Matthew 22:1-14

SECTION 57
JESUS MEETS CHALLENGES OF AUTHORITY:
THREE PARABLES OF WARNING
D. THE PARABLE OF THE SLIGHTED MARRIAGE INVITATIONS

TEXT: 22:1-14

Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake again in parables unto them, saying, 2 The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his Song of Solomon, 3 and sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast: and they would not come. 4 Again he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them that are bidden, Behold, I have made ready my dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come to the marriage feast. 5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his merchandise; 6 and the rest laid hold on his servants, and treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 But the king was wroth; and he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. 8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they that were bidden were not worthy. 9 Go ye therefore unto the partings of the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage feast. 10 And those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was filled with guests. 11 But when the king came in to behold the guests, he saw there a man who had not on a wedding-garment: 12 and he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding-garment? And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth. 14 For many are called, but few chosen.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

a.

Is this story a parable in the modern, accepted sense of the word or an allegory? What other parables of Jesus help you to decide this?

b.

How does this parable carry forward concepts expressed in other parables Jesus told on this occasion?

c.

How does this parable answer the original question of the authorities By what authority do you do these things, and who gave you this authority?

d.

How do you account for the fact that God's messengers gathered all whom they found, both bad and good? Is not God interested in gaining only good people?

e.

Why was the king perfectly within his rights to react with anger toward those citizens who rejected his invitation to a wedding feast?

f.

Again, how would you respond to someone who believes that the king's punishment of the man without the wedding garment was too severe in relation to his offense?

g.

When Jesus concluded the story with Many are called, but few are chosen, do you think He meant this as a simple observation about facts in the story itself, or as a final warning, or what?

h.

In contrast to the king's apparent harshness, how is his patience and mercy everywhere evident in this story?

i.

Do you see any historical allusion(s) in this parable? If so, what are they?

j.

Identify the critical moment in the king's dealings with his subjects first invited. How is this crisis similar to that in the parable of the wicked husbandmen? How is the crisis resolved in a similar way in both cases?

k.

How does this parable reveal the overall plan of God for the government of His Kingdom?

PARAPHRASE

Jesus began again to teach them using illustrations: The way God runs His Kingdom may be illustrated by the story of a king who prepared a wedding feast for his son. He sent his servants out to summon those who had been invited to the marriage feast, but they did not want to come. So he sent some more servants the second time, urging, -Tell those who have been invited, Look here! I have prepared my dinner: my cattle and fattened livestock are butchered. Everything is ready, so come on to the wedding banquet!-' The rest grabbed the king's servants, brutally mistreated them and finally assassinated them. This infuriated the king, so he dispatched his army to destroy those assassins and set their city on fire. Then he turned to his servants, -The wedding is quite ready, but those invited did not deserve the honor. So go to the street corners and invite to the marriage feast everyone you encounter there.-' So those servants went out into the streets and brought together everyone they could find, bad and good alike. Finally, the wedding hall was packed with dinner guests.
However, when the king came in to inspect his guests at the table, he noticed a man who had not dressed himself in a wedding garment. He addressed him, -Friend, how is it that you came in here without proper wedding attire?-' But the man could say nothing. Therefore the king ordered his attendants, -Tie up his hands and feet and throw him outside where it is dark and where people weep in hopeless regret and grit their teeth in futile anger!-' You see, even though many are invited, few are selected.

SUMMARY

By means of the prophets God had invited Israel to enjoy the festal joy of the Messianic Kingdom. However, by indifference and positive hostility, the nation forfeited its privileged position. Worse, they would finally be severely punished by a patient and justly angry God. At this juncture, God would enlarge the Kingdom's outreach, offering its privileges to all people alike. And yet, none may presume to ignore the conditions upon which their participation in His grace is permitted. Otherwise, these too will be rejected. Final selection is not based upon God's invitation alone, but upon every person's submission to the will of the King!

NOTES
I. GOD'S DEALINGS WITH ISRAEL (22:1-7)

Matthew 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake again in parables unto them, saying. Because our present chapter divisions may not represent Matthew's intended subject division at all, it is not unlikely that he intended to connect the Parable of the King's Feast with the hierarchy's malevolent intentions stated by our author in Matthew 21:45 f. If so, the Lord addressed this parable to an enraged hierarchy to warn them of the destiny their malice deserved. So, Matthew's expression, spake again, points to a new start in Jesus-' teaching, as if an interruption had stopped the flow of His instruction. This break may have been nothing more than the increasing agitation among the leaders because their attempt to arrest Him had aborted. Seeing their design entirely frustrated by Jesus-' popularity, they lapse into a sullen silence, which permitted Him to speak again in parables to them. In parables does not necessarily point to more than one story forthcoming, as if we should chop the present parable in two or three parts, or accuse Matthew of inaccuracy, since he reports only one story. It just indicates the rhetorical category He chose as He began again after the interruption, i.e. parables, not some other form of teaching. With Lenski (Matthew, 848) we must sense the unity of thought that flows through every part of the parable, making it one cohesive picture not to be thought of as a pasting together of several unrelated stories. This story consists of three distinct parts, but each one presents one important phase of God's dealings with the human race:

1.

God's dealings with Israel

Study how this parable carries forward ideas expressed in the stories that precede it. (Notes on Matthew 21:33)

2.

God's period of mercy to the Gentiles

3.

God's treatment of individuals at judgment

Jesus had already used an illustration closely parallel to this story here, i.e., the Parable of the Great Supper (Luke 14:15-24). Details differ, but the main thrust is the same.

Although Jesus-' language is decidedly parabolic, His thrust is not at all unlike the Revelation He gave in apocalyptic form to John (Revelation 1:1). In fact, Revelation uses apocalyptic imagery in almost parabolic ways to illustrate old, familiar truths, one of which is the precious joy promised to those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9), an event sadly missed by those who in our story flouted the king's invitation.

Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a certain king. (See notes on Matthew 18:23.) By comparing God's Kingdom to a certain king, the Lord drew immediate attention to God's procedures. God's government is broadly parallel to the policy followed by the king in our story.

Who made a marriage feast. In oriental practice the engagement ceremony usually occurred many months before the actual wedding. Although the couple are considered married, they do not, however, live together as husband and wife until after the rite of marriage is celebrated by bringing the bride to the groom's home. This happy occasion is celebrated by a marriage feast to which his friends are invited. (See notes on Matthew 1:18; cf. Matthew 25:1-10; Judges 14:10-20; Genesis 29:22-30.)

For his son. At first glance his son appears to be a minor figure in Jesus-' story, because he is not mentioned again. But the slighting of the feast insults and embarrasses the son as much as the king. But that his son is no mere secondary figure is understood contextually: both parables touch on people's treatment of God's Son (Matthew 21:33-46; Matthew 22:1-14). In the previous story He was pictured as nothing less than the Son of the Owner of Israel (the vineyard owner's son). Here He is the Son of the King!

Matthew 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast. Before our story opens, the people in question have already been invited to the feast, since the perfect passive participle (tos keklçménous) indicates that the present announcement was to be given to those who already had a standing invitation to the feast. Two invitations were considered normal custom: the first, general call that announced the forthcoming wedding banquet, and the second, special call to attend the banquet itself. The former apparently preceded the latter by time sufficient for both host and guests to make appropriate preparations. Food must be procured and prepared, accommodations for the banquet itself must be readied, servants must be organized for serving it. Guests must attire themselves suitably for the occasion. Perhaps gifts were purchased for the celebrations (Esther 2:17 f.). Then, when the allotted time for everyone's preparations had concluded, a second call was sounded to assemble the guests. (Cf. Esther 6:14.) Not only was it an appropriate reminder, but it signaled the festival's proper beginning, so there would be no embarrassing badly-timed arrivals marring the expected joy.

In saying his servants, does Jesus mean the Old Testament prophets, as in His previous parable? (Cf. Matthew 21:34; Matthew 21:36.) Since this parable's main point centers around immediate entrance into the Kingdom, and not the. long-range preparation for it illustrated in the previous story, it would not seem that Jesus had the ministry of the ancient prophets in view. Theirs was a ministry which would have more to do with the original announcements of the coming Kingdom in what for them would have been yet distant future. Contrarily, for John the Baptist, Jesus and the Apostles, the Kingdom is at hand! (Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:14 f.; Matthew 10:7) is the ringing challenge whereby these called the nation to prepare for and participate in the Kingdom immediately to begin.

The king sent forth his servants to call, not just anyone but them that were bidden to the marriage feast. Evidently the king had invited only those citizens of attainment suitable to be considered worthy guests at a royal wedding. This is to be a feast offered by their king in which they, as loyal citizens, should feel highly honored to take part. This was the social event of a lifetime, the chance to attend a princely wedding feast, a time of national celebration! But more critical is the fact that this is the invitation of a KING, not merely that of a friend that can be taken less seriously. He is a host not to be snubbed.

To the Hebrews listening to Jesus this imagery spoke volumes, because Israel had a standing invitation (or call) to participate in the great Messianic banquet of God. Instructive is the number of times (6) some form of the word call (kaléo, klçtoì) appears in this episode, a fact that underlines Jesus-' concept of the calling of God and the responsibilities attendant upon those who are called. The entire history of Israel was the outworking of God's call of Abraham (Hebrews 11:8) and the conquered national calling (the klçsis toû theoû, Romans 11:29). So it is not surprising that Jesus should speak to a called people in these terms. In any other story involving invitations to a party call is but a normal word for summoning or inviting. But here it is a pointed reference to the previously-established spiritual relationship Israel enjoyed with God. Further, for Israel, participation at the great banquet of God would have commanded the highest claim on their time (cf. Isaiah 25:6 ff.). It was a feast to which they undoubtedly supposed themselves to have most right. It should have been a foregone conclusion that they should have longed to participate.

Presumably the expected guests had already committed themselves to attend the banquet. Otherwise, the king would not have wasted time on preparations for them. Now, right at banquet time they would not come. Literally, they willed not to come (ouk éthelon eltheîn)!Because they were the elite, they had been summoned, while others were not. Although they were the nobles of his realm and, of all people, should have been most ready for the feast, ironically, they are the least ready, because their will is deadset against going!

Israel had been invited for centuries and had declared its intention to honor God's Christ, but now that He had arrived, they deliberately and defiantly refused Him. (An old story: Romans 10:21.) They would not echo the disobedience of the polite son and the willful reaction of the unruly son (ou thélo, Matthew 21:28-32). The unrepentant, uncomplying spirit of the hierarchy is lurking just below the surface of this image (Matthew 23:37: ouk ethelésate). For Jesus, therefore, the cause of moral evil lies in the human will, in man's lack of desire for God and goodness. (Cf. John 5:40; John 7:17.)

Matthew 22:4 Again he sent forth other servants. Again now means for the third time: they had already been invited, then called and now called again. Whereas a normal monarch would have boiled with indignation at this affront and unleashed his fury instantly, THIS sovereign surprises us with incredibly patient mercy. Israel had heard repeated calls from God (Romans 10:18-21). Here again, as in the preceding parable, God's long-suffering is depicted, especially in the many servants sent by the Owner of the vineyard (Matthew 21:34-36). Numerous other servants would be commissioned and sent to call Israel into the Kingdom before the fatal deadline would pass. Does the Lord have in mind here the ministry of the Twelve?

There is an intense urgency in the king's latest message: I have made ready my dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, because meat, once dressed, begins to deteriorate without refrigeration. My oxen and fatlings speaks of the magnitude of his preparations for the vast crowd anticipated. Fatlings are not some special kind of animal, but those animals, like sheep or goats, that have fed a special diet to be butchered for food, All things are ready conjures up loaded tables of food and drink just waiting for the guests-' arrival. All the guests had to do was come to the feast. Matthew Henry (V, 312) caught the true spirit of this marriage feast. In effect, God was offering Israel:

All the privileges of church-membership, and all the blessings of the new covenant, pardon of sin, the favour of God, peace of conscience, the promises of the gospel, and all the riches contained in them, access to the throne of grace, the comforts of the Spirit, and a well-grounded hope of eternal life. These are the preparations for this feast, a heaven upon earth now, and a heaven in heaven shortly. God has prepared it in his counsel, in his covenant. It is a dinner..

ISRAEL'S INGRATITUDE AND REJECTION (22:5, 6)

Matthew 22:5 But they made light of it (amelésantes): literally, they neglected it, did not care about it, did not think about it, were negligent). Here is the peril of simple neglect and not putting first what must be supreme. (Cf. Hebrews 2:3.) They simply acted as if nothing had happened, as if the highest royal invitation were not the opportunity of a lifetime to be seized instantly with pleasure and joyous excitement. They went their ways, one to his own farm, and another to his merchandise. There is a proper time to consider partying clearly secondary to business responsibilities. But THIS was no common party. These self-centered people put their own personal interests and concerns, their own enrichment and comfort ahead of the happiness and honor of their KING!

The trifles that keep people from properly hearing God's call are often not in themselves evil. This farmer went out to his fields, while the shop-keeper felt the pull of his store, ledgers and sales. Neither one disappeared for a lost week-end in self-indulgence or immoral affairs. Rather, each hurried off to the commendable job of diligent administration of their respective businesses. The unseen treasures of eternity have little appeal for the person who is thoroughly preoccupied with the trifles and trinkets of time that so insistently claim his attention. Life's tragedy consists in letting the attraction of other trifling things, however good and justifiable in themselves, pull one away from the one supreme opportunity God holds out to man, Because they openly preferred their own possessions and occupations to the King's royal hospitality, they were showing a contemptuous neglect and indifference to the King's invitation. (Cf. Luke 14:17-20.) This is why they will suffer appropriately. Even before anyone goes to the length of murdering God's messengers, the majority of God's people had already grievously offended Him by making light of His gracious invitation.

Matthew 22:6 And the rest laid hold on his servants, and treated them shamefully and killed them. This is not merely murder, but also high treason against their King! Because these messengers came not in their own name, but in that of their King, this cowardly violence must be considered as directed against him who sent them. (Cf. Matthew 10:40 ff; Matthew 23:34 f.; Luke 10:16; John 12:48; John 13:20; John 15:18-21.) In the previous parable the ecclesiastical authorities in Israel were represented as bullying and brutalizing God's messengers (Matthew 21:35). Perhaps here too we should see these barbarous butchers as standing for the same hostile authorities. While the farmers and tradesmen merely ignored God's men, the persecuting spirit of self-righteous religionists and those who used them for a smokescreen mercilessly slew them. Is this an impossible scene? Critics who doubt that God's representatives would ever have been so ill-treated must be led to see how common this deep-rooted tendency is. Which of God's faithful servants has NOT the human race mistreated (Acts 7:52)?

Here Jesus does not indicate His own imminent death as clearly as He did in the previous story (Matthew 21:37-39). This emphasis on the fate of the latter messengers warns His followers that those who participate in giving men God's message will suffer for their faithfulness to Him. (Cf. Revelation 11:3-10; Philippians 1:27-29; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; Acts 14:22.) This prediction was amply fulfilled in the persecutions of the early Church incited by the Jews. (Cf. Acts 4:1 ff.; Acts 5:18 ff., Acts 5:40; Acts 6:11 ff.; Acts 7:54 ff.; Acts 8:1-3; Acts 12:1-4; Acts 13:50; Acts 14:2-5; Acts 14:19; Acts 20:19-23; Acts 21:27 ff.) Nor was this unparalleled in Jewish history. (2 Chronicles 30:1-11; see notes on Matthew 21:35-39.)

Matthew 22:7 But the king was wroth: on the wrath of God pictured by Jesus, see Luke 14:21; Luke 21:23; John 3:36; Matthew 18:34. This representation mirrors the preaching of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7). This theme receives fuller development in the Epistles (Romans 1:18; Romans 2:5; Romans 2:8; Romans 3:5; Romans 4:15; Romans 5:9; Romans 9:22; Romans 13:4 f.; Ephesians 2:3; Ephesians 5:6; Colossians 3:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Hebrews 3:11; Revelation 6:16 f; Revelation 11:18, etc.) Such wrath is perfectly just, because no one can turn down the Sovereign Lord of heaven and earth with impunity!

He sent his armies and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. Some consider this phrase to be evidence that Jesus or Matthew departed from the illustration to insert a literal picture of the reality, because what monarch preoccupied with feverish wedding preparations would launch a war? But such a comment misses the grandeur of THIS king. Rather, what truly great king, even in the midst of ordering wedding preparations, organizing hundreds of servants, listing exquisite menus and redecorating banquet halls, could not merely pronounce that one royal order which would mobilize his battle-ready troops and start them instantly marching against the offenders? It is too small a view of the earthly king in Jesus-' story to believe he had not already determined and prepared to deal effectively with those murderers. Thus, the glory, omniscience and grandeur of God radiate through this king's efficiency.

This is a clear prediction of the Roman Legions under Vespasian and Titus as God's instruments whereby those guilty of murdering God's messengers would finally be brought to justice and whereby their city, Jerusalem, would be burned, the very thing feared by Israel's government. (See notes on Matthew 24; cf. Josephus, Wars, V,VI; John 11:48.)

In retrospect, the historical reality alluded to here reveals the magnanimous patience of God the King! In fact, He gave these Jewish leaders 40 more years-' respite after they murdered His Son and began to persecute His Church. Some priests did repent (Acts 6:7) and some Pharisees believed (Acts 15:5), but tragically few in contrast to the majority. Finally, in 70 A.D. He punished those murderers and burned their city.

In what sense could it be said of God that the Roman legions were his armies? Undoubtedly it is correct to argue that our God is the Lord of hosts, both heavenly and earthly, and that He can mobilize human troops in the field as easily as He does His heavenly angels, whether men think they are serving God by so doing or not. (Cf. Isaiah 10:5-15; Isaiah 13:5; Isaiah 13:17; Isaiah 44:28 to Isaiah 45:13; esp. Isaiah 45:4; Jeremiah 51:11; Jeremiah 51:20-24; Jeremiah 51:29.) And yet there are intriguing passages in Josephus where even Titus the Roman general is led to appreciate his instrumental role in the hand of God who punished Jerusalem for its wickedness. (Wars, VI, 1, 5; 9, 1; V, 12, 4.) Josephus himself fully believed this (Wars VI, 2, 1; VI, 4, 5; IV. 5, 3): I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these its great defenders..

II. GOD'S DEALINGS WITH THE GENTILES (22:8-10)

Matthew 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready. God has completed all necessary preparations and furnished all necessary inducements to participate. Shall only man be unready? There could be no doubt that all were welcome to share in His bounty, but they that were bidden were not worthy. (Cf. Luke 14:21; Luke 14:24.)

1.

The people invited were not worthy, not because they lacked a certain rare quality, but because they haughtily disregarded their lord's generous offers. His rule interfered with their own self-interest.

2.

They are judged as they had judged (cf. Matthew 7:2). Did they consider the king's invitation not worth their time and interest? Now their own sentence is handed down: they had proved themselves not worthy by the judgment they pronounced upon the king's graciousness.

3.

The irony of the situation is that they probably considered themselves highly worthy, so worthy, in fact, that they could arrogantly permit themselves the liberty of trifling with the invitation of him who was altogether worthy of their fellowship, praise and joyous sharing, their king. Many today cannot conceive that God can do without them and yet achieve His goals.

4.

This judgment, not worthy, concerns highly religious people. Religious forms without a heart of love for God prove to be deadly hardening to a person's sensitivity to God. In fact, the formalist wrongly assumes his own indispensability to God just because he performs the required ritual.

5.

This judgment by the Lord of all the earth should become the working philosophy of all prophecy students. Modern Israel, i.e., the unbelieving, unrepentant nation, is too often exalted in prophecy schemes, as if she were the precious jewel of God or as if nothing had ever been revealed that would compromise her privileged position in the determinate counsel of God. But how can men continue to argue, by implication if not overtly, that Israel is worthy when the King gives this sentence: They that were bidden were NOT WORTHY!?

But if they were not worthy, why had the king invited them in the first place? Could he not have foreseen this refusal?

1.

The king wanted to invite them irrespective of their worthiness or merit, because they were his people. In the story they proved not worthy later, not necessarily at the time of the invitation. In the reality, however, they never were worthy (Deuteronomy 9:4-24).

2.

The king invited them because of the worthiness of his son. It was appropriate that they honor the son even as they honored the father. Not to honor the son is to dishonor the father.

3.

The king invited them because of his own worthiness shown in his love for his people prior to this moment (cf. Deuteronomy 7:7 ff.) and especially in his concern that they be permitted to share in his joy upon the marriage of his son.

Paul's explanation eloquently comments on this verse: It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken first to you. Since you thrust it from you, and JUDGE YOURSELVES UNWORTHY OF ETERNAL LIFE, behold we turn to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46).

Matthew 22:9 Go ye therefore unto the partings of the highways, that is, at street-corners, or where the streets cross city boundaries to go out into open country (cf. Arndt-Gingrich, 193). In walled cities these would be at the gates; in unwalled, at town boundaries where people leave for their farms or other towns. These would be the most frequented places as people go and come from a given city, hence an excellent place to seek potential guests for the feast. The generous king wisely seeks people where they are to be found.

As many as ye shall find: what the king missed in the rank and attainments of his guests, he compensated for in the quantity. Since the people and quality had so definitely proved themselves unworthy, they proved in effect to be inferior to all who would appreciate the high honor offered them and would seize the opportunity. Anyone who loves and respects the king is WORTHY, whatever his previous lack of qualification might be, while those who spurn and neglect their good king's bounty are UNWORTHY, whatever their previous attainments!

Bid to the marriage feast. The raging and bobtail of society, previously uninvited, now become the called (kalésate eis toùs gàmous). Here is Christ's theology of calling for the Gentiles. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 1:26; 1 Corinthians 7:20; Ephesians 1:8; Ephesians 4:1; Ephesians 4:4; Philippians 3:14; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; 2 Timothy 1:9; Hebrews 3:1; 2 Peter 1:10; Revelation 17:14.) This moment is paralleled in the previous parable in that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from (Israel) and given to a nation producing the fruits of it (Matthew 21:41; Matthew 21:43). The Great Commission (Matthew 28:19 f.) is now a foregone conclusion, because the Lord of missions has clearly foreseen the Jewish rejection and now proclaims the future world-wide invitation to the Gentiles to share in the Kingdom of God. But it would be wrong to conclude that He originally planned to save only the Jews and, perceiving their rejection barely in time He radically changed His course so as to avoid a total failure. Matthew has already intimated that God's original planning included the salvation of Gentiles and Jews on the same basis: faith in Jesus (cf. Matthew 8:10-12; Matthew 12:18-21). While our text is not the birthplace of the Great Commission, it is made of the same stuff and breathes the same spirit. Go ye therefore will be echoed again (Matthew 28:19)!

Matthew 22:10 And those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together, all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was filled with guests. Why are the king's agents always termed servants?Because, however, great and influential were the prophets serving under the Old Testament era or Christian apostles and evangelists functioning under the new, they are ever servants of God and co-workers with each other. (See note on Matthew 18:23.) The results of the king's servants ring true to the reality represented: among all the people they found willing to come were both bad and good. By implication, then, Jesus-' messengers will collect an appallingly mixed bag of guests for God too. Now why would the Lord say that?

1.

He may have intended to deflate all purists-' hope that the Messianic Kingdom on earth would be a utopian congregation of only the pure and holy, the perfect. He clearly foresees a period prior to final judgment (Matthew 21:11) when the mixture of both bad and good would exist simultaneously. This harmonizes neatly with His revelation about the continued presence of evil in the world until the judgment (Matthew 13:24-30, Matthew 13:36-43). Thus, He explodes the myth of perfection obtainable in this life by the elimination of all those who are bad.

2.

As in His previous parable where the servants brought in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame (Luke 14:21), those who needed help, so also here Jesus disarms all pride in human goodness and men's notions about what constitutes qualification for God's help. In this sense, then, both good and bad means those people,who in other men's judgment are relatively decent, high-minded people (like Cornelius and other God-fearing, respectable people, Acts 10:1 f., Acts 10:4; Matthew 17:4) and the frankly sinful (like the publicans and prostitutes and the Corinthians, 1 Corinthians 6:10 f.; 1 Peter 4:3 f.). Good and bad would perhaps also be seen from the Jewish standpoint: the good would be the self-righteous and orthodox; the bad are the Gentiles and the scum of Jewish society (cf. Acts 10:14; Acts 10:28). Either way, they are all called without regard to their previous moral or religious condition or prior preparation before their call. Jesus obviously does not call the bad to remain what they are, but to repent.

3.

Jesus-' purpose may have been to push His listeners to re-evaluate their judgments about what constitutes goodness and badness. Those who are finally termed good are those who trust God's grace and obey Him by faith and, by bad He would mean those who did not, even though these too had considered themselves church members in good standing. This definition and distinction arises out of Jesus-' story itself, since those who were finally admitted to the king's feast were only those who (1) heard the gracious invitation specifically addressed to them, (2) accepted it by making the requisite preparation, the wedding garment, and (3) presented themselves at the wedding hall. The bad are those who resisted submission to the king's requirements by not making the expected preparation.

So, while they may have been both bad and good before they accepted the great invitation, they must all be uniformly garbed when admitted to the festal joy of their lord.

And the wedding was filled with guests! Despite the indifference and cruelty of those previously invited, despite the initial insuccesses of the king's servants, this great-hearted king was not thwarted in his determination to share his festal joy with anyone who would accept it. God's divine program to share indescribable eternal happiness with His people cannot be defeated either. Even if the despicable manners and savage brutality of the people previously invited pulled down destruction on their own heads, they did not succeed in undermining the plan of God (Revelation 7:9)!

III. GOD'S DEALING WITH INDIVIDUALS AT JUDGMENT (22:11-13)

Matthew 22:11 But when the king came in to behold the guests: this is the true climax of the entire drama, because every other element prepared for this moment and everything that comes after it results from it. The guests, even those who had been invited first, were invited to share in this moment. Jesus-' illustration is not a conglomerate of two or more parables, but one plot steadily progressing toward this critical moment of truth.

It can hardly be doubted that the king came in to behold the guests, not with an eye to catching some of them unprepared, i.e. without the required garment, but, rather, to rejoice with those who had proved themselves his loyal subjects by accepting his royal invitation. God, too, has no taste for condemning anyone (Ezekiel 18:23-32; Ezekiel 33:11; Lamentations 3:31-33). Nevertheless, as the sequel proves beyond all doubt, although He finds condemnation distasteful, His sense of justice demands it and He does not hesitate to sentence and punish the guilty.

When the king came in to behold the guests, he gazed over a sea of happy faces around his tables. Yet in the midst of the merriment he could still discern a man who had not on a wedding-garment. His race, sex, social condition and bank account are completely irrelevant in the light of this serious disqualification: no wedding-garment! Although the question of where he should have procured this garment is left quite out of the story, the assumption is that the king's invitation had implied that all guests must respond appropriately by wearing one. In distinguishing this man from the others, it is also assumed that these guests had made this provision, thereby proving that the great-hearted king's demand was neither unknowable, unreasonable nor impossible. In what the wedding-garment consisted the Lord did not explain. Local custom would decide this. Certainly it was attire suitable for the occasion, as opposed to soiled, everyday work clothes. Some commentators, following Genesis 45:22; Judges 14:12; Judges 14:19; 2 Kings 5:5; 2 Kings 5:22; 2 Kings 10:22; Revelation 19:8 f., suggest that the king himself even furnished it for all guests alike, in which case their only responsibility was that of accepting to wear it (cf. Isaiah 61:10).

The reality Jesus here visualized in the wedding-garment is not difficult to interpret, since His Revelation used a similar symbol (Revelation 19:7 f., perhaps also Revelation 19:14). It may be simply the righteous deeds of the saints. Such clothing is not more self-righteousness, since these robes are washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb. (Revelation 7:9; Revelation 7:13 f.; cf. Revelation 3:4-5; Revelation 3:18; Revelation 6:11; Hebrews 9:14.) Such garments are no fabrication of this world, but the pure gift of divine grace, since even the righteous deeds of God's people are really the work of God Himself graciously working in and through them (Isaiah 26:12; Philippians 2:12 f.). So, in the end, it is the King Himself who furnishes our wedding garments. And yet we would be without them unless we accepted them and dressed in them, making ourselves fit for His feast on His terms. (Study Hebrews 12:14; Colossians 3:5-17; Philippians 3:7-11; 1 Peter 1:22; 2 Peter 1:3-11.) So God's invitation is conditional.

What, then, is this gate-crasher's damning fault? Several factors surface:

1.

If the king furnished a costly garment for each guest, not to put it on immediately to join in the spirit and add luster to the feast, would be to show contempt for the gift and despise the giver. It is clearly a self-willed rejection of the king's gracious provision.

2.

He had no reverence for his king. The man's damning sin was insensitivity regarding that to which he had been invited. He showed no understanding of the honor one should show to his king or of what would be appropriate dress for participation in a royal banquet. This insensitivity is tantamount to dishonor (Malachi 1:6).

3.

He did not understand his king's merciful hospitality. All guests were present, not because they wore wedding apparel, but because this open-hearted king was so intent upon sharing his happiness with them that he ordered the wedding-hall doors thrown open to everyone. The king owed them nothing. They could never have deserved his generosity. They were all present by the king's grace. This ingrate wanted to have the benefits of the feast while rewriting the conditions of participation to suit himself. To the Jew this banquet represented the highest privilege to the Kingdom of God (Luke 14:15; Matthew 8:11 f.). But to take part in God's Kingdom means to be ruled by the will of God. Many want the blessings of the Kingdom without the submission this entails. But grace means that we surrender to the terms demanded by Him who extends us that grace.

4.

Here is also a self-complacency that could be satisfied with its own garments. Here is the arrogant person who, while claiming to be on God's side, considers his own character good enough to save him. Can anyone be so proud of himself or his accomplishments or so disrespectful of His holiness that he will not change even for God?!

5.

If the king required a garment that even the poorest guest could easily obtain for himself at a moment's notice, then this contemptible guest who profaned the wedding feast of the crown prince is lazy, unwilling to sacrifice his own convenience to please the king.

This story, therefore, is a lesson on receiving the grace of God. We do not have to prepare the feast, but we must submit to the spirit of His kind offer and be fitted for participation by His grace. We do not pretend to be worthy of the gift by our wearing the prescribed garments, but we must enter into His feast outfitted according to His expectations. This illustrates the place of commandments in grace: they are a part of the gift of grace, not a series of deeds whereby we earn our place at His table.

Wearing the required garment clearly stands for our effort to respond to the King's goodness (Romans 8:1-17;). Many New Testaments texts speak of that in which the Christian saint is to be clothed:

1.

By faith he begins by putting on Christ at baptism (Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:3; 1 Peter 3:20-21) and so is justified (Romans 5:1; Romans 8:1).

2.

He matures in Christ by deliberately imitating His character (Philippians 2:5):

a.

This involves putting off the sinful deeds (Romans 13:12 f.; Colossians 3:5-9; Ephesians 4:22; Ephesians 4:25 ff.)

b.

It involves putting on Christ's character (Romans 13:14; Colossians 3:10; Colossians 3:12 ff.; Ephesians 4:23 f.)

3.

This all produces a righteousness, not based on personal merit, but one which comes from God and depends on faith (Philippians 3:9; Romans 5:1; Romans 8:1).

None of this is personal merit, because God mercifully revealed this way to be clothed. This kind of righteousness is God's gift to His people, because He covers them with the robe of His righteousness, taking their sins away (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 John 2:1-2). They must accept His covering. While ALL are invitedthe imperfect, the weak and sinfulnobody is admitted without change. We are not saved by the invitation only or by entering along with the masses only, but by personal preparation. We must respect the King and accept His terms without presuming to tell Him what we shall wear or what He must condone!

Matthew 22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend. Friend (heteîre) is an interesting form of address meaning, comrade, friend or associate. Its generalness says, I do not know or call you by name, while its warmth says, I want to treat you kindly anyway. But the generalness of the king's approach is ominous, because the king does not call the man by name, as if he did not care to recognize that most intimate, individualizing part of the man, his name (cf. Matthew 7:23; Matthew 25:12; 2 Timothy 2:19).

In each of the three occurrences of heteîre in Matthew (Matthew 20:13; Matthew 22:12; Matthew 26:50) there is a reciprocal relationship assumed between the user of this word and the one so addressed. Further, in all three cases, the person thus addressed has not lived up to the commitment involved in that relationship. There is a resultant nuance not to miss: the goodness of the speaker and the guilt of the one addressed.

How camest thou in hither not having a wedding-garment? This question tacitly assumes that either the king furnished the festal robe to each guest or that the most destitute could have instantly obtained it for himself on slight notice. Either way, the guest's responsibility is clear: he should have had that robe on. The king may mean:

1.

How did you manage to slip in past those who should have stopped you at the door because of your obvious indifference to my regulation? But in the reality, would Jesus refer to security slip-ups at the final Marriage Supper of the Lamb, any more than such a provident king could have forgotten security arrangements at his son's wedding feast? On the other hand, if only the king himself could recognize that wedding garment, the man may have passed muster for all others, only to be unmasked for what he really was in front of his king whose infallible eye alone could detect the difference.

2.

How could you have persuaded yourself to crowd in without the required garment? In what frame of mind did you come in here? What arguments could you have adduced so impelling as to scorn your king's expectations? This is perhaps the better interpretation, because it stands in stark contrast to the man's reaction: he was speechless.

3.

Some see Jesus-' question as asking, By what entrance did you come in here without the wedding garment? Certainly not by the proper door where all would be granted recognition and entrance (cf. John 10:1; John 10:9).

And he was speechless, not only without excuses, but without prayers. There is no confession of unworthiness, no seeking mercy, no pleas for forgiveness. He stands there brazen and insolent, made mute (Greek: muzzled) by his own inability to answer his king according to his true inner feelings. What answer could he offer for his gross violation of his sovereign's hospitality? Like so many, he could have said:

1.

My own garments are just fine like they are! Why should I have to change them?

2.

My other interests were more important than frantic preparations for a feast really intended for others and only lately thrown open to just anybody.

3.

Your requirement is a just expectation for everyone in general, but I-'m an exception.

Had the man originally attempted to deceive the king by hoping he could get by with no festal robe as if the king would not notice? In the reality represented here, no more awful sin could be imagined than the bold attempt to outwit God. No wonder this faker deserves such severe punishment!

By adding this ending to an otherwise good, complete story (cf. Luke 14:15-24), Jesus surprisingly reversed the authorities-' demand for His credentials (Matthew 21:23), turning it into a heart-searching demand for THEIRS. In His story the king suddenly appeared to demand of this man his credentials, that proof by which he presumed to intrude. Jesus, then, warns His inquisitors that each one of them personally must one day face this painfully individual inquest and that each will find himself as excuseless as this man was speechless. They had shown self-complacency, ingratitude toward God's merciful invitations and no reverence for His Son, their true King.

Matthew 22:13 Then the king said to the servants. These servants (diakònis) are not to be identified with the other servants (doùloi) who had served as the king's heralds. The latter are apostles and prophets, the former are angels who at this feast are appropriately termed attendants or table waiters (diàkonoi). (Cf. other texts that describe the function of angels as ministers of divine justice: Matthew 13:39; Matthew 13:41 f., Matthew 13:49 f.; their presence at judgment: Matthew 16:27; Matthew 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7 f.; Revelation 14:10; Revelation 14:19.)

Bind him hand and foot. Why? Would not the shame of this public exposure and forcible removal from the wedding feast have sufficed to guarantee that this unwanted intruder would not return?

1.

Apparently not, because the man could perhaps have attempted to make the necessary preparation after the deadline, whereas being bound hand and foot, he must see that such tardy reformation is hereby categorically excluded,

2.

Jesus intended to exclude all hope that anyone could hope to sneak into the Kingdom and then, when exposed, have a second chance to be readmitted. There is to be no purgatory, either Catholic, Protestant or Universalist, that somehow saves those who died without having made the required provision God expects.

3.

The Lord hereby implies that the possibility of evading God's condemnation is totally out of reach. The damned are hopelessly bound by an irreversible sentence they cannot resist.

Cast him out into the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. Jesus-' language slides easily from the parable to the reality, because the outer darkness would be especially blinding to this wretch who had grown accustomed to the bright lights of the wedding supper, and he would be weeping at his great loss and gnashing his teeth in anguish at the realization that his failure is completely his own. On the outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth, see Matthew 8:12; Matthew 13:42; Matthew 13:50; Matthew 24:51; Matthew 25:30; cf. Psalms 112:10; Acts 7:54. (Cf. one interesting ancient Jewish opinion about the wicked's punishment in a dark place barred from light and hope: Wisdom 17.)

Who can complain that the king excluded everyone he found unfit for HIS feast, even if it meant bouncing them out the door right from the table where the unfit sat ready to partake? But the man's sentence is equal to his crime. By his bold unwillingness to show appropriate appreciation for his king's generosity and failing to enter into the spirit of the feast, he showed himself fully equal to those unhumbled, unsanctified citizens who despised the king's bounty from the very beginning. So he must share their judgment: they were ALL BARRED from access to the king's royal reception.

IV. THE BOTTOM LINE (22:14)

Matthew 21:14 For many are called, but few chosen. On another occasion someone asked Jesus, Lord, will those who are saved be few? (Luke 13:22-30). Rather than answer directly what could be but an idle question, He redirected their attention to the real problem: You must make your own personal calling and election sure, without worrying about the relative number of elect who eventually make it! In that context Jesus overturned Jewish nationalistic expectations, while predicting Gentile participation in the Messianic banquet in the Kingdom of God. Here, however, the Lord actually spells out how many will be saved; few. (Cf. Matthew 7:13 f. and other similar reversals of popular estimates: Matthew 19:30; Matthew 20:16.)

It makes little difference whether, in His story, Jesus put these words in the mouth of the just king or not, since the latter had done everything humanly possible to call the many, but due to the well-known circumstances, few were finally chosen. How many are called? In Jesus-' context it must mean not only the hundreds of thousands of Hebrews over the centuries who were called to ready themselves according to the requirements announced by the prophets, but also the thousand million Gentiles who are called now by the Gospel (1 Thessalonians 2:14). Also among the many called are the hypocrites in the Church who appear to have accepted the Gospel invitation but refuse to make the sacrifice of time, effort and expense to please God. Here too are those who pretend to believe and those who, secretly or openly, drop off the Vine (John 15:1 ff.) by not trusting Jesus to supply them their life. Perhaps they substitute their own source of life or try to appropriate Jesus according to their own terms. But they are all called. Christ illustrated why God called the many, but chose to save the few who chose to accept His invitation. Being chosen depends entirely on the answer we give to the call. But this is no fresh revelation, because God had always been calling many, but choosing few in every part of Old Testament history. (8 people in the ark, only Joshua and Caleb entered the Promised Land, Gideon's 300, the concept of the remnant, etc.)

Why are so few chosen? In Jesus-' story it is completely related to each man's free choice to make himself ready to meet the king's requirements. This principle explains Peter's exhortation to make our CALLING AND ELECTION sure (2 Peter 1:10). So few are chosen, because most folks do not want what God has to offer. They are either indifferent to it or are outright hostile, while others who think they want it suppose they can get it cheaper. The rejects eliminate themselves in droves! So, ironically, they are not chosen, because they chose not to be chosen! The elect of God, therefore, are always those who choose to meet His requirements for election.

With Jesus there is no easy optimism about human moral perfectibility. While God's invitation is indiscriminate, His final selection is not. He is no indulgent Heavenly Grandfather whose only program is that, after all is said and done, it might be written: A good time was had by all (C. S. Lewis). Rather, He is a God of high holiness who will not tolerate iniquity even in the outcasts, the underprivileged and the scorned! They too must respond to His demands for a change of commitment, submitting to life within His will.

FACT QUESTIONS

1.

List the points of similarity between this parable and the one preceding it.

2.

Show how this parable differs from the one preceding it.

3.

Of what expression or phase or section of the Kingdom of heaven is this story illustrative?

4.

How does this parable fit in the train of thought expressed by Jesus in His answer to the challenge of His authority, the parable of the two sons and the parable of the wicked husbandmen? What new thoughts does it bring out?

5.

How many invitations did the king make to his subjects? Why was more than one necessary?

6.

What is the picture involved in the expression: My oxen and my fat calves are killed?

7.

What varying kinds of reactions did the king's messengers find among those invited to the feast?

8.

What was the king's emotional reaction to his citizens-' treatment of his invitation?

9.

What did the king do about his subjects-' treatment of his invitation and his messengers?

10.

When the prepared wedding feast lacked banqueters, what did the king order his servants to do about this shortage?

11.

In what two significant ways had those originally invited to the feast proved themselves unworthy of it?

12.

Where were the king's servants to find banqueters to share in the feast?

13.

What kinds of people did they find and bring back?

14.

What is the implied responsibility of the guest who had no wedding garment? What had he done wrong?

15.

What was the king's attitude toward this man?

16.

What is Jesus-' conclusion to the parable? What did He mean by it?

17.

Identify the various details in Jesus-' story:

a.

The king and his son

g.

Those who were invited second

b.

The wedding feast

h.

The king's servants who issued the second invitation

c.

Those who were invited first

d.

The messengers sent to call them

i.

The wedding garment

e.

Their reaction toward the king's messengers

j.

The unprepared wedding guest

f.

The king's treatment of his unworthy subjects

k.

The king's arrival to see his guests

18.

What is the meaning of the allusion to outer darkness? Where is this place?

19.

What is the meaning of the weeping and gnashing of teeth, that is, who has the eyes to weep and the teeth to gnash, and what sentiment are they expressing when they do this?

20.

According to Jesus-' story, why is it that many are called, but few chosen? Indicate the specific failures Jesus pointed out that caused the rejection of the many.