The Wedding Feast

It is worth noting that while the parable of the Wedding Feast is found in Matthew's Gospel chapter 22:1-14, a similar parable is found in Luke 14:15-24. It therefore appears that Christ told the same parable at least twice making variations to meet the particular needs of the audience he was addressing at the time. The repetition would also have helped to impress the parable on the minds of his disciples. Paul in writing to the Philippians says: "To write the same things to you, to me [is] not irksome, and for you safe" (chapter 3:1). (See also 2 Peter 1:12-15). We know in fact that Christ Himself did repeat things he had said, for he spoke of the fact that He would be killed and rise again at least three times to his disciples. See Mark 8:32; 9:31;10:33/34. It is also clear that Christ's disciples even after having been told repeatedly of his death and resurrection had not taken it in and had to be reminded of it after his resurrection (Luke 24:6-9 & 46/47).

As to the parable in Matthew it was clearly addressed to the Pharisees (see verses 45 & 46 of the previous chapter and verse 15 of the same chapter). The parable was spoken in public, apparently in the temple in the presence of crowds (chapter 21:23 & 46). The similar parable in Luke was spoken in a house (chapter 14:1 &15). The parable in Matthew was about a king making a wedding feast for his son (kingship is prominent in Matthew) but in Luke it is a certain man (humanity is prominent in Luke). There are also other differences between the two parables which can be looked into with profit, in particular, there is no comparable section to that in Matthew regarding the man without a wedding garment in Luke's parable.

It is not exactly the interpretation of the two parables that it is intended to go into here, but to draw attention to some points which help in the interpretation of them. In Matthew 22:3 The king "sent his bondmen to call the persons invited to the wedding feast, and they would not come." It is clear from the wording that the persons who the king sent his bondmen to call to the feast had previously been invited. It was not that the bondmen were sent out to invite them. The bondmen were sent out to bring the persons to the feast who had previously been invited. Apparently this was the practice in those days: (1) invite the guests and (2) go out and bring them to the feast when it was ready. One may say that the guests had had plenty of time to apologise for any inability to come to the feast before it had been prepared. They had not apparently done so, but cried off, we may say, at the last minute. In the interpretation the point is that the Jews were the ones invited (the prophets had foretold of Christ's coming), but when He came he was rejected by their rulers (Acts 13:27). The remainder of the first section is prophetic of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the bringing into blessing of the Gentiles.

If we turn to the parable in Luke the situation is similar. There is (1) the invitation (verse 16) and then the bondmen going out at the hour of supper to call to the supper the invited guests (verse 17). It was only then that the excuses started to be made, and note that they were excuses rather than genuine reasons. It was not that the persons were too ill to come, but rather that they were giving preference to their own things. Even in the last case, the one of marriage, it may well be asked why the man got married just when he knew he had an invitation to a supper. Was it not done to give himself, we may say, what he thought was a cast iron reason to get out of going to the supper ? The point of the parable is that the certain man represents God and it is him whose beneficence is being slighted in the refusal to come to his supper. Again, it is the religious leaders that were refusing to come to Christ so that God had to go out to the so-called lower classes (verse 21) to get persons to come to his feast; as Christ said elsewhere: "the tax-gatherers and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you." (Matthew 21:31). Then God had to go out beyond them to the Gentiles (verse 23).

If we turn back to the book of Esther we have a similar situation. Haman was invited to a banquet with the king and Esther (chapter 5:12) and then when on the following day the banquet was ready the king's chamberlains came to bring Haman to the banquet (chapter 6:14). This procedure was very likely common in the East in days gone by. They no doubt did not have