In Matt. 21: 45, 46, the Evangelist informs us that the chief priests and Pharisees

recognized that these parables were directed to them. They looked for a way to arrest the

Lord, but dared not do so, because they feared the reaction of the people (45, 46) who

regarded Him as a prophet. In spite of this, Christ continue to speak to them in parables

(22: 1) and gives them the story of the marriage of the King's Son (22: 1-4). A king

had prepared a wedding banquet for his son and sent his servants out to those who had

invited, telling them to come, but they refused. In spite of this, the king graciously sends

out more servants and renews the invitation to these people. But they were rude and

rebellious and again rejected the royal invitation to the wedding. Not only this, but they

seized the king's servants, ill-treated and killed them.

This enraged the king, who sent his army, destroyed the murderers, and burnt up their

city (22: 7).

Up to this point the interpretation is clear. The two invitations correspond to (1) the

ministries of John the Baptist and Christ, who announced the imminence of the kingdom,

and (2) the ministry of the twelve and Paul to the same people in the period covered by

the Acts of the Apostles. The destruction of the city was fulfilled in the destruction and

burning of Jerusalem in 70A.D. Between the two invitations comes Calvary and we

notice the sacrificial element in the story in verse 4, "the fatlings and the cattle have been

killed and everything is ready (for the wedding banquet)".

But the king is still determined to invite others to the marriage feast, so his servants

are sent out into the streets to gather others into the dining hall.

Where is this to be placed in the interpretation? At least it must be future to 70A.D.,

which brings us to this present age which has already lasted nearly 2,000 years. The

people who are gathered in are from the streets of the city (Jerusalem) and therefore must

be primarily Israelites as the first group were.

When the revelation of the N.T. does not give minute details, it is unwise to

dogmatize, and in any case it is a mistake to try to find doctrinal significance in every

small detail of a parable. Many fanciful ideas arise when this is done. Parables have a

main point to emphasize. In the verses that follow we find the king enters to meet the

guests, but immediately notices a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes.

The story does not tell us whether the king supplied these to the guests, or whether

they were expected to provide and use them. The king confronts the person who was

evidently an intruder. He was speechless and the king orders him to be bound and cast

outside into the darkness, and the story ends "for many are invited, but few are elected"

(22: 14).

We now have to ask ourselves what the wedding garment represents? Obviously it

must be something of great importance, for without it, it was impossible to partake of the

royal wedding feast. There have been many guesses by expositors, but we must have

solid Scriptural basis for our view of the meaning. Surely the last verse of the parable