Matthew 22:1-14
February 16, 2003

YOU ARE INVITED TO THE BANQUET

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS / CONTEXT:

Like the prophets before Him (i.e., Isaiah 25:6-9), Jesus often spoke of the invitation into God's kingdom as an invitation to a “great feast.” As you read this parable afresh today, catch the glimpse of Jesus’ portrayal of the universal dimension of the Kingdom of God. 

It is important to note this is the third parable in this singular speech where Jesus responds to the question of His authority (21:23-27). At first glance, the interpretation of the parable seems straightforward. The king was God. The king's son was Jesus. The invited guests were the Jewish leaders. God's servants were the prophets of Israel and Christian missionaries. When the leaders rejected God's invitation to the Kingdom with violence, the messengers went to the street corners and invited everyone to the feast “good and bad” (v. 10). 

THE REAL “SHOCK VALUE” OF WHAT JESUS SAID:

I. What was the “shock value” of this parable to those who listened on that day? Social functions like a royal wedding feast reflected the general social outlook. Only the privileged would gain invitation. And the seating arrangements at such functions indicated the importance of the guest in society. The higher in status sat closer to the host, while the lesser sat further away. One knew his place in society based upon his seat at dinner.

a. As Jesus told the parable, He first shocked His audience with the king's multiple invitations and the guests' rejection. As the parable unfolds, we learn the primary reason those first invited didn't go is because they didn’t want to attend (vv. 3, 5). It's not that they couldn’t come. They just didn’t want to. They did not view the invitation as an honor or privilege -- even though it came from a king. 

b. As puzzling as it seems that the king would have to send out another invitation - - a third invitation was sent to those invited highlighting the menu – choice prime rib and all the trimmings cooked to perfection.

c. Again their response shows a lack of respect for the king. But beyond apathy, some became violent and killed the messengers (22:3-6).

II. This set the stage for a spiritual confrontation. One of two outcomes was possible. Either the weak king would fall. Or, the nobles underestimated the king's true power and would be crushed (22:7). 

a. Now the king was upset, to put it mildly, so he does what kings have always done. He sends in the troops, kills the murderers, and burned their city. They had three invitations and had scorned the meaning and value of the feast. 

b. The destruction of the city is a direct reference to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., which Matthew predicted as God's punishment for the Jews’ rejection of Jesus (23:33-39). Writing as a Jew in a Jewish context with largely Jewish hearers, this could hardly have been more pointed. Israel would fail again. Israel's temple would be destroyed again. Repent!

III. As if this wasn’t enough, Jesus again shocked His audience with the king's next move - - the king extended an invitation to the general population. A royal invitation was announced in the marketplace (22:8-9). Through this decree, the king broke the social barriers of his kingdom. The seats of the privileged were open to anyone. All were now equal in the eyes of the king. And then comes these words, “and the wedding hall was filled with guests” (v. 10). Note who turns up at the feast – “good and bad” (v. 10). 

As if this wasn’t enough, Jesus threw another curve. Read verses 11-14. 

THE WEDDING GARMENT:

I. This second part of the parable describes an embarrassing moment at the banquet. Whatever the expectation, one of the guests came wrongly dressed. The breech of this cultural norm may mean little for those who know God looks on the heart (although it is fascinating how it persists in various forms today), but it provides Matthew a vehicle for challenging his hearers about clothing one's life in righteousness, a familiar image in scripture (i.e., Gal. 3:27; Rom. 13:14; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:12; 1 Pet. 5:5). 

a. For a wedding feast, guests were expected to wear clothes that were both longer than those worn by ordinary people on working days and also newly washed. Those who could afford it would wear white, but it was sufficient for ordinary people to wear as near to white as washing their poorer quality clothes could achieve. Poor people, who might own only one patched tunic and cloak each, would often borrow clothes for such occasions. 

b. There is no reason to suppose that, once invited, these people didn’t have time to go home, to change their clothes or, if necessary, borrow clothes from their neighbors. 

II. Why did the king so strongly condemn this one guest? 

a. Wearing festal garments indicated one's participation in the joy of the feast. To appear in ordinary, soiled working clothes would show contempt for the occasion, a statement of refusal to join in the king's rejoicing. 

b. By wearing his everyday, soiled clothes to the wedding feast, this guest is deemed by the king as no more worthy than those who rejected the invitation. They spurned the invitation to the feast; the king is scorned by his dress to the feast. 

III. Here’s one of the primary points of this entire section (21:18-22:14) - - a faithful follower must acknowledge the authority of God, an acknowledgment that finds expression in an attitude (wearing a wedding garment). Without such an acknowledgment of God's authority and the will to honor him as motivation for one's actions, no participation in the kingdom (now or in the future) is possible.

IV. The punishment pronounced in v. 13 sends cold chills down my back. The angelic ministers of divine vengeance (see Mt. 13:41-42) take him away and throw him outside into everlasting darkness where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 

“FOR MANY ARE INVITED, BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN.” 

I. And then Matthew closes this parable with one of his central themes, “For many are invited, but few are chosen.” How is being invited different from being chosen? 

a. Some scholars feel that Matthew added this verse as his own summary of the situation in his time. In our congregation there is a very wide range of participation in the life of this church community, and in the disciplines of faith, and in bearing proper fruit. Throughout Matthew’s gospel, he often voiced warnings to those whom we might call “nominal believers.” See Matt. 7:21-23. 

II. The theological point of 22:11-14 is that those who find themselves unexpectedly included may not presume on grace, but are warned of the dire consequences of accepting the invitation and doing nothing except showing up. At this point, Matthew joins his voice with his fellow Jewish convert, Paul, who offers the same type of warning to Israel: "So if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall" (1 Cor. 10:12; cf. Rom. 9-11). 

CONCLUSION:

The new community in Matthew's view is a mixed body, wheat and tares (13:24-30), good fish and bad (13:48), obedient and disobedient sons (21:28-32), sheep and goats (25:31-46). As Matthew pondered the strange make-up of the new community, he saw the grace of God in its odd assortment of people. God has acted with a marvelous disdain for all the old rules, all the old definitions of worthiness or acceptability and has filled the banquet full to the rafters. 

Matthew loves to celebrate the surpassing depth and splendor of God’s grace. Through his gospel, Matthew is tireless in warning that judging others is no business of the community, and equally ardent and insistent that history will end with God's judgment. Often in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus spells out the terms of judgment and its criteria and standards; summoning all who hear to self-criticism, to self-examination, and to the necessity of yielding in obedience to God.