THE PARABLE OF THE BANQUET (MATTHEW 22:1-14; LUKE 14:15-24)

Matthew 22:1-14

“Matthew's version is enough to make any interpreter go weak in the knees; I consider it among the most difficult parables of all.” (Snodgrass)  He feels that these can't be two versions of the same account since there are more discrepancies than with any other parallel parables. The contexts are different and there are few parallels in language.

With most of Jesus' parables it is a mistake to try to pin down the identification of each detail and treat them as allegories. However, in this case it is important to the proper interpretation of the story to at least know what category of people he is talking about. Snodgrass feels that at a minimum it refers to the heavenly banquet with God or Christ; the messengers are emissaries from God; and the parable is understood to say that those who feel they will be in attendance will not. But attempts to find meaning in the three sendings, for example, are misguided. Two sets of messengers may stand for OT prophets and Christian messengers or John the Baptist, etc. Most likely it just reflects to the common double invitation at the time with a "Save-the Date” followed later with exact details of the event. (France)

It is probable that at least in the first part of parable, those initially invited to the banquet refers to the Jewish religious establishment, which not only refused to accept Jesus' message but also mistreated his messengers and later killed Jesus himself. If we take this prophetic interpretation to be correct, then verse 7 (“their city”) can even be seen as a veiled prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. (France)

From verse 8 on, the action turns to those generally considered unworthy but who gladly accepted the king's invitation. These could include those such as the tax collectors and the prostitutes mentioned in 21:31-32 and later the Gentiles who would come to faith in larger numbers than the Jews. Among this mixed bag (“both good and bad” - 22:10), however, is one who has not clothed himself appropriately. Who does he stand for, and what does this parable say to us today? Verses 11-14 are addressed to the crowd to let them know that they are not immune from judgment either. (Ellison)

First, The fact that he is addressed as “friend” should not mislead us. The Greek word for “friend” appears only three times in the NT. “In each case, the person speaking is addressing an inferior who has insulted him in some way, but the words are without malice.” (Carson) The nature of the insult in this case is the lack of an appropriate wedding garment. Some of our difficulty in understanding may arise from our ignorance regarding wedding customs of the time. (France) This is the most problematic section of this parable and has been explained in several ways.

Other ways to explain why someone who had just come off the street would have been expected to come appropriately dressed are that: 

    (1) Vv. 11ff were, or appear to be, originally part of an entirely different parable that has been tacked on here by Matthew – F. F. Bruce, Mann, Hill, Blomberg. But that idea is specifically disputed by France

    (2) The man had time to go home and change but chose to wait until the very last minute so he had to come in his work clothes – Chilton; Ellison, France; If these are his own clothes, they may stand for good deeds as evidence of good faith (Ellison) There is a similar, but later rabbinical parable in which a king invited guests to a wedding feast but didn't specify the time. Those who waited for the last minute were still in their work clothes and had to stand by while the others ate. (Mann)

    (3) It was the custom for the host to provide the clothing but the man refused it and felt that his own clothing was good enough. This explanation goes back to Augustine. In this case, “The wedding garment is a metaphor for forgiveness and the promised righteousness” as in Isaiah 61:10. (Weigelt) The latter can only be obtained by accepting God's grace through Christ's sacrifice. This explanation has been disputed by other commentators on the grounds that there is no historical evidence to back up that supposed custom. Therefore there is no allegorical point made here. In rebuttal, Blomberg says there is such evidence (which France proceeds to tear down). Hendricksen says it is the only explanation that makes sense of the king's reaction and the man's inability to defend his actions.

    (4) The question of where they got the clothes is irrelevant to the parable. (Hill)

The metaphor of white clothes is found especially in the Book of Revelation. The letter to Sardis criticizes them for their lack of appropriate works, which is equated with soiling their clothes. Those who are worthy, however, will walk with Jesus in white robes (although it is not clear if they have brought them themselves or have been given them). That point becomes clearer in the subsequent letter to Laodicea in which the church is again criticized for its mediocre works and actually called naked. But in this case it is made clear that they can only get their white robes by “buying” them from Jesus. Finally, in 19:7-8 the select in heaven are invited to the wedding feast of the Lamb at which “it has been granted to be clothed with fine linen,” which is explained as standing for their “righteous deeds.”

From a theological point of view, these references appear to represent a mixture of God's grace and appropriate human response (faith and works). This fits the overall theme of this parable according to many commentators:

“Entry into the Kingdom may be gratuitous, but the Kingdom is not characterized by libertinism.” (Hill)

“The many who have come together to hear the word of God are in fact called, but their mere belonging to the congregation is no guarantee that they are chosen for the world to come.” (Graber)

“...the circle of the called and of the elect cannot be taken as necessarily coinciding.” “Evidently not all to whom God shows favor actually arrive at the goal of this call.” (Coenen)

“Salvation...may be undeserved and unexpected but it is not without conditions.” “... mere knowledge of the Kingdom's advent is not enough – there must also be response to the proclamation, and people must prepare themselves.” (France)

Blomberg: emphasis in the parables is on individuals, not the nation.

Hendricksen: refers both to 70AD and to the Gentiles pouring into the church.

This parable shouldn't be used, as do some, to say that God has rejected Israel or that she is replaced by the church. (Snodgrass)

Luke 14:15-24

Haenchen said that going from Matthew's account to Luke's is like going from a labyrinth to a park.”

This is a very similar story told under different circumstances. The major difference in this version is that the emphasis is not on the violence to the messengers, but on the various excuses the people make not to attend. “The biggest obstacles to discipleship are possessions and family, but they are also the biggest opportunities for discipleship.” (Snodgrass)

I only want to make one point: people to come to the banquet. In contrast, this verse was used by Augustine and others to justify using physical force against heretics. “This statement has nothing to do with physical force; the focus of the text is on the urgency of the invitation.”(Snodgrass)  Of the eight other times the word "compell" is used in the NT, only one may possible imply physical force.