Questions about the Wedding Parable of Matthew 22

[Beck]

Questions:

Who is the King?
Who is the Son?
Who are the servants?
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation?
Who are the guests brought in from the street?
Who is the guest without a garment?
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned?

The first two questions are rather obvious - God the Father and Jesus. The rest of the answers don't seem so obvious ... especially the seventh.

And remember, this parable was told long before the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, so it seems anachronistic to suggest that any of the players in the story refer to them. None of the folks Christ was speaking to would have thought any of them were Gentiles.
__________________

Who are the servants? Those that are sent [Prophets and Apostles].
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation? chief priest and Pharisees
Who are the guests brought in from the street? a nation of people.
Who is the guest without a garment? a person of self righteousness [Pharisees]
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned? The point of the parable wasn't to introduce the bride, but those that are called.

I believe Jesus in many of his parables of the kingdom of Heaven speaks of these elements. As in the pervious parable of the Householder where there was and vineyard left to his husbandmen. At the end Jesus said that the kingdom shall be taken from you and given to a 'nation' that brings forth fruits of repentence. The cheif priest and Pharisees understood that Jesus was refering to them.

My question to you Richard would be...Would you see the 'nation of people' as Ephraim?

[heb13-13]

What about these verses:

Matt 22:5 "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 [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding.

It becomes a timeless statement for every generation when "armies" are the Powers of Darkness.

City is the congregation of the unrighteousness.

Guests without garments are thieves, robbers and murderers.

John 10:1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

John 10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

The thief comes to murder.
John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy (murderers): I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

The Garment is the robe of righteousness, part of the Garments of Salvation.

Isa 61:10 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.

The GARMENTS of SALVATION are JESUS CHRIST.


Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Kindly,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What about these verses:

Matt 22:5 "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 [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding.

It becomes a timeless statement for every generation when "armies" are the Powers of Darkness.

City is the congregation of the unrighteousness.

Guests without garments are thieves, robbers and murderers.

John 10:1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

John 10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

The thief comes to murder.
John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy (murderers): I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

The Garment is the robe of righteousness, part of the Garments of Salvation.

Isa 61:10 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.

The GARMENTS of SALVATION are JESUS CHRIST.


Rom 13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

Kindly,
Rick

Hey there Rick,

I understand your interpretation. It makes perfect sense from a Christian perspective. I understood things in much the same way when I was a Christian. If we receive the Bible as the Word of God then of course it only makes sense that he would have written it with many - indeed, an infinity of - of different layers of meaning. That's what made the book so fascinating. So mesmerizing. So addictive. So amazing. It became a treasury of divine wisdom to those with "eyes to see."

But such interpretations have little to do with the question of what the text actually states because each person can freely overlay whatever concepts they like upon the text and come up with anything - prophecies of alien invasion or whatever. So when debating the meaning of the text, we need to set aside our personal speculations long enough to ask "What does the text actually say, if anything?" And that's the real issue - if we are free to make the text say anything we want, then we must admit that it doesn't actually say anything at all. Case in point: Did Christ come in the flesh? Is that literal? Then why not his prediction about the coming destruction of the Temple? And if that was fulfilled in the first century, what right do we have to make up other "spiritual" and "timeless" interpretations? The mere fact that we can make them fit nicely with our doctrines does not mean that those interpretations were intended by God.

Great chatting, as usual.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Who are the servants? Those that are sent [Prophets and Apostles].
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation? chief priest and Pharisees
Who are the guests brought in from the street? a nation of people.
Who is the guest without a garment? a person of self righteousness [Pharisees]
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned? The point of the parable wasn't to introduce the bride, but those that are called.

I believe Jesus in many of his parables of the kingdom of Heaven speaks of these elements. As in the pervious parable of the Householder where there was and vineyard left to his husbandmen. At the end Jesus said that the kingdom shall be taken from you and given to a 'nation' that brings forth fruits of repentence. The cheif priest and Pharisees understood that Jesus was refering to them.

My question to you Richard would be...Would you see the 'nation of people' as Ephraim?

I think your answers are correct - except with regards to the Bride, since it seems the Bride must be identified as the Guests. This makes me think that we shouldn't try to push the allegory to far or it will break down.

As for "Ephraim" - we've gone over that before in another thread. The "nation of people" is the Church, the Body of Christ. Peter speaks of the Church as a "holy nation" and a "nation of priests."

[Charisma]

Questions:

Who is the King?
Who is the Son?
Who are the servants?
Who are the guests that rejected the invitation?
Who are the guests brought in from the street?
Who is the guest without a garment?
Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned?
The first two questions are rather obvious - God the Father and Jesus. The rest of the answers don't seem so obvious ... especially the seventh.

Hi Richard and all,

I have a few thoughts to add. I would like to preface them by saying that I've never made a study of different constructs (such as Preterism or Futurism, which seem to be mentioned frequently in BibleWheel Forum), so if my comments seem to fall into one of them, or another, I would like you to know that I haven't written them to promote either of the above, or those which may arise from time to time (such as Calvinism), to name but one other. My aim has been to try to get to know the Bible so that I can cross-reference the thought (God's thoughts are higher than ours.) and pictures used to convey thoughts, which are made understandable (to me at least) by the Holy Spirit. Until I had His help, I found the Book dry, boring, and incomprehensible. Really, I did!

1. The king is God the Father

2. The son is His Son Jesus Christ

3. The servants in the first instance are those who willingly serve Him. In the parable we see them following His instructions, consulting Him, obeying Him again and again until He is satisfied with the fruit of their labours

4. The guests that rejected the invitation are those of Israel who chose not to recognise the Messiah when He came

5. The guests brought in from the street are first of all those in Israel who were watching for the Messiah, who recognised that prophecy about Him was being fulfilled, or, recognised Him by His works, and not only followed for a blessing, but believed in Him. Since Acts 13:45 - 49, these have been joined by an increasing company of Gentiles who believe.

6. The guest without a garment is interesting. Obviously, he had a legitimate invitation, but instead of wearing the host's gift of new clothing which accompanied the invitation, he chose to wear his own clothes. Perhaps he thought they were better (fancier) than what the king had offered him.

Someone earlier said 'self' righteousness. That may be part of it, or, a coat of pride? (Maybe they are similar in someways!) This guest reminds me of a sermon Carter Conlon preached at Times Square Church, called 'Surviving the Family Reunion' - where certain young individuals decided to gate-crash an event somewhat like a wedding (in respect of those present). http://media.tscnyc.org/mp3/20090405S1.mp3

7. Isn't it fair to assume that if the king's son is being married, he is being married to - the bride? Yet, neither she nor the groom are present. They are preparing themselves at separate locations. When it's time for the bride to appear, the bridegroom will fetch her in - to the feast.

Joel 2:16 '... let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet.

Psalm 19:5 ' [the sun] [is] as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, [and] rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

Jeremiah 2:32 Can a maid forget her ornaments, [or] a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.

And remember, this parable was told long before the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, so it seems anachronistic to suggest that any of the players in the story refer to them. None of the folks Christ was speaking to would have thought any of them were Gentiles.

While this is true, and the court of the Gentiles was separated by a wall to keep them from where Jewish men and women could enter, any Gentile who was willing to go through the necessary rituals could become a Jew. Then, he, his wife and children, would be accepted just as if he had been born into an ethnically Jewish family. Phil Goble describes what they had to go through, within his chapter on baptism: http://www.afii.org/tevilah.pdf.

What about these verses:

Matt 22:5 "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 [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding.

Maybe. But Jerusalem seems far too alive and well today, for that to be the end of the story. Not only is the time of the Gentiles of which both Jesus, and later Paul (Romans 11), spoke, not yet 'fulfilled', but regarding things which even Jesus Himself could not share with them, we have these very important verses:

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto YOU. 16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

I have heard someone suggest this promise was only for the disciples, but that is difficult to justify to anyone who has received the Holy Spirit, who's ocusing his spiritual ears to hear from God.

Beck suggested:

Who are the guests brought in from the street? a nation of people.

If the word 'nation', relates to a common denominator in one's birth origin with that of others, and IF the other guests are a 'nation', they may be those who have been 'born from above' - both Jew and Gentile - whose hearts have been circumcised, as Paul said:

Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

5. The guests brought in from the street are first of all those in Israel who were watching for the Messiah, who recognised that prophecy about Him was being fulfilled, or, recognised Him by His works, and not only followed for a blessing, but believed in Him. Since Acts 13:45 - 49, these have been joined by an increasing company of Gentiles who believe.

And that brings up the point that I was thinking about when I began this thread. The inclusion of the Gentiles in the parable is anachronistic because the Gospel had not yet gone out to them at the time Christ spoke. I see a similar anachronism in the "Great Commission" at the end of Matthew:

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations [ethnos], baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The word "ethnos" is often translated as "gentiles" and though it does not necessarily mean "non-Jew" it usually does. So why would Jesus give this command before the revelation of Pentecost? How would his disciples have understood what he was saying? This makes me doubt that these words are an authentic record of what Jesus really said. It seems more likely that they were added much later, after the doctrine of the Gospel going to the Gentiles was fully developed.

7. Isn't it fair to assume that if the king's son is being married, he is being married to - the bride? Yet, neither she nor the groom are present. They are preparing themselves at separate locations. When it's time for the bride to appear, the bridegroom will fetch her in - to the feast.

Joel 2:16 '... let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet.

Psalm 19:5 ' [the sun] [is] as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, [and] rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

Jeremiah 2:32 Can a maid forget her ornaments, [or] a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.

But I still don't know the identity of the bride. Does not the Bible teach that the Bride is the Church (Believers) and do not the guests represent the believers? This seems to imply that the parable can only be taken "so far" before it breaks down.

And remember, this parable was told long before the Gospel went out to the Gentiles, so it seems anachronistic to suggest that any of the players in the story refer to them. None of the folks Christ was speaking to would have thought any of them were Gentiles.

While this is true, and the court of the Gentiles was separated by a wall to keep them from where Jewish men and women could enter, any Gentile who was willing to go through the necessary rituals could become a Jew. Then, he, his wife and children, would be accepted just as if he had been born into an ethnically Jewish family. Phil Goble describes what they had to go through, within his chapter on baptism: http://www.afii.org/tevilah.pdf.

Yes, Gentiles could convert and become Jews. But that has nothing to do with the idea of the Gospel going out to the Jews, so it still seems quite anachronistic to think that the "guests" represent the Church made up of Jews and Gentiles united in Christ. But this probably isn't a problem. We can just say that the "Guests" represent the "Church" which would later include both Jews and Gentiles.

What about these verses:

Matt 22:5 "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 [Romans led by Titus], destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city [Fulfilled in 70 AD].

Seems to fit pretty well with the Preterist understanding.

Maybe. But Jerusalem seems far too alive and well today, for that to be the end of the story.

Not only is the time of the Gentiles of which both Jesus, and later Paul (Romans 11), spoke, not yet 'fulfilled', but regarding things which even Jesus Himself could not share with them, we have these very important verses:

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew [it] unto YOU. 16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

I have heard someone suggest this promise was only for the disciples, but that is difficult to justify to anyone who has received the Holy Spirit, who's ocusing his spiritual ears to hear from God.

Unfortunately, "the times of the Gentiles" is not defined in the Bible, so it's anybody's guess what it really means, and as such, it does not form a firm foundation for any "end times" speculations.

The things that Jesus had yet to say through his spirit probably refers to the writing of the New Testament. If it refers to things that individuals think God has told them, as when they say "The Lord told me that ..." then it doesn't mean much of anything since those kinds of "words of knowledge" are very unreliable.

And as for Jerusalem being "alive and well" - I don't think we're talking about the same "Jerusalem." The Biblical "Jerusalem" died during the time of Jacob's Trouble in the first century. I don't have any reason to think that the modern secular state of Israel is any kind of "continuation" of the Biblical Jerusalem, especially if the prophecies relating to its destruction were fulfilled in the first century. That's the big problem with popular "end times" theology - they have to reinvent the first century. They need a re-vived Roman empire to re-desolate the re-built temple. They even invent the idea of a "second coming" of Elijah to precede the second coming of Messiah. Everything get's doubled ... but the funny thing is that the prophecies in the Bible are not doubled. It says nothing about any "re-built" Temple, but this is one of the most common things taught by "end times" teachers.

So where do you stand on all this "end times" stuff Charisma? Have you thought it through yet? Do you have a position?

Great chatting,

Richard

[heb13-13]

Hey there Rick,

I understand your interpretation. It makes perfect sense from a Christian perspective. I understood things in much the same way when I was a Christian. If we receive the Bible as the Word of God then of course it only makes sense that he would have written it with many - indeed, an infinity of - of different layers of meaning. That's what made the book so fascinating. So mesmerizing. So addictive. So amazing. It became a treasury of divine wisdom to those with "eyes to see."

But such interpretations have little to do with the question of what the text actually states because each person can freely overlay whatever concepts they like upon the text and come up with anything - prophecies of alien invasion or whatever. So when debating the meaning of the text, we need to set aside our personal speculations long enough to ask "What does the text actually say, if anything?" And that's the real issue - if we are free to make the text say anything we want, then we must admit that it doesn't actually say anything at all. Case in point: Did Christ come in the flesh? Is that literal? Then why not his prediction about the coming destruction of the Temple? And if that was fulfilled in the first century, what right do we have to make up other "spiritual" and "timeless" interpretations? The mere fact that we can make them fit nicely with our doctrines does not mean that those interpretations were intended by God.

Great chatting, as usual.

Richard

Hi Richard,

Fair enough, I see where you are coming from. This is a wonderful exercise so thanks for letting me give it another try.

Questions:

1. Who is the King? God the Father
2. Who is the Son? Jesus Christ
3. Who are the servants? Agree with Beck and Charisma. Prophets, Apostles, all who willingly follow and obey Him. I would include the Bridegroom, Jesus, Himself. Even though He was a Son, He was also a Servant. Jesus, who is speaking, has to be included in the list of "servants".

Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

4. Who are the guests that rejected the invitation? Agree with Charisma. Those of Israel that reject the Messiah.

5. Who are the guests brought in from the street? The street is the world, the nations.

Isa 55:5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.

6. Who is the guest without a garment? Those who think that their own works please God and do not have faith in Jesus Christ which then is accounted to them as true righteousness.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

7. Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned? The Bride is mentioned! Just like Jesus was included as one of the Servants, the Bride is all of the guest that have accepted the invitation and received proper garments. (robes of righteousness)

Paul, speaking to the Gentile church, that they are part of the Bride.
2Co 11:2For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

and...

Rev 21:9b ...Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

All the best,
Rick

P.S. I am always open to correction. It is one of the primary ways I learn.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Fair enough, I see where you are coming from. This is a wonderful exercise so thanks for letting me give it another try.

Questions:

1. Who is the King? God the Father
2. Who is the Son? Jesus Christ
3. Who are the servants? Agree with Beck and Charisma. Prophets, Apostles, all who willingly follow and obey Him. I would include the Bridegroom, Jesus, Himself. Even though He was a Son, He was also a Servant. Jesus, who is speaking, has to be included in the list of "servants".

Isa 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

4. Who are the guests that rejected the invitation? Agree with Charisma. Those of Israel that reject the Messiah.

5. Who are the guests brought in from the street? The street is the world, the nations.

Isa 55:5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.

6. Who is the guest without a garment? Those who think that their own works please God and do not have faith in Jesus Christ which then is accounted to them as true righteousness.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

7. Who is the bride, and why is she not mentioned? The Bride is mentioned! Just like Jesus was included as one of the Servants, the Bride is all of the guest that have accepted the invitation and received proper garments. (robes of righteousness)

Paul, speaking to the Gentile church, that they are part of the Bride.
2Co 11:2For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

and...

Rev 21:9b ...Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

Rev 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

All the best,
Rick

P.S. I am always open to correction. It is one of the primary ways I learn.

Your answers make good sense to me. The inclusion of the gentiles simply would not have registered with the first hearers, but would have made sense in hindsight.

And I agree that the bride must be the guests if we assume that this parable must cohere in every detail with the rest of the Bible. But I think that's probably forcing things beyond their intended meaning. The "bride" in this parable probably does not represent anything. If she does, then she represents that guests, but then we ruin the parable since it would be absurd to have a group of guests at the wedding also be the bride. Therefore, I conclude that there is no "bride" in this parable, and none was intended.

That's just my take on it - I too am open to correction on all things. Good to have another friend with the same attitude! It makes for very good conversation.

Richard

[heb13-13]

Your answers make good sense to me. The inclusion of the gentiles simply would not have registered with the first hearers, but would have made sense in hindsight.

And I agree that the bride must be the guests if we assume that this parable must cohere in every detail with the rest of the Bible. But I think that's probably forcing things beyond their intended meaning. The "bride" in this parable probably does not represent anything. If she does, then she represents that guests, but then we ruin the parable since it would be absurd to have a group of guests at the wedding also be the bride. Therefore, I conclude that there is no "bride" in this parable, and none was intended.

That's just my take on it - I too am open to correction on all things. Good to have another friend with the same attitude! It makes for very good conversation.

Richard

Yes, in that respect it does not make sense. Traditionally, we don't invite guests to our son's wedding and then expect our son to commit open and rampant polygamy in front of everyone, but then the Bible is far from anything traditional.

A wedding is mentioned which implies a bride, but yes the bride is not mentioned. No argument there. If we are talking about hearers present at that time and not the present day readers, then yes, they probably would not have put 2 and 2 together about the Old Testament prophecies of the Gentiles. And even if they would have thought about that, they would not have linked it up with a Bride, Bridegroom and a Wedding.

Very enjoyable, but you still perplex me on some other things (not to worry, we'll get to them).

I have found you to have a good sense of humor which is always a necessity in theological discussions. If we take ourselves too seriously, we are easily offended.

Cheers,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Very enjoyable, but you still perplex me on some other things (not to worry, we'll get to them).

I have found you to have a good sense of humor which is always a necessity in theological discussions. If we take ourselves too seriously, we are easily offended.

Cheers,
Rick

I'm really looking forward to discussing the things that "perplex" you.

And I'm glad you recognize my sense of humor. It can sometimes go "past" a person and by the time I finish explaining, the point has been lost.