Jesus will reject those who refuse his invitation into honor and privilege, replacing them with true worshipers, those restored from sin by his grace.
The hypocrites got the message, but Jesus was not finished. There was one more aspect of their disobedience that needed to be confronted. This is a poor place for a chapter division, as it falls in the midst of Jesus’ threefold indictment of the religious leaders. Matthew 22:1-14, this weeks’ parable, is the third of Jesus’ trilogy of parables.
There are many parallels between this parable and the preceding parable of the tenants and the rejected son (21:33-46). However, the key difference is that the preceding parable dealt with the kingdom steward’s rejection of his responsibility, while this parable dealt with the rejection of the privilege and honor of participation in the kingdom by those who had been called into it.
The latter may be considered an even worse offense against God than the former. The hypocritical Jewish leaders had not only rejected their responsibilities; they were turning their back on the privileges of their inheritance. This parable dealt with their deliberate choice to be disinherited.
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’
5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless.
13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
Jesus proceeded to reveal one more truth about the kingdom of heaven and those who had mishandled it. The main character of this parable is a king, representing God the Father. His son represented Jesus the Messiah. Although not an active character in the parable itself, he is central to its meaning, serving as the reason for the wedding banquet. The feast represented the future (eschatological) union of the bridegroom (Jesus) with his bride (God’s redeemed people).
For a person to participate in this celebration presupposed that he had placed his faith in the Messiah and become a part of his people, the Messiah’s bride. The invitation to the feast was an invitation to discipleship and salvation. It was also an invitation to enjoy the king’s blessing, the “food” of the feast as well as the honor of being invited.
As in Matthew 21:34-36, the king sent two groups of servants as messengers. The first group went out to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come. These people, representing Israel, God’s chosen people (its leaders in particular), knew they were supposed to attend the celebration, they had already been invited. The messengers (representing God’s prophets) informed them that it was time to attend. But the invitees refused to accept the invitation.
In this case, the invitation also carried the force of a command. To disregard this invitation or call was not an option; rejection of the call went beyond discourtesy to the point of rebellious disobedience. Israel had not been invited but commanded to pay the price and reap the blessing of kingdom citizenship.
The king was patient enough, even in the face of such discourtesy, to send a second group of messengers to the people. This group represented the Lord’s patient pleading with his rebellious people over the centuries through prophet after prophet. The message they carried to the people was, “I have gone to a lot of trouble and great expense to prepare this banquet. Dinner is on the table. Come celebrate with us!” Participation in the feast, in honor of the king’s son, was both a responsibility and a privilege. The king was appealing, “Come honor my son and enjoy the honor of my blessing.”
The second group of messengers received two responses, apathy and aggression. Some people invited to the wedding feast thought they had more important things to do. They chose to ignore the messengers and tend to their fields and businesses, the everyday pursuits that had taken possession of their hearts. God was just as displeased with those who ignored him as he was with those who opposed him.
The other wedding guests responded like the tenants in the previous parable, mistreating and killing the messengers. The one significant difference between the action of the wedding guests and that of the tenants in 21:36 was that the wedding guests had no motive for mistreating and killing the king’s servants. The murder of the messengers and the message of rejection to the king and his son were irrational, since the king intended only good by his invitation.
God’s offer of a covenant relationship with Israel carried a price for those who accepted it, but the blessing and honor that the kingdom citizen received would far outweigh the cost of discipleship. God offered redemption, forgiveness, salvation, and reward. Those who rejected God’s grace were displaying blindness to the point of insanity. They returned a curse for God’s blessing.
Because of their perverted attitude, the king sent a third messenger. In the previous parable, the third messenger was the landowner’s son. In this story, the third messenger was the king’s army. They would serve as messengers of judgment on the irrational rebellion of the original wedding guests. The armies destroyed the murderers and burned their cities. This signified God’s judgment of those who reject his covenant relationship.
Meanwhile, the celebration was waiting; the son was yet to be honored. The king sent out his messengers again, but to a different set of invitees this time. The original invitees did not deserve to come. Their self-absorption and irrationality had displaced their loyalty to the king and his son. The new guests were those who would be honored with such an invitation. These were the riffraff, the outcasts of society, that the messengers would find along the byways (the Greek phrase is variously interpreted as street corners, “main highways,” or “forks in the road,” all of which would be places to find many people).
The messengers went out into the streets and invited all the people they could find, both good and bad. Whereas those who should have been “good” (Israel, God’s chosen people) had shown themselves to be evil, the king treated all who were evil as though they were good. The impartiality of the king represented the impartial grace of God, inviting all people of all nations into the kingdom during the church age. By extension, we can identify the king’s servants or messengers now as the believers in the New Testament church.
It was as shocking then as it is now that God accepts the worst of sinners unconditionally. As long as a sinner shows a willingness to accept God’s grace by faith, God will transform him or her into a kingdom citizen. With such a group of people the king filled his wedding hall. It was a blend of good and evil, Jew and Gentile, slave and free, wealthy and poor. Truly, the Lord will fill his kingdom with “all nations” or all peoples.
Jesus had already made an important point, but he was about to clarify exactly who could take part in his celebration of faith. After the guests had gathered in the wedding hall, the king inspected them and discovered a man not dressed properly. The wedding clothes (sometimes supplied by the host) were not a particular style of garment. But they were the cleanest and best clothes each person had to wear.
This man was displaying disrespect by wearing less than the best available to him. The king addressed the man as Friend, implying that he was open to an explanation. But when questioned, the man had no answer. He was guilty of failure to honor the king’s son in a proper manner. The garment probably referred to the righteousness of Christ provided through his death. To refuse it would be to refuse Christ’s sacrifice. To refuse Christ is to refuse life.
This disrespectful man was recognized as ill-prepared as every imposter will be. At the king’s command, he was bound (a vivid picture of the man’s inability to participate) and thrown into the darkness. This represented exclusion from this celebration in the kingdom of light and truth. The weeping and gnashing of teeth indicated extreme pain and sorrow.
In 22:14, the word “many” is not intended to be a restricted number. The invitation has gone out to all who care to listen, but some just refused, and some wanted to come but refused to submit to the requirements of entrance into the kingdom. So none of these will be present in the kingdom. Those Jesus refers to as “chosen” are the people who respond to the invitation to come, and respond in the proper manner so that they are prepared to enter the kingdom.
In Jesus’ experience the invitation to the Messianic banquet had been extended to the Jews first, but they refused. Then Jesus began to turn to the Gentiles, and as many as believed in him would enter the kingdom in the place of the others, even if the ones who believed were formerly prostitutes and sinners.
More people will reject the invitation or fail to meet the requirement of faith in Christ than those who are chosen, that is, those who truly believe and enter the kingdom. Which group are you in? Are you sure?
The parable’s basic lessons are clear. The king issued a gracious invitation to people he wished to view as friends. They rejected the invitation. Their rejection sparked a severe judgment from the king. Their rejection caused the king to extend the invitation even further to anyone who would come. Participation was carefully screened. Israel was invited, but the nation refused the invitation. Its refusal served to open the gates wide. But though the gates were thrown wide open, those actually chosen were limited by specific criteria, the righteousness of Christ.