactions with the religious elite (mostly Pharisees), as did John before him.
It is interesting in this parable that those invited are assumed to be the elite of the city, rather than tenants or a son. At this point, the Chief priests and Pharisees have realized that Jesus is speaking against them (Matthew 21:45-46), so perhaps the ‘cat is out of the bag.’
We, perhaps more than Jesus’ listeners and Matthew’s readers, we are the elite who have been invited. And just like them, we can easily be caught up in our own fields and businesses, instead of heading the message of the kindom of heaven. We have become fat and prosperous off of the backs of others, and used to the power and prestige that comes from our institutions, and have no time for an invitation to a wedding banquet. We too have killed and marginalized those voices who have tried to invite us into the kindom feast. We call the opinions of male Europeans ‘Theology,’ and relegate faithful reflections from minority voices to niche disciplines with names like ‘liberation theology,’ ‘feminist theology,’ ‘womanist theology,’ and the like. We have traded faithfulness for political relevance, and cuddled up to the business interests and idolatry of our allies. We allow the poor to die starving and unhoused while we argue about which hymns to sing in worship, and spend far more time on our comfort than the needs of fellow human beings around us.
Honor and Shame: An absolute element of this story is the cultural assumption of honor and shame. While these values are still ones that are important to us, they were (and are) foundational to middle-eastern culture. The fact that those invited refused to come to the wedding banquet is not just the level of ignoring an RSVP, it is absolutely shaming the king.
Politics is a sphere that gets a little closer to the implication of honor and shame. Elected Officials rise and fall in popularity, which directly affects their ability to lead their party. This is especially seen during elections. While President Trump has gotten a little more mojo back in his campaign recently, that was not the case in the midterm elections. While Trump and the Republican party had promised a ‘red wave,’ when the dust settled, they only squeaked by with a slim majority in the House of Representatives, and lost a seat in the Senate. Several of the candidates that Trump had endorsed ultimately lost their races, and the most significant Republican win was one of his most likely opponents, Ron DeSantis. There was much talk at the time of Trump’s ultimate power or control of the Republican Party, especially when his efforts initially had little effect during McCarthy’s bid for Speaker of the House. However, since Donald J. Trump does not seem to have any shame, it has not deeply affected him. Similarly, almost immediately after his election, Biden has had to fight off the idea of not running again, as pressure from the donor class continues (shame). There was a lot of blood in the water among the donor class of the Democratic Party before the midterm elections, floating the idea of another candidate other than Biden (Pete Buttigieg being the favorite, as long as you ignore black people, anyone who has worked with him, and the general voting public). After the midterm election, those questions have stopped (for now), and Biden has honor again.
Perhaps a better way to see this honor/shame in our modern context is in the realm of international relations. There are certain things that are considered an ‘act of war,’ clear violations of one nation’s sovereignty that are naturally going to be answered with deadly force. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a clear act of war that brought the United States into World War II, there was no question.
We can also see this honor and shame at play in other cultures that we might be more familiar with. The Samurai warriors of medieval and early-modern Japan took the honor and shame of their culture very seriously. A disgraced Samurai was expected to kill themselves in a self-sacrifice called Seppuku in order to restore honor to their family. This practice continued even to Japanese Officers committing seppuku near the end of World War II.
To be clear, the shame of outright refusing to go to the wedding banquet of the king’s son is a much different kind of shame than the rise and fall of politicians, and in the first century could absolutely get you killed (as we will see in a bit). To refuse the king’s invitation is to refuse his authority, to be refused is to lose face among your subjects. To mistreat and even to kill the enslaved messengers of the king is to utterly despise the king’s authority, it is open rebellion.
Sent Soldiers: The King is furious at the response of the elites, and sends soldiers to besiege the city. While we might understand the reaction from a human king, especially one with narcissistic tendencies, it is strange to hear this reaction in the context of a parable, especially when we have assumed that the king stands for God.
Third Act: The first thing that we need to remember about this particular telling of the parable is that it does not stand alone. It is the third story of a three parable arc. Each time the response is greater. In the first story, two sons are asked to work in the field, one says that he will and the other says that he won't. However, the one who said that he would ends up not, and the one that said that he would not, ends up doing it anyway. The ‘moral’ of the story is that the prostitutes and sinners will get into the kindom of heaven before the religious elites (but they will still get in). The answer is a mild one, but so is the rebellion. In the second story, tenants of the vineyard owner are asked to give what they owe, and they refuse. They mistreat and even kill the enslaved messengers, and even go so far as to kill the owner’s son in a misguided scheme in which they think that they will get the inheritance. Here Jesus does not describe the reaction, but puts it to those he is talking to (whether it is the religious elite, or the crowd is unclear, but context would suggest the former). They answer that the owner will “utterly destroy those evil men! Then he will lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him his portion at the harvest.” In this story, the ‘evil men’ do not actually kill the son, only snub his wedding banquet invitation, but it is in this story that we see the response.
De-creation: There is an element here of de-creation, seen all the way back to the Flood Narrative in Genesis 6. The text is clear that the violence of humanity is so great, that something must be done. They were so full of violence that every inclination of their heart was continually evil. With the story of the Nephilim, we also have the suggestion that they were not even totally human, but ‘mighty men’ of old (read: Gilgamesh, and other ancient warrior/heroes) who were the bastard hybrids of human and divine beings. Humanity was on a clear trajectory to utter self-annihilation, and so God allows that annihilation to happen, but speeds up the process in an act of grace. In the Flood, the natural world itself rises against humanity and destroys them for their own good (sound familiar). That de-creative force is also at work in the plagues/strikes against Egypt in the Exodus. The language clearly connects the creative act of Genesis 1 with the de-creative forces at work in Exodus. Similar de-creative acts are seen throughout the Hebrew Scriptures where human beings set a very clear corse for their futures, and God gives them what they are working for. We see this in the reign of Saul, the splitting of the nations after Solomon, the destruction of Israel by the Assyrian Empire, the fall of Judah to Babylon, and the fall of Babylon to Persia, and on and on. This de-creative force is at work in the apocalyptic writings from Daniel and other prophets to John’s Revelation.
Destruction of the Temple: We cannot forget that while Jesus is speaking to the religious elites and the crowd some forty years before the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, Matthew and his readers are looking back at that event. The destruction of Jerusalem would have weighed heavy on their minds as they read of the destruction of those invited and their city. In some ways, perhaps they were trying o make sense of such destruction, just as their ancestors had done before; and coming up with the distinctly Jewish answer, that God has allowed for such destruction as a punishment and correction. Matthew is making it clear that the lack of true righteousness and humility from the religious elite, and the killing of the son, directly correlates to the destruction of the Temple.
We must be very careful here not descending into ideas of dispensationalism. There is a very wide difference between God’s correction of a corrupt religious institution, and God’s wholesale rejection of the Jewish people in favor of Christians. Chief among them is the fact that the 21st Century church is as much, if not more, in need of institutional reform as the early first century priestly order. To pretend that God has rejected the Jewish people in favor of (mostly Gentile) Christians is to ignore the universal nature of Jesus’s message. Paul clearly explores this in the Letter to the Romans (Chapter 11) when he reminds the Gentiles, who are metaphorically wild branches that have been graciously grafted onto the cultivated olive tree; that others have been trimmed, and so can we, and those trimmed branches can also be grafted back on. We have just as much chance to reject the invitation of the king, and will face (are facing) the same de-creation. The decline and potential destruction of the institutional church, as well as the effects of global climate change should give us humility.
Highways and Byways: The king then sends the enslaved messengers to gather guests for the banquet. Since those who were invited are not worthy, others will be invited. Here we are clearly connecting back to the first parable, and the explanation that the prostitutes and tax-collectors will receive the salvation that you are seeking before the religious elites who thought that had it on lock. It is a reminder of God’s preferential option for the poor. Those who are deemed unworthy by others are the ones who are ultimately more worthy in the kindom of God.
Inclusion is a huge discussion in the church right now, who is worthy of the gospel. Many have the same view as the religious elites, there are strict guidelines and qualifications for who is worthy of salvation (and lo and behold, they all conform to the particular group that is defining them). There has been much discussion specifically about the inclusion of those in the queer community, and to what level they should be included. Most people believe that the standards are clear, we just differ in what we think the answer is. In my reading of the gospel, we have no say whatsoever in who is or is not invited to the banquet, all we have control over is our own reaction to the invitation. We have shown ourselves unworthy so many times, that focusing on the alleged unworthiness of others is simply embarrassing.
This is made clear in the narrative when we ae told that the enslaved messengers brought in everyone, “the bad and the good.” This suggests that the ultimate qualification for the kingdom of God is not necessarily a superficial moral qualification, but an acceptance of the invitation. Those who were first invited were deemed worthy because of their elite status, just as the religious elite were deemed (from a human perspective) as worthy because of their righteousness and piety. Those invited after them were not deemed worthy by those standards, and yet actually get to attend the wedding banquet because they accept the invitation, just as the tax collectors and prostitutes accepted Jesus’ invitation.
Wedding Clothes: Yet, and this makes me more uncomfortable TBH, this does not mean that there are not still standards. Matthew’s gospel includes this small sub-plot of the king finding a man at the wedding banquet who is not wearing the proper attire. Historically, just as today, there were certain standards of dress for a wedding or other important event. It was the equivalent of a ‘black tie event’ now. If you are not wearing the correct attire, you are not getting into the party. Most people would have a set of clothes that would be appropriate for this type of event, at least for their station. It would also be the duty of the host to make sure that everyone had access to these clothes. In this case, when people are being invited from all over, and the severity with which incorrect dress is treated, the king would definitely need to make sure that all have access to these wedding clothes.
This issue with this man does not seem to be that he did not have the clothes himself, or at least access to them through the king; but that he simply did not put them on. This too is an honor/shame issue. It is as if he was invited to a formal black-tie event, was offered a tux, but decided to show up in his pajamas anyway. He is not giving the proper respect and honor to the king, so the king responds severely.
What is the point of this? We were all having a nice time talking about how everyone is welcome, and we have to deal with someone being tossed out to weeping and gnashing of teeth. I believe that the lesson is clear, all are invited, yes; but there is an expectation of change that is assumed. We have already seen the calling of Mathew, who was a hated tax-collector, he is one that the religious elites are upset with Jesus spending time with. However, Matthew has not continued to be a tax-collector, but has become a disciple. He was one thing, but has changed in ways that we can only imagine. Luke tells the story of Zacceaus, who serves as a tax-collector, and we assume by the end of the story remains a tax-collector, but solemnly promises to be equitable with his dealings. We do not have such conversion stories about sex workers, but John’s account tells the story of a woman caught in adultery. Jesus peacefully de-escalates the situation and refuses to condemn the woman, and then tells her to go and sin no more.
We are those who are invited to the banquet feast, but if we are unchanged by the love of God, it is just as bad as if we had refused the invitation outright. This has been a major issue for the church since Christianity became the chief religion of the Roman Empire. Before that, you truly needed to become a Christian on purpose, because doing so was literally taking your own life in your hands. After Constantine, however, being a Christian (at least in name) was the easy and even fashionable thing to do. However, there was no necessity of deep commitment. This lead to the Desert Fathers and Mothers who went off into the wilderness in order to experience the hardship of faith, rather than the ease in the cities. This ease of Christendom has continued in the Western World until the last fifty years or so. I believe that we find ourselves in a Post-Christendom world, where it still remains relatively easy to claim Christianity, but where it is not assumed in the same way as it was in the 1900s, 1950’s, or even 1970’s. This presents a wonderful opportunity, however, when being a Christian ‘on purpose’ really means something again. Our churches are struggling, in part because many of them were formed and operated (operating) more as country clubs than outposts of the kindom of God. There has been little expectation for Christians, especially over the last hundred years, all you have to do is show up on Sunday morning, pay your tithe, and live life vaguely the same as you did before. To be sure, many lives have been changed throughout Christendom by the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, many have been truly transformed by degree into the image of Christ. However, there have also been many who have used the guise of the church to carry on hateful action and ideologies. We are only recently working to excise the toxicity of patriarchy, racism, and capitalism that have long been pillars of the American Christian Church.
Who are We? So who are we in this parable? We are those who have received the invitation, an have been to busy with our own life to truly answer. We have been those who have received the invitation not because of our own worthiness, but because of God’s graceful inclusion. We are those who have arrived at the party, and have not bothered to change our clothes. And we are those sent, to rich and to poor, to proclaim the invitation to become a part of the kindom, to be changed, to celebrate with the bridegroom and creator in the glory of creation.
Pop Culture References
The Stephen Spielberg film “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” tells of the planned landing of an alien species at Devil’s Tower, Wyoming. The story follows a normal man who is so compelled by an unexplainable call that he leaves everything to come to Devil’s Tower. Others have also received this call from all over the world. In this scene, he has been apprehended by an international group who has been investigating these strange calls.
In “Star Wars: Episode IX: Rise of the Skywalker” there is a great scene (one of the only, if i’m being honest) when all seems lost, the Resistance is fighting against the emerging Empire, lead by the reconstituted Emperor himself (don’t get me started) which has a fleet equipped hundreds of Death Star weapons. There are not enough Resistance ships to do anything, but at the last minute, a huge fleet of regular people from all over the galaxy come to save the day. Go ahead and watch this one if you haven't seen the movie, the rest of it is just a collection of convenient plot devices to get to the spectacle (and nostalgia) of this scene.
Links
Bible Project Decreation in The Flood
Bible Project Decreation in the Plagues
I appreciate your thoughts and notes. I realize it's a lot of work, wish you posted every week.