Jesus again in reply spoke to the chief priests and elders of the people, “But when the king came in to meet the guests, he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. The king said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ Many are invited, but few are chosen.” (Matthew 22.11-14)
We have before us today one of the most enigmatic and problematic of Rabbi Jesus’ parables, usually called the parable of the wedding garments. On first hearing it, most people react negatively to it, much like they do to the parable of the last workers in the vineyard getting paid the same as the first workers in the field. It carries–at least on the surface–a sense of unfairness and over-reaction. So, we do well to spend some time with this stepchild of stories.
The first thing we need to know is that the parable is presented as part of another parable. Or so the argument goes. Some scholars tend to think it can stand on its own two feet, considered not as part of the earlier parable, but apart from it. It matters little, except to say that Matthew seems to have conjoined the two, but even so, they can be read as part one and part two of the story.
Obviously, then, we may want to take a moment to review part one, in this way gaining some appreciation of the context that part two also shares. The first parable, commonly called the parable of the wedding banquet, tells the story of a king who is hosting a wedding banquet for his son. When the big day comes, he sends his servants to the guests to tell them to join him.
Oddly, the guests do not come. So the king sends other servants to tell them that all is ready, emphasizing that the beef has been butchered and the meal has been prepared. But the guests “made light of it and went their ways.” In fact, some mistreated the servants and went so far as to kill them. Part one ends with the king becoming enraged, sending his army to “destroy the murderers and burn their city.”
In many ways, the parable replicates the story of the wicked tenants whom we heard about last week. As we know, they refused to turn over the vineyard owner’s part of the produce and slaughtered his messengers. As a last resort, the owner sends his son, who also is murdered by the tenants who wrongly believe this will guarantee their getting the vineyard for themselves.
Both of these parables–the story of the wicked tenants and the story of the wedding guests who refused to attend the celebration–can be classified as judgment stories. The reason is clear–the recalcitrant men in the two stories are made to pay at the end of the stories for their rejection of the one to whom they owed allegiance.
And, as we know, both stories are addressed by Rabbi Jesus to the same audience, that is the chief priests and elders of the people. So, the judgment is intended for them because their refusal to honor their obligations to the Most High God is the same as the actions of the people in the stories. In both instances, the story ends with a judgment of death rendered for those who refused either the vineyard owner or the king.
Again, Rabbi Jesus’ point in both stories is easy enough to discern. He stands in Jerusalem before the elders and leaders of the people who, soon enough, will nail him to a cross, ending his life as they have ended the lives of the prophets who preceded him, each one sent by the Most High God to remind the people of their obligation to him as participants in the ancient covenant between heaven and earth.
Judgment will follow soon enough. It is important to see in this story of the wedding banquet that the king burned down the city in which the invited guests lived. Matthew probably is making a reference here to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem over a five month period in the year 70 A.D. Whatever Matthew’s intent, scholars use this as one historical proof that Matthew wrote his text after the fall of Jerusalem.
Regardless, the story projects a harsh judgment upon the elders and religious leaders of the people who refuse to comply with the obligations of the covenant agreed upon by the Most High God and the Chosen People of Israel. Matthew almost certainly placed these judgment stories near the close of the gospel to stress the non-compliance of the leaders, culminating in the crucifixion of Rabbi Jesus in a matter of days.
Now, onto the second part or the second parable, however we choose to see the story that Matthew adds to the parable of the wedding banquet. While Luke tells a story similar to the wedding banquet, he puts his personal touches on it, allowing a slightly different interpretation. But Luke’s version does not have this addendum or additional story. Matthew is alone in his telling of the parable of the wedding garments.
There may be good cause for that fact. Luke intends his story to emphasize the inclusiveness of Rabbi Jesus’ message, having “the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame” invited to the feast after the first guests have refused to come, offering a litany of excuses. As we will see soon enough, Matthew’s addendum stresses the opposite. Although the king also invites “bad and good alike” to replace the guests who didn’t show up, he does not hesitate to remove one of them from the banquet, making clear some are excluded.
And therein is the rub in this story, at least at first glance. In this second part, the king comes into the banquet hall to meet the guests. Soon enough, he spots a man who was “not dressed in a wedding garment.” Questioning the man as to why he isn’t wearing the proper apparel and receiving no answer, the king instructs his servants, “bind his hands and feet and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.”
What are we to make of the king’s reaction? Our inclination is to think he is unduly harsh to the man who isn’t dressed to the nines. After all, the man came off the streets, brought into the banquet hall in order to save the king any embarrassment from having empty seats at his son’s wedding. As we see it, he’s doing the king a favor. In short, it raises our hackles to see a seemingly innocent fellow so harshly treated simply because he doesn’t meet the dress code.
So, what is Matthew’s plan in this plot twist? Understood in light of the prior parable, following on the heels of the first one, it states a similar message. Judgment befalls this guest, as it did the guests who refused to attend, because he also did not do his part. While the invitation was given freely, those who attended were expected to dress appropriately for the occasion.
In other words, it isn’t enough just to show up. Not as Matthew sees things. Writing near the close of the first century, Matthew has seen the words and ways of Rabbi Jesus shared with an array of people, some Jews, some Gentiles, some good, some bad. The same invitation to follow in the footsteps of the Crucified Lord is given to all. But, in accepting the invitation, one is also expected to live accordingly.
Therein was the failure of the fellow who didn’t wear a white tie and tails to the gala. He wrongly thought he didn’t have to do anything except take a seat. His presence on the scene was sufficient. Placed in the context of the times in which Matthew is writing, we can see, I believe, the point he is making. If you’re going to show up, you better look the part. Better stated, you better live the part.
The comparison has been made, rightly or wrongly, that the wedding garment in the story symbolizes the baptismal gown that the newly baptized wore. In my opinion, the analogy limps. As I see it, simply wearing the baptismal gown does not guarantee one is living the way of life. Perhaps that is too literal an interpretation of the story on my part.
After all, Paul of Tarsus, in writing to the Christian believers in Rome decades earlier, said much the same thing when he instructed them to “clothe yourselves in Christ Jesus.” However, I’m also sure he meant more than dressing the part. His words implied living the part, not just looking the part. So, it is safe to say, the wedding garment connotes more than clothing.
Certainly, we’re well aware of Rabbi Jesus’ own criticism of the Pharisees in this regard. In fact, in a short while, Matthew will tell us that Rabbi Jesus condemns the Pharisees, telling them, “You are like white sepulchers, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones.” So, looking good isn’t the same thing as being good.
We might say, then, that the guest without the wedding garment has failed to “put on Christ,” as Paul similarly instructed the people of Galatia, by which he meant living as Christ Jesus lived, the baptismal promises fulfilled in a life lived fully and completely for and with Christ Jesus. Or, as the writer of the Book of Revelation will pointedly say, “Clothe yourselves in righteousness.”
Seen in this way, the point Matthew is making in the story of the improperly dressed wedding guest is the same as he was making in the earlier story of the wedding guests who refused to attend the banquet. If we claim a relationship with the Lord God, then we have a duty and a responsibility to live in accord with the ways of God. Failure on our part to live as we have promised will result in the same harsh judgment that befell the wedding guests that refused to attend and the guest who attended but failed to live up to the commitment.
Recently, when General Mark Milley retired as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he asked Army Captain Luis Avila to sing “God Bless America” at his retirement ceremony. Avila had served five combat tours and had been severely wounded in Afghanistan, losing a leg in an IED attack. As a result of his injuries, he suffered two heart attacks, two strokes, and brain damage.
As he sat in his wheelchair and sang the words to the song, everyone saw a man in a uniform, but they saw something far more important. They saw a man who had made a promise to serve his country whatever the cost, whatever the sacrifice. And though the full story of his sacrifices was hidden beneath the uniform, it was plain to see. Here was a man who kept his commitments.
In short, the parable of the wedding guest who showed up without the proper garment is telling us the same thing. Our word, our promises to Rabbi Jesus should mean something. And failure to live out our promises will result in its logical conclusion. We, like that unfortunate soul, will find ourselves outside the wedding banquet.
–Jeremy Myers
Sunday Brunch 