The Parable of the Wedding Feast

[toLiJC]

That's an interesting take on it.

What if the first tier of invitees are those with a little worldly power and the second tier is those who have no power outside of passive resistance?

Compare this story to Jesus' teachings in Matthew 5 about what to do if someone demands your tunic. You are to offer him your cloak also. This places the person making the demand in the position of potentially shaming himself, which is what the nonconforming guest has managed to do to the king at the wedding feast. He manages to turn the king's hale fellow well met playacting and brings out his true, heartless nature.

A powerless person, one who does not have servants or weapons with which to put up a fight, may not be able to resist when compelled to go to an objectionable wedding of the corrupt and powerful, but he can refuse to dress in garments that would falsely signal his approval.

It gets you thrown out into the outer darkness, but that is where the Gospel takes place. The outer darkness is no big deal. It is certainly better than a corrupt feast. It is where the subjects of the kingdom of heaven can have real feasts while they outwardly appear to be starving.

1 Corinthians 1:26-31 "ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many(ie not very) wise men after the flesh, not many(ie not very) mighty, not many(ie not very) noble, |are called|: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, |yea|(ie to confound the sublime), and things which are not(viz. the perfectly good things), to bring to nought things that are(viz. the bad things): That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.",

Romans 8:35-39 "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? |shall| tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Blessings

 

[talitha]

This discrepancy in interpretation feels significant to me. If the same symbol in two parables strike most Christians as being like God and a few as being like the corrupt rulers of the day, this makes me uneasy in a way that keeps me coming back to them.

One thing that bling left out in that list of why Jesus used parables was Jesus' own answer to that question:

“The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you [my disciples], but to others [those who are not my disciples] I speak in parables, so that, ‘though seeing, they may not see;though hearing, they may not understand.’" (Jesus was quoting from the prophet Isaiah.)

In other words, Jesus spoke in parables that those who are His will understand and those who are not His will not understand, or even will misunderstand.

I think sometimes we (Christians) make the mistake of pretending that we are just like other people, but the fact is that those of us who belong to Him are changed, and we have things that others don't. This is not a pride issue. It's just a fact. If there is no change, if there is nothing we have that others don't, then why bother?

 

[Glass*Soul]

1 Corinthians 1:26-31 "ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many(ie not very) wise men after the flesh, not many(ie not very) mighty, not many(ie not very) noble, |are called|: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, |yea|(ie to confound the sublime), and things which are not(viz. the perfectly good things), to bring to nought things that are(viz. the bad things): That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.",

Romans 8:35-39 "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? |shall| tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Exactly.

Blessings

Thank you. Blessings to you as well.

 

[Glass*Soul]

One thing that bling left out in that list of why Jesus used parables was Jesus' own answer to that question:

“The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you [my disciples], but to others [those who are not my disciples] I speak in parables, so that, ‘though seeing, they may not see;though hearing, they may not understand.’" (Jesus was quoting from the prophet Isaiah.)

In other words, Jesus spoke in parables that those who are His will understand and those who are not His will not understand, or even will misunderstand.

I think sometimes we (Christians) make the mistake of pretending that we are just like other people, but the fact is that those of us who belong to Him are changed, and we have things that others don't. This is not a pride issue. It's just a fact. If there is no change, if there is nothing we have that others don't, then why bother?

Bother because the cause is just?

 

[aiki]

I have three questions to start:

1. Who is the king in this story?
2. Who is the guest who was not wearing wedding clothes?
3. When Jesus starts a parable with the phrase, "The kingdom of heaven is like..." what is he signalling?

I've recently been looking at this parable in a new way. I think the answers to these questions are extremely important as to how one experiences Christianity. What do you think?

It is a basic Bible hermeneutic to use Scripture to explain and qualify itself. As Hospes has written, "Context, context, context." So, in light of what the rest of Scripture both immediate to the passage and more distant say, the proper interpretation, the one best supported by Scripture as a whole, is the one most Christians on this thread are offering.

1. The king is God.
2. The guest not wearing wedding clothes is one who has refused to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ, which is the garment of salvation.
3. The phrase "The kingdom of heaven is like" signals an analogy between the spiritual kingdom of God and a more familiar, mundane thing and/or circumstance with which Christ's listeners would be easily able to identify.

Well, I don't think that the king is inviting people into the kingdom of God. I think he is merely inviting them to a wedding, and one that the leading citizens are adamant about NOT attending.

But inasmuch as Christ's story is clearly analogous to the kingdom of heaven, his listeners would have understood that the temporal things of which he was speaking were representative of spiritual realities and that these spiritual realities were the point of the parable, not merely the relation of some earthly event.

Yes. Look right after the parable. Verses 15 and 16. "Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians." Look who the Pharisees were in cahoots with. The Herodians. The Pharisees knew they had caught Jesus in something the Herodians could use against him and they jumped on the chance. Why would the courtiers or supporters of Herod care about this story? They cared because they and the Pharisees and virtually anyone with ears knew good and well this story was about Herod Antipas, his objectionable marriage and what he did to John the Baptist.

Actually, the Herodians were just another sect, as the Pharisees and the Sadducees were. Scholars are not particularly agreed upon what constituted the belief distinctives of the Herodians. Some suggest they held Herod the Great as the Messiah, others that they were merely convenient courtiers of Herod. Regardless, one must read into the passage what you're asserting about Herod Antipas and John the Baptist. There is nothing in the parable or Christ's words beyond the parable to suggest that he intended a connection between the wedding feast parable and Herod Antipas' murder of John. The Herodians are mentioned simply as another of the sects of the time who had a vested interest in making Christ look the fool.

What would have likely passed through the minds of at least some of the listeners to Christ's parable (the Jewish ones) are passages like:

Zephaniah 1:7-8
7 Be silent in the presence of the Lord God; For the day of the Lord is at hand, For the Lord has prepared a sacrifice; He has invited His guests.
8 "And it shall be, In the day of the Lord's sacrifice, That I will punish the princes and the king's children, And all such as are clothed with foreign apparel.

and,

Isaiah 61:10
10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, My soul shall be joyful in my God; For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

Given how perfectly they relate to his parable, it seems highly likely that Christ was alluding to these verses as he spoke his parable, not to the murder of John the Baptist.

What I find interesting about your interpretation of Christ's wedding feast parable is that you want to relate it to temporal things rather than spiritual ones. This is to be expected, of course, from one who denies the reality of the spiritual kingdom of which Christ spoke so often. I would expect one who has not has not been "born again" spiritually to have just such an interpretation. I would also expect that those who are spiritually regenerated to understand the parable in a spiritual way, which they do. It is fascinating to me how consistent the difference in interpretation is between believer and non-believer. This bears out Scripture's declaration very well:

1 Corinthians 2:12-14
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Selah.

 

[bling]

Thanks. I find your list useful.

How would you apply your guidelines to this parable to answer the questions of who the king is and who he is throwing out of the wedding feast?

I would question using the word "transliteration" in your first guideline. I do not believe Jesus' parables use a straightforward symbol --> interpretation system that can be cracked with a key. For instance, a parable may allude to two related concepts using a single deft symbol or include two symbols for the same concept. The whole story may point to something that is best applied intuitively. Where a parable is explained, the explanation is flatter and less interesting than the parable itself. I do agree though that there are recurring motifs in Jesus' parables that allow us to enrich our experience of one parable by considering it beside another.

BTW, I might add another observation about parables. There is usually something in a good parable that feels...uncomfortable, that won't let it rest easy in your mind. It keeps you working on it in a subliminal manner. As long as you are working on it, it is working on you.

In this parable, the itchy-scratchy aspect of it is that the king strikes me as most resembling Herod Antipas, and I find evidence in the surrounding context that bolsters this impression. Yet, if you ask a group of Christians about it, almost to a person they will say the king resembles God.

Years ago, I started a topic on another parable in the theology section (which was allowed at the time) that features a person of power--the parable of the talents. I was beginning to think the landowner wasn't like God as Jesus was describing God in the bulk of his teachings. To my surprise, one person agreed with me. He thought it was Herod Archelaus. I about fell over. LOL. I did a little research on Herod Archelaus and I had to agree we probably had our man. The rest thought the wealthy landowner represented God.

This discrepancy in interpretation feels significant to me. If the same symbol in two parables strike most Christians as being like God and a few as being like the corrupt rulers of the day, this makes me uneasy in a way that keeps me coming back to them.

One of the things you get from the few parables Jesus did explain is the fact there is only one parallel spiritual meaning. These are not like Aesop Fables with lots of different Moral Explanations to be used in different ways. These are not explaining moral truths, but may only be true of a few people and not even everywhere and every time in the Kingdom. It could be very specific to just the non-believing Pharisees at that time, as an example.

"transliteration" just means the Greek word “parabol” is not translated into an English word but a new word is created from the Greek leaving the definition undefined.

Again this in not some kind of Fable to present a moral principle, so Jesus is not teaching us how to behave toward others, so Christians are a little confused by your reaction.

The idea is the King very graciously supplied a free wonderful gift to all His guests (the wedding garment), if the guest refuses to accept the gift then there is no place for him at the wedding party.

Here is my explanation:

God, as the king, at great cost is offering/ providing everyone with the most gracious of gifts “Godly type Love” that makes us fully clothes guests, but individuals can refuse this gift, but without Godly type Love there is no place for us in the Kingdom (which includes heaven). God is doing all He can to help everyone understand their need for this free gift (Godly type Love) even to the point of helping us to understand that refusal of the gift well result in pain and suffering. The point is: “do not refuse a wonderful free gift”, for it allows you to be at a huge wonderful Love Feast and if you do refuse there is no happy place for you (torment). Do you see any more incentives God could provide for you to see the value in accepting His gift? Why do you refuse God’s gift?

If you do not want Godly type Love (preferring a selfish type of Love), then you would not be happy in heaven, since heaven is one huge Love Feast (of only Godly type Love).

 

[Glass*Soul]

If anyone wants to press the point that I am necessarily wrong due to being an atheist, it would go better here. I probably will not reply here.

 

[Glass*Soul]

One of the things you get from the few parables Jesus did explain is the fact there is only one parallel spiritual meaning. These are not like Aesop Fables with lots of different Moral Explanations to be used in different ways. These are not explaining moral truths, but may only be true of a few people and not even everywhere and every time in the Kingdom. It could be very specific to just the non-believing Pharisees at that time, as an example.

Well, I see this story as very specifically referring to John the Baptist, but because Jesus began it, "The kingdom of heaven is like..." the parable has a larger purpose behind it than the mere re-telling of John's death. I take that purpose to be expressing the potential cost of becoming a part of the kingdom. Look at John. Look at what's brewing to happen to me. Are you still in?

"transliteration" just means the Greek word “parabol” is not translated into an English word but a new word is created from the Greek leaving the definition undefined.

Sorry. I apparently had a little reading comprehension problem. I took you to be saying that parables were transliterations. You were talking about the world "parable." I see that upon re-reading it.

Again this in not some kind of Fable to present a moral principle, so Jesus is not teaching us how to behave toward others, so Christians are a little confused by your reaction.

The idea is the King very graciously supplied a free wonderful gift to all His guests (the wedding garment), if the guest refuses to accept the gift then there is no place for him at the wedding party.

Here is my explanation:

God, as the king, at great cost is offering/ providing everyone with the most gracious of gifts “Godly type Love” that makes us fully clothes guests, but individuals can refuse this gift, but without Godly type Love there is no place for us in the Kingdom (which includes heaven). God is doing all He can to help everyone understand their need for this free gift (Godly type Love) even to the point of helping us to understand that refusal of the gift well result in pain and suffering. The point is: “do not refuse a wonderful free gift”, for it allows you to be at a huge wonderful Love Feast and if you do refuse there is no happy place for you (torment). Do you see any more incentives God could provide for you to see the value in accepting His gift? Why do you refuse God’s gift?

If you do not want Godly type Love (preferring a selfish type of Love), then you would not be happy in heaven, since heaven is one huge Love Feast (of only Godly type Love).

It is the sheer vindictiveness of the king in this parable that first led me to question whether the king pictures God as Jesus described him as a whole. This is how earthly kings who are afraid of losing their power act. A gift may appear wonderful, but if it is coming from someone who slaughters his enemies and throws people into outer darkness, then there is going to be a cost to one's moral center involved in accepting it. So, it is that observation that led me to explore the parable with a clean slate. John is a huge part of the book of Matthew. He is second only to Jesus in driving the narrative. When I realized the connections between John's story and the events in this parable, it gave me a sense of hope. John became the hero of the story, not the king throwing the feast. That was something I could embrace.

If we see the king as God, then then any explanations of the parable that give it a positive spin feel forced and slightly suspect to me.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Compare this passage from Matthew 11 to the parable of the wedding feast.

As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written:“‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.’

Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. Whoever has ears, let them hear.
“To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:
“‘We played the pipe for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not mourn.’

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

[emphasis mine]


John refused to put on fine clothing, eschewed the palaces of kings, refused to dance and sing on cue, but a violent king in a unlawful marriage, whose wedding feast invitations would have been as welcome as poisonous snakes to the upstanding Jews of his day, got his hands on him and sent him into the outer darkness.



Jesus is next. He knows it. Once he tells the parable of the wedding feast, the Pharisees and Herodians are circling him almost before he can take another breath. I have a suspicion he knew they would and told this very parable in this very time and place with the express purpose of bringing them out of the woodwork.


This is what the kingdom of heaven is like. As bing said, it is a Love Feast, but it can get you thrown into outer darkness. It is a feast of the sort of love that is willing to risk that.

 

[aiki]

If anyone wants to press the point that I am necessarily wrong due to being an atheist, it would go better here. I probably will not reply here.

I don't think I actually said you are wrong because you are an atheist. In fact, the bulk of my post had nothing to do with your atheism. As I said, you appear to be guilty of eisegesis in forming your views on the passage.

It is the sheer vindictiveness of the king in this parable that first led me to question whether the king pictures God as Jesus described him as a whole.

Perhaps if you better understood the customs concerning dress at marriage feasts of Christ's time you would not see vindictiveness, but a very understandable reaction on the part of the king. Certainly those listening to the parable when Christ first spoke it would have understood completely and been sympathetic to the actions the king took against those improperly dressed for the wedding feast.

A gift may appear wonderful, but if it is coming from someone who slaughters his enemies and throws people into outer darkness, then there is going to be a cost to one's moral center involved in accepting it. So, it is that observation that led me to explore the parable with a clean slate.

Well, here again you are imposing your own thinking and biases on the passage and rejecting its apparent meaning in order to align the passage with your view of what is moral. You aren't understanding the passage as it was intended to be understood but rather using it ultimately as a mirror of your own preferences and ideas. You will never interpret Scripture correctly this way.

Selah.

 

[bling]

Well, I see this story as very specifically referring to John the Baptist, but because Jesus began it, "The kingdom of heaven is like..." the parable has a larger purpose behind it than the mere re-telling of John's death. I take that purpose to be expressing the potential cost of becoming a part of the kingdom. Look at John. Look at what's brewing to happen to me. Are you still in?



Sorry. I apparently had a little reading comprehension problem. I took you to be saying that parables were transliterations. You were talking about the world "parable." I see that upon re-reading it.



It is the sheer vindictiveness of the king in this parable that first led me to question whether the king pictures God as Jesus described him as a whole. This is how earthly kings who are afraid of losing their power act. A gift may appear wonderful, but if it is coming from someone who slaughters his enemies and throws people into outer darkness, then there is going to be a cost to one's moral center involved in accepting it. So, it is that observation that led me to explore the parable with a clean slate. John is a huge part of the book of Matthew. He is second only to Jesus in driving the narrative. When I realized the connections between John's story and the events in this parable, it gave me a sense of hope. John became the hero of the story, not the king throwing the feast. That was something I could embrace.

If we see the king as God, then then any explanations of the parable that give it a positive spin feel forced and slightly suspect to me.

The fact you are an atheist is not the problem with your understanding, but you do have the problem of looking at the parable as being like a Aesop Fable or being part of what is happening right then.

Jesus tells us it is about the Kingdom, which has not arrived “yet”, but will shortly come after His resurrection on Pentecost.

I fully agree with you if you just look at the face value of the parable, you see King that seems obsessed, totally intolerant, and cruel, but that is not the message or the way to look at the parable.

In real life a servant at the door would not let anyone into the party without wedding garments, a party crasher would be stopped, directed to the changing room and helped with putting on the garment.

Jesus is not giving instructions for throwing a wedding party or is this about “God”, but it is about us.

Jesus is trying to show the greatest emotional upsetness He can give; for the King (God) to have over a person not excepting His free gift (in reality this just would not happen unless the person was just being totally disgraceful and arrogant). What Jesus is trying to show is how upsetting it is for God when a human (He Loves) just boldly arrogantly spitefully refuses His free wonderful gift. You have to remember the wedding garment is your ticket to the wedding feast, but you do not pay for the wedding garment (it is free).

Since Jesus is trying to get across the idea that even though God’s gift is totally free, you still have to accept the gift, to happily share the heavenly party, how can he get this idea across in a parable?

If the wedding garment represents Godly type Love (free gift), everyone is invited to the best party you can imagine (heaven), but some will refuse the free gift and still try to get in, and these that try, without Godly type Love, wind up where?

If you make the God (king) out as not really caring if people have or do not have Godly type Love (garments), you miss the significance of Godly type Love (free garments), man’s objective while here on earth (just accepting God’s free gift), and how much value Godly type Love has (it is what’s needed to party fully in heaven).


Here is my explanation:

God, as the king, at great cost is offering/ providing everyone with the most gracious of gifts “Godly type Love” that makes us fully clothes guests, but individuals can refuse this gift, but without Godly type Love there is no place for us in the Kingdom (which includes heaven). God is doing all He can to help everyone understand their need for this free gift (Godly type Love) even to the point of helping us to understand that refusal of the gift well result in pain and suffering. The point is: “do not refuse a wonderful free gift”, for it allows you to be at a huge wonderful Love Feast and if you do refuse there is no happy place for you (torment). Do you see any more incentives God could provide for you to see the value in accepting His gift? Why do you refuse God’s gift?

If you do not want Godly type Love (preferring a selfish type of Love), then you would not be happy in heaven, since heaven is one huge Love Feast (of only Godly type Love).

 

[Glass*Soul]

The fact you are an atheist is not the problem with your understanding, but you do have the problem of looking at the parable as being like a Aesop Fable or being part of what is happening right then.

Jesus tells us it is about the Kingdom, which has not arrived “yet”, but will shortly come after His resurrection on Pentecost.

I fully agree with you if you just look at the face value of the parable, you see King that seems obsessed, totally intolerant, and cruel, but that is not the message or the way to look at the parable.

In real life a servant at the door would not let anyone into the party without wedding garments, a party crasher would be stopped, directed to the changing room and helped with putting on the garment.

Jesus is not giving instructions for throwing a wedding party or is this about “God”, but it is about us.

Jesus is trying to show the greatest emotional upsetness He can give; for the King (God) to have over a person not excepting His free gift (in reality this just would not happen unless the person was just being totally disgraceful and arrogant). What Jesus is trying to show is how upsetting it is for God when a human (He Loves) just boldly arrogantly spitefully refuses His free wonderful gift. You have to remember the wedding garment is your ticket to the wedding feast, but you do not pay for the wedding garment (it is free).

Since Jesus is trying to get across the idea that even though God’s gift is totally free, you still have to accept the gift, to happily share the heavenly party, how can he get this idea across in a parable?

If the wedding garment represents Godly type Love (free gift), everyone is invited to the best party you can imagine (heaven), but some will refuse the free gift and still try to get in, and these that try, without Godly type Love, wind up where?

If you make the God (king) out as not really caring if people have or do not have Godly type Love (garments), you miss the significance of Godly type Love (free garments), man’s objective while here on earth (just accepting God’s free gift), and how much value Godly type Love has (it is what’s needed to party fully in heaven).


Here is my explanation:

God, as the king, at great cost is offering/ providing everyone with the most gracious of gifts “Godly type Love” that makes us fully clothes guests, but individuals can refuse this gift, but without Godly type Love there is no place for us in the Kingdom (which includes heaven). God is doing all He can to help everyone understand their need for this free gift (Godly type Love) even to the point of helping us to understand that refusal of the gift well result in pain and suffering. The point is: “do not refuse a wonderful free gift”, for it allows you to be at a huge wonderful Love Feast and if you do refuse there is no happy place for you (torment). Do you see any more incentives God could provide for you to see the value in accepting His gift? Why do you refuse God’s gift?

If you do not want Godly type Love (preferring a selfish type of Love), then you would not be happy in heaven, since heaven is one huge Love Feast (of only Godly type Love).

Can you site some sources other than this parable that describe the first century Jewish wedding tradition of making garments available to the guests? I've done a quick Google search and can't find anything.

 

[food4thought]

Hello again Glass*Soul. Sorry I have taken so long to respond here, but it has been a busy week for me. I also have taken a day or so to consider your view of the parable because what you said struck me as interesting. To be sure I was not holding an inaccurate understanding of the parable, I have restudied it and prayed over the interpretation you have given.

The application to King Herod might be there, but if it is it is only as a contrast. In the parable, we see the Kingdom of heaven; in Herod, we see the kingdom of the earth. In the parable, we see a wedding feast for the SON, with Herod, it was his marriage to his brother's wife. In the parable, the rich and powerful refuse to come, and whosoever is willing is allowed into the feast; with Herod, the rich and powerful are invited, and the average man is not allowed in. In the parable, we see the rulers and nobles unwilling to come; with Herod, we see the rulers and nobles willingly participating. In the parable, it is the murderers who are destroyed and the one who did not have wedding garments (symbolic of rightousness: Rev 19:7-9; Isa 64:6; etc) that was cast out; with Herod, it was the rghteous common man who was imprisoned and later killed.

Hope this helps;
Mike

 

[bling]

One thing that bling left out in that list of why Jesus used parables was Jesus' own answer to that question:

“The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you [my disciples], but to others [those who are not my disciples] I speak in parables, so that, ‘though seeing, they may not see;though hearing, they may not understand.’" (Jesus was quoting from the prophet Isaiah.)

In other words, Jesus spoke in parables that those who are His will understand and those who are not His will not understand, or even will misunderstand.

I think sometimes we (Christians) make the mistake of pretending that we are just like other people, but the fact is that those of us who belong to Him are changed, and we have things that others don't. This is not a pride issue. It's just a fact. If there is no change, if there is nothing we have that others don't, then why bother?

The intercircle of believers did not understand the parables until Jesus explained it to them. Believers today can come to an understanding, but it is not "automatically" understood by believers.

 

[bling]

Can you site some sources other than this parable that describe the first century Jewish wedding tradition of making garments available to the guests? I've done a quick Google search and can't find anything.

Like most first century secular historic information there is very little. I could not find anything about first century Jewish guest wedding garments in my search. In Matt 22 Jesus describes a King sending out servants to the streets ( for street people) to fill his house for the Wedding Banquet, these people would have only the rags they had on their back and nothing fancy, so where would they get “wedding garments unless the King provided them for these poor people.

Jesus is communicating to these first century Jews that would know exactly what he was talking about, but we do have to do some speculating since we are not first century jews and do not have good historic evidence.

 

[talitha]

The intercircle of believers did not understand the parables until Jesus explained it to them. Believers today can come to an understanding, but it is not "automatically" understood by believers.

I didn't say it was automatic. It's people who love Jesus, who follow him, who seek understanding - these are the people of noble mind who will be rewarded with understanding.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Like most first century secular historic information there is very little. I could not find anything about first century Jewish guest wedding garments in my search. In Matt 22 Jesus describes a King sending out servants to the streets ( for street people) to fill his house for the Wedding Banquet, these people would have only the rags they had on their back and nothing fancy, so where would they get “wedding garments unless the King provided them for these poor people.

Jesus is communicating to these first century Jews that would know exactly what he was talking about, but we do have to do some speculating since we are not first century jews and do not have good historic evidence.

The reason I asked is that during my research on this topic, and in this topic itself, I have encountered a goodly number of rather detailed descriptions of first century Jewish wedding customs as they apply to this parable. However, none of them have been referenced. If there is a rich body of references that has survived from that time period, that all of these details are being drawn from, I would like to examine it. However, if there is not, then they are not facts that I need to have in hand to help me understand it. They become, instead, echo chambers that amplify a specific interpretation after its inception.

For instance, Talitha mentioned that the wedding garments were put on over one's outer clothing and distinguished invited guests from party crashers. I'll quote her below.

First of all, in the custom of the day when Jesus was telling the story, I understand that it was common for special wedding garments to be provided for the occasion by the family. Everyone would put this garment on over his own clothes, and for one thing the garment showed that this person was in fact supposed to be there and wasn't a crasher. This guy in the parable was for whatever reason refusing to identify himself with the king's family but still expecting the free buffet and wet bar. This would be someone who wants the ticket out of hell but does not want to really be a Christian, identifying himself as a friend of Yahweh.

Talitha, you may be 100% correct, but before I use this piece of information to help me interpret this parable, I would like to know where it comes from.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Hello again Glass*Soul. Sorry I have taken so long to respond here, but it has been a busy week for me. I also have taken a day or so to consider your view of the parable because what you said struck me as interesting. To be sure I was not holding an inaccurate understanding of the parable, I have restudied it and prayed over the interpretation you have given.

The application to King Herod might be there, but if it is it is only as a contrast. In the parable, we see the Kingdom of heaven; in Herod, we see the kingdom of the earth. In the parable, we see a wedding feast for the SON, with Herod, it was his marriage to his brother's wife. In the parable, the rich and powerful refuse to come, and whosoever is willing is allowed into the feast; with Herod, the rich and powerful are invited, and the average man is not allowed in. In the parable, we see the rulers and nobles unwilling to come; with Herod, we see the rulers and nobles willingly participating. In the parable, it is the murderers who are destroyed and the one who did not have wedding garments (symbolic of rightousness: Rev 19:7-9; Isa 64:6; etc) that was cast out; with Herod, it was the rghteous common man who was imprisoned and later killed.

Hope this helps;
Mike

Yes that does help.

Should it give us pause that Herod Antipas and God, in the final analysis, fall back upon the same solution to being resisted?

I think the question is an important one, because it worries me if human beings can find no better solution than killing our enemies. How much more so if God himself has no better solution. Jesus said, in Matthew 5:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Yet the king in this parable has those who opposed him killed. Whether he was Antipas or God the Father, the perfect one, killing is the final solution.

Is there no hope?

 

[Glass*Soul]

I didn't say it was automatic. It's people who love Jesus, who follow him, who seek understanding - these are the people of noble mind who will be rewarded with understanding.

Thank you for clarifying. I had not replied to your first post because I was not sure what you meant.

 

[aiki]

Can you site some sources other than this parable that describe the first century Jewish wedding tradition of making garments available to the guests? I've done a quick Google search and can't find anything.

Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Bible Commentary:

"which had not on a wedding garment -- The language here is drawn from the following remarkable passage in Zep 1:7, 8: -- "Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord God; for the day of the Lord is at hand: for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, He hath bid His guests. And it shall come to pass in the day of the Lord's sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel." The custom in the East of presenting festival garments (see Ge 45:22 2Ki 5:22), even though not clearly proved, Is certainly presupposed here. It undoubtedly means something which they bring not of their own -- for how could they have any such dress who were gathered in from the highways indiscriminately? -- but which they receive as their appropriate dress. And what can that be but what is meant by "putting on the Lord Jesus," as "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS?" (See Ps 45:13, 14). Nor could such language be strange to those in whose ears had so long resounded those words of prophetic joy: "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels" (Isa 61:10)." - A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments.

Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary:

"Wedding garment—Among the orientals, long white robes were worn at public festivals; and those who appeared on such occasions with any other garments were esteemed, not only highly culpable, but worthy of punishment. Our Lord seems here to allude to Zephaniah 1:7, 8, The Lord hath prepared a SACRIFICE, he hath BIDDEN his guests. And it shall come to pass, in the day of the Lord's sacrifice, that I will PUNISH the princes, and the KING'S CHILDREN, and ALL SUCH as are clothed with STRANGE APPAREL. The person who invited the guests prepared such a garment for each, for the time being; and with which he was furnished on his application to the ruler of the feast. It was this which made the conduct of the person mentioned in the text inexcusable; he might have had a proper marriage garment, if he had applied for it.

To afford accidental guests clothing suitable to a marriage feast, was a custom among the ancient Greeks. Homer relates that Telemachus, and the son of Nestor, arriving at Lacedaemon when Menelaus was making a marriage feast for his son and daughter, were accommodated with garments suited to the occasion, after having been bathed and anointed.

Τους δ ᾿ επει ουν δρωμαι λουσαν και χρισαν ελαιῳ,
Αμφι δ ᾿ αρα χλαινας ουλας βαλον ηδε χιτωνας,
Ες ρα θρονους εζοντο παρ ᾿ Ατρειδην Μενελαον
Odyss. l. iv. ver. 49-51
They entered each a bath, and by the hands
Of maidens laved, and oiled, and clothed again
With shaggy mantles and resplendent vests,
Sat both enthroned at Menelaus' side.
COWPER

Among the Asiatics, garments called caftans, great numbers of which each nobleman has ordinarily ready in his wardrobe, are given to persons whom he wishes to honor: to refuse to accept or wear such a dress would be deemed the highest insult.

This marriage feast or dinner (the communication of the graces of the Gospel in this life) prepares for the marriage supper of the Lamb, Revelation 19:7-9, the enjoyment of eternal blessedness in the kingdom of glory. Now, as without holiness no man can see the Lord, we may at once perceive what our Lord means by the marriage garment—it is HOLINESS of heart and life: the text last quoted asserts that the fine, white, and clean linen (alluding to the marriage garment above mentioned) was an emblem of the RIGHTEOUSNESS of the SAINTS. Mark this expression: the righteousness, the whole external conduct; regulated according to the will and word of God. Of the SAINTS, the holy persons, whose souls were purified by the blood of the Lamb." - A Commentary and Critical Notes.

Should it give us pause that Herod Antipas and God, in the final analysis, fall back upon the same solution to being resisted?

I think the question is an important one, because it worries me if human beings can find no better solution than killing our enemies. How much more so if God himself has no better solution.

An evil tyrant may use force to enact his despotic will upon his subjects, just as a noble and benevolent ruler may do in order to maintain peace, order, and justice in his kingdom. One cannot reasonably conclude that merely because they both use force they are of a kind any more than one could draw the same conclusion from the fact that they both wear clothes or both eat with a knife and fork.

What's more, your comparison seems to ignore completely the extremely acute difference in nature and purposes that there are between God and Herod Antipas. It appears you're making a serious error in comparison here.

Selah.