Matthew 22: 1 – 14
Check your attitude at the door
22 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’ 5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ 10 So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. 12 So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. 13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
In composing today’s bible study, I thought of the saying ‘check your attitude at the door’. The saying originated from the idea of checking your coat at a restaurant or social gathering.
Basically, it means that you are nothing special. You may think you are but when you enter a social gathering there will not be a person with a microphone announcing your presence nor will the band break out ‘Hail to the chief’. You are just one of the guests, so you do not need to bring into the gathering any bad attitude.
Your attitude speaks volumes before you utter a word. Like your shadow, you often are unaware of it. Your attitude permeates everything about you: the way you think, the tone of your voice, what words you choose, and even how you move your body (body language). While you may think that your thoughts and feeling gets translated into your body language and is very much like those electronic signs with a message that flashes, this time across your forehead. Your body language has a larger impact on others that the words you speak Put it all together and you will find your attitude sets the tone for how people respond to you. Everyone has experienced the vibes that come off a person. You take one look and you know whether to approach or stay away. Your attitude is born out of a set of conclusions and decisions you have made about a person, situation, or your life. Humans like to be ‘right’ about their thoughts and conclusions. If you have a hostile attitude you will experience hostile events in your life and approach people in a hostile way. When you are in a negative frame of mind you are sending negative signals to others and they will respond to your hostile signals in a negative way. Their response will reinforce your conclusion that the world is a negative place. If you have a cheerful attitude, likewise, you will experience events in your life. In a way to support your positive conclusions. Your attitude usually resides in your blind spot because most of the time you are focused on your thoughts, not the attitude they are coming from.
I looked up some bad attitudes we put forth. I was amazed at the amount of them, so I am only going to give you some to consider;
Affected aloof apathetic
Arrogant authoritarian callous
Cold combative conceited
Cruel deceiving dishonest
Hatred hostile ill-will
Impolite inconsiderate intolerant
Lazy lying malice
Mean mistrusting negative
Pessimistic petty pretentious
Rebellious reluctant resentful
Rigid rude un-willing
The emphasis in this parable is on people’s attitude towards the king’s son, and in the final analysis on their attitude to our Lord Jesus, the true King’s Son. The tenants in the vineyard had despised Him. Now all must consider their response to Him. That Jesus Is the King’s Son has been made clear from the beginning. He Is the son of David the King. He rides into Jerusalem as the Coming King (21.4-5). Thus, there can be no doubt Who the King’s Son Is.
He will one day be the One Who would say, ‘Depart from Me, you who work iniquity’ (7.23). He will confess or deny men before His Father (10.32-33). He Is proclaimed ‘the Son of David’.
The parable makes most sense if we see the situation as one where the king has, in view of his son’s forthcoming marriage, appointed his son to have authority over a part of his kingdom. Thus, the idea is of those who are invited to the son’s wedding feast, to swear loyalty to him and to do him honor, because they are to be his subjects. This would make sense of why only one city and its surrounding countryside are involved, and why the responses to the invitation are so virulent. Thus, in the same way the Chief Priests, Scribes and Pharisees are called on to swear fealty to Jesus and do Him honor, (a claim that He has revealed by riding into Jerusalem on an donkey’ colt), something which they are seen to reject out of hand with the same determination.
The refusal of the invitees to come to the wedding feast, even to such an extent that it results in the mistreatment and murder of his messengers, is an indication of their absolute refusal to have His Son to reign over them and the attitude of the man who comes in unsuitably dressed is similarly a deliberate affront to the King’s Son, as are the lives of all who profess to be loyal to Him but who do not reveal it by changed lives. The assumption is that he, along with the other guests, had been given time to dress themselves suitably for the wedding by putting on their ‘best clothes ‘but that this man has deliberately chosen not to do so. Such an act was insulting to the King and His Son in the extreme. Any others who had deliberately come unsuitably dressed would no doubt have been treated in the same way. We are simply given the example of one.
The parable echoes many of the themes of the previous two parables with which it is connected using the word ‘again’ (22.1). Compare how the previous parable was connected by the phrase ‘another parable’ (21.33). The anticipated honoring of the son compares with the hoped-for reverencing of the son in 21.37. The treatment of the two sets of slaves parallels the similar treatment in 21.34-36. The destruction of the culprit’s parallels 21.41. The invitation to the ‘as many as you shall find’ parallels the ‘other vineyard workers’. In both cases they will replace the first (21.41). All the parables are seen to have reference to the Kingdom of Heaven (21.31). Thus, the message is a united one, even though seen from different angles. And now there is no doubt as to Who the Son Is.
22 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son,
The parable is referring to God’s doings and God’s offer and men’s response to them. They are being called to come under His Son’s Rule.
In this case the parable is of a King Who makes a marriage for His Son. On such an occasion a king would often, in honor of the occasion, promote his son to a position of authority over a part of his realm. That would seem to be the case here. Thus, those who are bidden to the wedding were to be future subjects of His Son.
We must beware of just attributing this to what is called ‘the Messianic Banquet (as in 8.11). That is never described as a marriage feast. The marriage feast indicates rather a celebration of joy and gladness, a feast of ‘good things’, pertaining to this life.
This was not an invitation to some distant eschatological event as in 25.10; Revelation 19.6-9, but to present rejoicing along with the King’s Son Who was soon to be enthroned, and with Whom they would feast at His table and then faithfully serve Him. The whole point is that the Chief Priests and Pharisees were turning down the present offer to eat at His table.
For to feast at His table was to believe on Him Whom God had sent and to partake of Him (John 6.32-40). It was an invitation which could be refused on the very verge of the wedding resulting in the earthly consequences that followed for those who did refuse. Others would then come later to enjoy the same feast, and at least one of these would be ejected because he had come improperly prepared. Thus, it is not the heavenly banquet of 8.11 where all was final and all were secure.
3 and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come.
The king then sends out the original invitations. It was quite normal in those days for a general invitation to be issued, which would be followed by a later invitation indicating date and time when the guests would often accompany the messenger back. Important people had to be given the opportunity to prepare themselves for such an occasion. However, in this case the invitees reply immediately with a curt refusal. Note that these first messengers were not ill-treated in any way. The invitees were still hoping to keep on good terms with the king. We can compare this first refusal with the initial refusal of the son in 21.29. The king does not react immediately. Time was to be given for repentance.
We may see in these messengers the prophets who pointed forward to the Coming One (the King’s Son), and indeed all whom God uses to call men to come under His Rule.
4 Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.” ’
When all was ready the patient king, expecting that they might well have had second thoughts when they had had time to realize the seriousness of what they were doing, sent further servants. He was prepared to forgive them and give them another chance. This time his message was more urgent and demanding and brooked no refusal. His mind was made up. The first meal of the feast (the word indicates the morning meal) was already in process of preparation (the marriage would as normal be at least a seven-day event). The oxen and fatlings had already been killed. And everything else was prepared. They had no choice therefore but to come, or else to insult Him unforgivably.
We should note here that this was not just an invitation to a ‘party’ as in Luke’s parallel parable (14.15-22), it was the demand of a king, who had the right to instant obedience from his subjects. They had to come to make submission to his son. To disobey would be treason.
5 But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them.
Some of his messengers who made their way back reported that on receiving the invitation, instead of preparing to set off for the wedding, some of the invitees went off to see to their farms and others to their businesses. It was a clear further refusal and intended to be a deliberate and open affront to the king in each case. Others sent the servants back shamefully treated. The ill-treatment and humiliation of messengers was a regular way of rejecting an overlord’s invitation. It indicated what they thought of him and his messengers, and that they no longer accepted his authority over them. Others killed the messengers. So, these have been common ways throughout history whereby men have indicated disdainfully that they were no longer prepared to accept an overlord.
The varying responses also indicate the varying way that people reject God’s invitation to come to Him, some more violently than others. Again, the prophets are in mind in the servants, including especially John the Baptist, the latest prophet to be martyred. And they were already planning to do the same thing to our King Jesus.
7 But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
Understandably the king, recognizing open rebellion, was angry. He knew that he was given no alternative. Thus, he did what kings do in such circumstances, he sent his armies and destroyed the rebels, and burned their city. The burning of a city was a regular way of treating rebels (Deuteronomy 13.16).
Our Lord Jesus may well have had Jerusalem in mind here, for this was where the chief rebels were situated, and He was aware of the coming destruction of the Temple. It was always ironic that Jerusalem was such a religious city that it had no place for God’s Son because it was too tied up in its own interests.
8 Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy.
However, the king was determined that the wedding should go ahead, and the marriage feast be a success. The original invitees had proved to be not worthy. They had proved to be rebels and not deserving of his son. Thus, he would make other provision.
9 Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’
So, He told His servants to go to those who were outside the rebellious city, to those who would be found at the parting of the highways, the road intersections, where men presumably gathered, men who had received no invitation. And whoever they found there they were to bid to the marriage feast. The city authorities, with their cronies, may reject the king’s son, but there would be many who would not (as His welcome into Jerusalem by the pilgrims had demonstrated). And by eating at His table they were indicating their loyalty to Him.
The disciples would have been in no doubt that this was to be their responsibility. They were to go to the very same kind of people as Jesus had gone to in Galilee, the poor, and the needy, and the lame, and the blind.
10 So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.
And so, the servants went out into the highways, and they gathered all whom they found, without distinction, until the wedding was filled with guests. As the next verse demonstrates, all these invitees were given time to attire themselves suitably for the wedding as best they could. Jesus expects us to assume it from what follows. This was important for it would reveal the genuineness of their appreciation and acceptance of the status of the Son. For as we shall soon discover those who came with the wrong attitude would not be welcome. So, they better lose their attitude at the door before trying to get in. This should be noted. Those only would be welcomed who had responded to the king’s invitation in the right manner. It was not to be a question of what they had been. It was to be a question of whether they were prepared to reveal their submission to the king’s son, and to honor His presence, something which would be revealed by the way that they presented themselves.
Here was an offer for men of all kinds to come into the Kingly Rule of Jesus, as they had with John the Baptist (21.31-32). But it required response, repentance (Isaiah 1.16-18), a ‘change of clothes’ and the commencement of a new life (Zechariah 3.3-5). They had to be clothed with ‘wedding-garments’. It was that fact that proved that they were genuine responders to His invitation. In Revelation 19.8 those are ‘the righteousness’s of the saints (people of God)’. It is a reminder that to approach Christ with no good works to show for our faith is an insult to Him. These people had ‘put on’ a new manner of life resulting from His creative work within them (Ephesians 4.24)
11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment.
This is now brought out in that when the king came in to survey his guests it was his requirement and expectation that they be clothed in wedding-garments in honor of his son’s marriage and status. To come to a wedding without putting on their best garments would be an insult to those who had invited them, and especially when he was a king and the wedding was his son’s. There can be no doubt that Lord Jesus’ listeners would have been horrified to think that anyone would commit such a social lapse. And they would know that it was deliberate. They would know that this man was not there like that by accident. He was showing his contempt for the king’s son. It was not something that could possibly happen without thought. It was against their whole culture.
There are no known examples where wedding-garments were provided for guests, so it is unlikely that it was so in this case. But there are many examples which indicate that men would be expected to wear their ‘best clothes’ at a wedding or other state occasion and would be expelled if they did not.
‘When the king came in to survey the guests.’ We may see this as indicating the time of the last judgment. Until then the man in question could mock at the Son, as men can mock today. The king’s judgment was in this world as well as in the next (verse 7). It had both present and future aspects. God does sometimes call some to account in this life.
12 So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless.
So, the king speaks gently but firmly to the offending man. He begins by calling him, ‘Friend’. (he knew the man) In Matthew this is always said with a heavy heart. It indicates someone being addressed who is in the wrong but is being approached with thought and consideration. And then he questions him as to why he has come to the marriage-feast not wearing a wedding-garment.
The speechlessness of the man is intended to indicate his guilt. Had he had good reason he would have spoken out. But he could hardly tell the king that he had done it because he was contemptuous of the king and his son. And yet that could be the only real reason for doing it.
13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
The king then orders ‘his attendants’ (not his servants, and therefore here probably the angels. Men never help in this kind of judgment) to bind the man hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. He is excluded from the circle of the well-lit feast, and the rejoicing and gladness of both this world and the next (19.29) and dispatched to where it is forever dark. In that place there is weeping and gnashing of teeth because all who are there recognize what they have lost. It pictures the time of man’s final loss of hope.
14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
The parable then ends with a maxim. Many are called to respond to the King’s invitation, but only comparatively few are ‘chosen’, that is, are His elect who are those who are fully responsive to Him because of His effective call (John 6.44).
You have been invited in this lifetime to honor God the Father, Adoni Yahweh’s Holy Son. Will you accept the invitation? I suggest you respond right now!
