The three parables in this series are similar to three concentric circles in their scope. The scope of the parable of the two sons encompassed Israel's leaders (21:28-32). The parable of the wicked tenant farmers exposed the leaders' lack of responsibility and their guilt to the people listening in as well as to the leaders themselves (21:33-46). This last parable is the broadest of the three. It condemned the contempt with which Israel as a whole had treated God's grace to her.
22:1 The NASB says, "Jesus answered."This was Matthew's way of introducing what Jesus said (cf. 11:25). It does not mean that what Jesus said was a response to a particular question someone had asked Him. Jesus responded to the leaders' desires (cf. 21:45-46). The antecedent of "them"was the Jewish leaders, but there were many other Jews in the temple courtyard listening to the dialogue.
22:2-3 Jesus said the kingdom was similar to what the following story illustrated (cf. 13:24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47; 20:1). The king represents God the Father. His son, the bridegroom (cf. 9:15; 25:1), is Messiah. The wedding feast is the messianic banquet that will take place on earth at the beginning of the kingdom (8:11-12; 25:1; cf. Ps. 132:15; Isa. 25:6-8; 65:13-14; Rev. 21:2). As in the previous parable, the slaves (Gr. douloi) of the king are His prophets (21:34-36).802They announced the coming of the banquet and urged those whom God invited to it, the Jews, to prepare for it. However most of those who heard about it did not respond to the call to prepare for it.803
22:4-5 Perhaps the later slaves included John the Baptist. The fact that the king repeated his invitation and urged those who had previously shown no interest in attending demonstrates his grace and compassion. This was customary in the ancient Near East.804The Greek word translated "dinner"(ariston) usually refers to the first of two meals that the Jews ate each day, most commonly near mid-morning. This was the first of many meals that the guests at this banquet would enjoy since wedding feasts usually lasted a week or so in the ancient Near East (cf. v. 13).805The king emphasized the imminency of the feast as he sent out his servants again. This is, of course, what John and Jesus had been preaching as they urged the Jews to get ready for the kingdom.806
"A very important fact revealed in the parable is the fact that the offer of the kingdom was a genuine one. The kingdom in all of its reality was as prepared and near as was the feast of the parable."807
The wedding feast is not the kingdom, however. It is the celebration at the beginning of the kingdom, the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9).
The people the slaves of the king invited showed more interest in their own possessions and activities than they did in the banquet (John 1:12). They refused the invitation of their king that was both an honor and a command.
22:6-7 Some of those invited not only refused the gracious invitation but abused and even murdered the king's servants. Enraged at their conduct the king sent his army, destroyed the murderers, and burned down their city (cf. 21:38-41). Burning down an enemy's city was a common fate of rebels in the ancient East (cf. 2 Chron. 36:21; Nah. 3:14-15). Here Jesus implied it would happen to Jerusalem again. It did happen in 70 A.D. when the Roman emperor Titus finally overcame the Jewish rebels and scattered them from Palestine. This was Jesus' first prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem.
22:8-10 The king did not begin the wedding feast then. He sent out more slaves to invite anyone to attend. The original guests were not worthy because they disregarded the king's invitations. They failed to respond to his invitation to come freely. The king sent His slaves out into the "main highways"(NASB, Gr. tas diexodous ton hodon, lit. "street corners,"NIV, places where people congregated) to invite everyone to the feast (cf. 8:11; 21:43). His slaves went out into the streets and gathered everyone who would come, the evil and the good in the sight of men. Finally the wedding hall was full of guests.
"The calling of other guests now (still going on) takes the place of the first invitation--a new exigency and preparation being evolved--and the supper, until these guests are obtained . . . is postponedto the Second Advent."808
The majority of the Jews were not worthy to attend the messianic banquet at the beginning of the kingdom because they rejected God's gracious offer of entrance by faith in His Son. Therefore God's slaves would go out into the whole world to invite as many as would to come, Jews and Gentiles alike (28:19). Jesus predicted that many, not just Jews but also Gentiles, would respond so when the kingdom began the great banquet hall would be as full as God intended.
22:11-13 The man who did not wear the proper wedding garment was unprepared for the banquet. He was there, whether evil or good (v. 10), because he had accepted the king's gracious invitation. However he was subject to the king's scrutiny. The king addressed his guest as a friend. He asked how he had obtained admission without the proper garment. The man was speechless due to embarrassment. Then the king gave orders to his servants (Gr. diakonois) to bind the man hand and foot like a prisoner and to cast him out of the banquet hall. They would throw him into the "outer darkness"(NASB) or "outside, into the darkness"(NIV). The place where he would go would be a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth.
It is probably significant that Jesus referred to the king's slaves (Gr. douloi, vv. 3, 4, 6, 8, 10) as heralding the kingdom, but He said the king's servants (Gr. diakonoi, v. 13) evicted the unworthy guest. Evidently the slaves refer to the prophets and the servants to the angels.
These verses have spawned several different interpretations. One view is that the man who tries to participate in the banquet but gets evicted represents those whom God will exclude in the judgment that will take place before the kingdom begins.809This view takes the man evicted as representing a Jew who hopes to gain entrance to the kingdom because he is a Jew. Since he does not have the proper clothing, the robe of righteousness, he cannot enter the kingdom. The lesson Jesus wanted to teach was that individual faith in Jesus, not nationality, was necessary for entrance. This view seems best to me.
"Christ revealed that unless they prepared themselves to be judged acceptable by the host, they would be excluded from the kingdom when it was instituted."810
A second view is that the man was at the banquet because he was a believer in Jesus. There the king upon careful examination discovered that he did not have the prerequisite righteousness. Therefore the king excluded him from the kingdom. In other words, he withdrew the man's salvation. The problem with this view is that it involves the withdrawing of salvation. This view is untenable in view of Scripture promises that once God gives the gift of eternal life He never withdraws it (John 10:28-29; Rom. 8:31-39).
A third view is that the loss of salvation is not in view, but the loss of eternal reward is. The man has eternal life. The wedding garment does not represent salvation but good works with which the believer should clothe himself in response to the demands God has on his or her life.
"There is no suggestion here of punishment or torment. The presence of remorse, in the form of weeping and gnashing of teeth, does not in any way require this inference. Indeed, what we actually see in the image itself is a man soundly trussed up' out on the darkened grounds of the king's private estate, while the banquet hall glows with light and reverberates with the joys of those inside. That is what we actually see. And that is all!"811
However the term "weeping and gnashing of teeth"as Jesus used it elsewhere seems to describe hell, the place where unbelievers go (cf. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28). This term was a common description of gehenna, hell (4 Ezra 7:93; 1 Enoch 63:10; Psalms of Solomon 14:9; Wisdom of Solomon 17:21).812
22:14 Jesus concluded the parable with a pithy statement that explained it (cf. 18:7). Not all whom God has invited to the kingdom will participate in it. Only those who respond to God's call and prepare themselves by trusting in Jesus will.
"Finally, the parable teaches that a general call does not constitute or guarantee election (verse fourteen). The Israelites took great pride in the fact that they as a nation possessed the kingdom promises. But this of itself did not mean each Jew was elected to it. Entrance was an individual responsibility, and that is what Christ is emphasizing in the last portion of the parable."813
"Ironically, the chosen people' show in their refusal of the invitation that they are notall among the elect' but only among the called.'"814
"While the invitation is broad, those actually chosen for blessing are few."815
The point of these three parables is quite clear. God would judge Israel's leaders because they had rejected Jesus, their Messiah. He would postpone the kingdom and allow anyone to enter it, not just the Jews. The prophets had predicted that Gentiles would participate in the kingdom; this was not new revelation. However the Jews, because of national pride, had come to believe that being a Jew was all the qualification one needed to enter the kingdom. Jesus taught them that receiving God's gracious invitation and preparing oneself by trusting in Him was the essential requirement for participation.
