Matthew 22:1 - 14
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.”
Questions:
ReplyDelete- Who does the man without wedding clothes represent?
- Is there any meaning in tying the man up and throwing him outside into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth?
- Who else is out there? Who are these invited but unchosen?
http://billmuehlenberg.com/2013/08/08/difficult-bible-passages-matthew-2211-14/ says:
ReplyDelete“Matthew leaves no doubt as to the interpretation: the wedding garment signifies repentance (3:2; 4:17). Just as most of the Jewish leaders were unprepared at Jesus’ first coming (cf. 23:13-33), some professing disciples of Jesus will be unprepared at his second (24:45-51).
God the Father calls us to attend the great wedding event, to partake of his kingdom. Many refuse the invitation, while others accept it, but inappropriately and without due seriousness. Not just religious leaders but all those who profess to be God’s people need to take this parable seriously.
While our salvation is the free gift of God, it does not come without any requirements on our part. True repentance is one of the conditions of entering into the kingdom. Once again, we find no cheap grace in the teachings of Jesus. Following him is always seen as something costly and all-embracing.
The symbolism is of someone who presumes on the free offer of salvation by assuming that therefore there are no obligations attached, someone whose life belies their profession: faith without works. Entry to the kingdom of heaven may be free, but to continue in it carries conditions. Even though this man belongs to the new group of invitees, he is one who produces no fruit, and so is no less liable to forfeit his new-found privilege than those who were excluded before him.
We have to be careful that we don’t act like gate-crashers, as this man did. We dare not presume upon the grace of God. We dare not become complacent and indifferent to the king’s generosity. We dare not forget that the life of the disciple of Christ is characterised by repentance and obedience, not recklessness and indifference.
John Nolland offers a nice summary of the parable as a whole: “If the first part of the parable has to do with the decisive exclusion and replacement of those who fail to honour the summons when the wedding feast is ready, the second part of the parable has to do with the impossibility of coming to the wedding feast on one’s own terms. It is addressed to those who are confident that they have a place in the coming eschatological banquet.”
The strong language used by the king is of course quite common terminology found in the gospels, and so often used by Jesus about the fate of the lost. Hell is real, and many are going there. We all must make a sober assessment of our spiritual condition.
Many are called, but few are chosen. Sobering words indeed.
http://www.gotquestions.org/parable-wedding-feast.html says:
ReplyDeleteIn Jewish society, the parents of the betrothed generally drew up the marriage contract. The bride and groom would meet, perhaps for the first time, when this contract was signed. The couple was considered married at this point, but they would separate until the actual time of the ceremony. The bride would remain with her parents, and the groom would leave to prepare their home. This could take quite a while. When the home was all was ready, the groom would return for his bride without notice. The marriage ceremony would then take place, and the wedding banquet would follow.
The wedding banquet was one of the most joyous occasions in Jewish life and could last for up to a week. In His parable, Jesus compares heaven to a wedding banquet that a king had prepared for his son (Matthew 22:2).
The king is God the Father, and the son who is being honored at the banquet is Jesus Christ, who “came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (John 1:11). Israel held the invitation to the kingdom, but when the time actually came for the kingdom to appear (see Matthew 3:1), they refused to believe it. Many prophets, including John the Baptist, had been murdered (Matthew 14:10). The king’s reprisal against the murderers can be interpreted as a prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction in A.D. 70 at the hands of the Romans (cf. Luke 21:5). More broadly, the king’s vengeance speaks of the desolation mentioned in the book of Revelation. God is patient, but He will not tolerate wickedness forever (Obadiah 1:15). His judgment will come upon those who reject His offer of salvation. Considering what that salvation cost Jesus, is not this judgment well deserved (see Hebrews 10:29-31)?
The wedding invitation is extended to anyone and everyone, total strangers, both good and bad. This refers to the gospel being taken to the Gentiles.
The matter of the wedding garment is instructive. It would be a gross insult to the king to refuse to wear the garment provided to the guests. The man who was caught wearing his old clothing learned what an offense it was as he was removed from the celebration.
This was Jesus’ way of teaching the inadequacy of self-righteousness. From the very beginning, God has provided a “covering” for our sin. To insist on covering ourselves is to be clad in “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6).
In the book of Revelation, we see those in heaven wearing “white robes” (Revelation 7:9), and we learn that the whiteness of the robes is due to their being washed in the blood of the Lamb (verse 14). We trust in God’s righteousness, not our own (Philippians 3:9).
Just as the king provided wedding garments for his guests, God provides salvation for mankind. Our wedding garment is the righteousness of Christ, and unless we have it, we will miss the wedding feast. When the religions of the world are stripped down to their basic tenets, we either find man working his way toward God, or we find the cross of Christ. The cross is the only way to salvation (John 14:6).
For his crime against the king, the improperly attired guest is thrown out into the darkness. For their crimes against God, there will be many who will be consigned to “outer darkness”—existence without God for eternity. Christ concludes the parable with the sad fact that “many are invited, but few are chosen.” In other words, many people hear the call of God, but only a few heed it.
https://www.gty.org/resources/print/bible-qna/BQ011813 says:
ReplyDeleteAt first reading, one wonders how any of those who accepted the king’s invitation could have been expected to come properly attired. They had been rounded up from every part of the land, and many had been taken off the streets. Even if they had time to dress properly, they had no clothes befitting such an occasion as the wedding of the king’s son.
But the fact that all of the dinner guests except that one man were dressed in wedding clothes indicates that the king had made provision for such clothes. It would have been a moral mockery, especially for such an obviously kind and gracious ruler, to invite even the most wicked people in the land to come to the feast and then exclude one poor fellow because he had no proper clothes to wear.
That man was fully accountable for being improperly dressed, but the gracious king nevertheless gave him an opportunity to justify himself, asking with undeserved respect, “Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?” Had the man had a good reason, he would certainly have mentioned it immediately But he was speechless, unable to offer the king even the feeblest excuse. It is therefore obvious that he could have come in wedding clothes had he been willing.
Until that point the man had been utterly presumptuous, thinking he could come to the king’s feast on his own terms, in any clothes he wanted. He was proud and self-willed, thoughtless of the others, and, worst of all, insulting to the king. Arrogantly defying royal protocol, he was determined to “be himself.”
He would have great regret and remorse, and, with everyone else in that place, he would experience perpetual weeping and gnashing of teeth. But though he had a great opportunity, he had never had, and did not now have, the godly sorrow that leads to repentance and salvation (2 Cor. 7: 10).
The proper wedding garment of a true believer is God-imputed righteousness, without which no one can enter or live in the kingdom. Unless a person’s righteousness exceeds the hypocritical self-righteousness that typified the scribes and Pharisees, he “shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20). The only acceptable wedding garment is the genuine “sanctification without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14).
Jesus surely would have been pleased had one of His hearers interrupted and asked, “How can I be clothed in the proper garment? What can I do to keep from being cast into the outer darkness like that man?” He no doubt would have said to that person as He had said many times before in various ways, “Come to Me, that you may have life” (John 5:40). As Paul explained to the Corinthians, God made Christ “who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). That is the wedding garment that God demands and His Son provides.
http://www.gotquestions.org/outer-darkness.html says:
ReplyDelete“Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness”
Jesus uses the term “outer darkness” in the parable to describe a condition of great sorrow, loss and woe. It stands in vivid contrast to the brightly lit and joyous celebration attended by those who accepted the king’s invitation. Interpreting the wedding feast as heaven, the “outer darkness” must be the place of eternal punishment. Most Bible scholars agree that the phrase “outer darkness” refers to hell or, more properly, the lake of fire (Matthew 8:12; 13:42; 13:50; and 25:23).
The outer darkness of Jesus’ parable is called “blackest darkness” in Jude 1:13. Again, a place of judgment is the obvious meaning, since it is reserved for “godless men” (verse 4).
Perhaps the place of judgment is pictured as “dark” because of the absence of God’s cheering presence. “When you hide your face, they are terrified” (Psalm 104:29). God is called “light” in 1 John 1:5, and if He withdraws His blessing, only darkness is left. Throughout the Scriptures light symbolizes God’s purity, holiness, and glory. Darkness is used as a symbol of moral depravity (Psalm 82:5; Proverbs 2:13; Romans 3:12). Darkness can also refer to trouble and affliction (Job 5:12; Proverbs 20:20; Isaiah 9:2) and to death and nothingness (1 Samuel 2:9; Ecclesiastes 11:8; Job 3:4-6).
The outer darkness of judgment is accompanied by “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” The “weeping” describes an inner pain of the heart, mind, and soul. The word in the original denotes a bewailing or lamentation by beating the breast in an expression of immense sorrow. The “gnashing of teeth” describes an outward pain of the body. Taken together, the weeping and gnashing of teeth says hell is a place of indescribable spiritual agony and unending physical pain (see Luke 16:23-28). The outer darkness is a place of anguish, heartache, grief, and unspeakable suffering. Such will be the lot of all who reject Christ (John 3:18, 36).
Christ is the Light of the World (John 8:12). When one rejects the Light, he will be cast into eternal darkness. Just like the man in the parable, the one who rejects Christ will lose his chance for joy, blessing and fellowship and will be left with nothing but darkness and eternal regret.
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/hodgesgn.htm says:
ReplyDeleteBible students have generally understood these passages as referring to the doom of sinners in hell, but this traditional understanding of these texts has been questioned in some circles.
The phrase "wailing and gnashing of teeth" is found seven times in the New Testament. Even though it is used on three occasions of the experience of the unregenerate in hell (Matthew 13:42, 50; Luke 13:28), it is also used on four occasions of the regenerate in the kingdom (Matthew 8:12; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30--these are marked in red above). The fact that the nonbeliever can experience profound regret in hell in no way implies that the true Christian cannot experience profound regret in the kingdom (there will be no remorse in heaven)...It seems that these verses adequately explain the experience of profound regret for the unfaithful Christian which Matthew calls "wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Most Christian readers identify the "outer darkness" as a description of hell. They would be surprised to learn that the Greek phrase employed here is used only three times, all in Matthew (8:12; 22:13; 25:30) , and nowhere else in the New Testament....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.
Wilkin teaches that the "weeping and gnashing of teeth" represents the sorrow and remorse and regret that unfaithful believers will experience at the judgment seat of Christ. He says that this severe remorse and regret will not last for too long, perhaps for only a few moments. Hodges apparently holds to the same view.
Webster defined the verb "gnash" as "to grind the teeth, to rage even to collision with the teeth, to growl." It should be noted that Webster says nothing of sorrow or remorse or regret.
"Have you ever seen anyone gnash their teeth out of sorrow, grief, regret, remorse? I just tried to make some facial expressions as if I were experiencing some of those emotions, and grinding my teeth just doesn't fit. But anger, rage, pain, hatred fit perfectly."
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2012/09/shedding-light-on-the-outer-darkness says:
ReplyDeleteThe “ ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ ” appears in the above five outer darkness texts and twice on its own (Matt. 13:42, 50). These phrases have often been understood as reflecting the horrors of hell; the outer darkness—its dark and gloomy nature—with the sorrow and pain of its torments.4 But are such views correct?
This short study will explore these terms in their context. Properly understood, they point away from the supposed torments of hell into other more reasonable, but equally sobering, realities.
So what is this mysterious outer darkness? A place of torment? A description of hell?
All five texts discussed above appear in the context of a banquet, and this is important to note.
Banquets in ancient times, just like today, usually took place in the evening. At a time when there were few lights to lighten a dark night, there was an obvious contrast between a lighted banqueting hall and the darkness outside. The term outer darkness, therefore, is descriptive; in other words, “the darkness that is outside (the banqueting hall).” This outer darkness does not describe hell but the conditions outside the banqueting hall and is not language of torment but language of exclusion.
Those who find themselves outside the banqueting hall will experience weeping and gnashing of teeth. Is this a description of torment? Or is something else in view?
The Greek for “weeping,” klauthmos, can refer to a range of emotions like joy (LXX Gen. 45:2; 46:29), eager anticipation (LXX Jer. 31:9), but mostly sorrow (LXX Judg. 21:2; 2 Sam. 13:36; Ezra 3:13; Isa. 65:19). Nowhere is it used in relation to torments of any kind. The Greek for “gnashing of teeth,” brugmos t n odont n, consistently denotes anger (Acts 7:54; LXX Job 16:9; Pss. 35:16; 37:12; 112:10; Prov. 19:12), never the pain of torment.
Sorrow is a natural reaction when a person realizes that something good has been lost. Anger is also understandable.
In the heavenly banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the ones who are welcomed are the Gentiles from the far corners of the earth (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:29). The ones excluded are Jews who have failed to believe in Jesus. They were the natural heirs of the kingdom, the “ ‘sons of the kingdom’ ” (Matt. 8:12); but much to their chagrin, they find themselves excluded. Indeed, in Luke 13:24, they seek to enter the banquet, consciously, maybe forcefully.9 Clearly, they are not happy with the master’s decision to exclude them.
Some scholars suggest it was customary for a wedding host to oversee that guests had adequate attire.10 That the man chooses not to avail himself of such service indicates that he considers his own clothes of better quality. When the king confronts him and orders him to be thrown outside, the man naturally feels angry that the king has failed to appreciate the quality and beauty of his garments.
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2012/09/shedding-light-on-the-outer-darkness continued:
ReplyDeleteIn all of the above instances, the anger is directed at the master, a symbol of God. Those who are left outside feel they should be inside and therefore are not happy with the verdict. They are angry.
The picture appears coherent enough: a heavenly banquet, unworthy individuals left outside experiencing weeping (sorrow) and gnashing of teeth (anger) because of their exclusion. Nothing is said about hell or torments.
The picture is very consistent. The term outer darkness always appears in the context of a banquet, mostly in parables, and describes the literal evening darkness outside the banqueting hall. Those who are not in the banquet hall are outside in the dark night. The word weeping defines the feelings of sorrow and loss experienced by those who are excluded from the banquet. The gnashing of teeth represents their anger. They believe they should be in but find themselves outside.
They received the invitation first and are called “sons of the kingdom.” All they had to do was exemplify simple faith in Jesus, like the faith of the centurion. But instead, they rejected Him.
A certain sense of tragedy exists because nobody needed to be left outside. Everybody could have been in if only they had bothered to enter.
So is the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth a description of the supposed torments of hell? No. The emphasis is rather on the sadness of unnecessary loss. The greatest tragedy in the history of this world is that people who should be in the kingdom will find themselves outside. As such, the phrase is, above all, a summons to heed the call of salvation—today.
My 2 cents:
ReplyDeleteThe three questions were: 1. Who was the man without wedding clothes? 2. What does his ejection and outer darkness mean? and 3. Who are ejected?
Jesus was clearly directing this parable at the Jewish leaders, telling them that they were either ignoring the invitation/Messiah, or they were attempting to get in by their own power, which won't cut it.
We Evangelicals attempt to make everything about Heaven and Hell. I'm not so sure that Jesus was specifically talking about this, but was more generally speaking about inclusion vs exclusion. For sure, there will be a final exclusion and inclusion that will result in Heaven or Hell. But if we think of this parable only in those terms, we may (or may not) be missing the larger point.
Is it possible that Jesus was speaking about a larger point? Does this parable make more sense if we think about it as individual events, as opposed to Heaven and Hell?
For example, do we miss individual Kingdom events/invitations? Could the wider application of this parable be about us not paying attention (like the Jewish leaders) to specific invitations from God?
For example, if we pass a poor person in the street, and the Holy Spirit tells us to speak to the man. Do we ignore the invitation? Or do we accept the invitation, but decide to go without wedding clothes (i.e. on our own power)? The consequences of walking by is missing out on God's blessing (which is the work itself and not imagined rewards we sometimes think we are entitled to for obedience). Or, the consequences of out of uniform efforts will be our exclusion from a kingdom work. This would cause both sadness and anger in us. And our vision would be darkened if we did not repent.
I think that we Evangelicals are caught up on a binary view of being saved - Heaven or Hell. I wonder if salvation is as much of a process as it is an event - with many invitations and many instances of disobedience or self-willed obedience.
Could that be the bigger picture in this parable?