Story Time pt6
The people originally invited to the banquet clearly represent Israel. Their reaction to the king’s invitation proves shocking on both the natural and spiritual levels of the story. “They refused” is, more literally, they were not willing. The sending of the servants corresponds to the standard Oriental practice of issuing an invitation to an event without specifying the exact time until a later date
The king at first exercises more patience than one would expect of him. He sends his servants yet again to summon those originally invited. He explains how sumptuous the feast will be. He has had all the best food prepared, and now everything is ready
They compound their culpability by adding apathy to rejection. “They paid no attention” is, more literally, they didn’t care. The ordinary activities of life, both rural and urban, and especially business and money matters, take priority over loyalty to their king. “The rest” do not simply ignore the servants; they prove actively resistant and hostile (v. 6). Their response is just conceivable at the literal level of the story as treason and revolution. But Jesus’ point obviously concerns the spiritual level. God’s emissaries, as in the parable of the wicked tenants, are mistreated and even killed
The king’s wrath leads to vengeance. The murderers themselves are killed and their city burned. Verse 7 is often viewed as an after-the-fact prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. But the imagery actually parallels stereotypic Old Testament and intertestamental descriptions of destruction in war (cf. Judg 1:8; Isa 5:24–25; 1 Macc 5:28; T. Jud. 5:1–5) and is not as detailed or accurate (the temple, not the entire city, was burned) as one would expect if these words had been penned after the actual fall of Jerusalem. Still, the Roman invasion of Jerusalem may be seen as a partial fulfillment of the principles enunciated here, even if Jesus had Judgment Day more prominently in mind.
Interestingly, Jesus declares that the originally invited guests are unworthy (“did not deserve”), tying in with Matthew’s favorite theme of worthiness (cf. 3:8; 10:10–11, 13, 37–38). One might imagine that the second group of invited guests is equally if not even more unworthy. But the worthiness or unworthiness in view here has to do with one’s response to the proclamation of the gospel. These last approached do respond properly, and the kingdom now issues forth in a plentiful community.
nothing in the passage says that this man has not been given time to find proper dress or that he was unable to locate any. Moreover, it is quite possible that the imagery here reflects the custom of a king providing festive dress for those he invites to a banquet. So the king is understandably amazed and he rebukes this man with the distancing form of address, hetaire (“friend”), asking him why he has behaved as he has
Unbelievers today need to know the biblical claim that they face eternal judgment, despite Christians’ hesitancy in preaching this message. Professing Christians need to know that they are not exempt from the same danger whenever they replace the true gospel with some substitute of their own designs, for there is no other gospel