I’ve always struggled with the end of Matthew 22:1-14: the Parable of the Marriage Feast. I think it’s great that when the master’s acquaintances dishonor him by refusing the invitation to the feast, the master invites anyone else who might be willing to attend so that the wedding hall could be filled with guests. To me, that’s very much a view of unlimited atonement. However, at the end of the parable, the master throws some guy out for not having on the proper wedding garment - something I had always been taught that each guest personally brings with them. I’ve heard some preachers imply that the garment represents faith or good works or divine election, depending which one of those “vices” appeals most to your theological leanings. But I came across something a while back that changed how I read the last part of this parable.
This ”wedding garment” (sometimes called a Kuftan) is an outer robe that was worn at formal functions. Everyone wore this garment, whether they owned one or not. It was a symbol of equality: once everyone had theirs on, status and prestige disappeared and all respect was paid to the bridegroom alone. But the most important thing about this wedding garment was that it was provided by the host family to everyone who attended. Wealthy families (the kind that would’ve staged this feast) had a closet of them solely for the purpose of giving them out to their guests.
Now, that should change things for you. The master in the story sees a man in the main room (not in the foyer where the garments were given out) without his wedding garment on. He says, “Friend, how did you come in here (the main hall) without your wedding garment (Kuftan)?” In other words, you were offered a Kuftan when you entered…and the only reason you wouldn’t have it on now is if you purposefully chose to reject it. And that obstinate behavior is what caused the master to throw the guest out of the party.
You see, according to the context of first century Judaism, everyone would have received a wedding garment. There was no need to earn it, nor was it given to only a select or arbitrary few. Anyone and everyone received the garment regardless of socio-economic background or cultural status. And once everyone was together wearing their robes, egalitarianism reigned in the house of the master. And that’s exactly what Jesus was trying to say. Everyone gets a robe…unless they refuse to wear it. And even then, the master in this story offered the guest a second chance to reconsider before he threw him out – but the guest did not respond.
God’s not looking to throw anyone out of the party. In fact, you really have to want to get thrown out. And in this way, the marriage feast parable is fairly explicit in teaching unlimited atonement. To read beyond or dismiss this contextual clue is irresponsible. Personally, I’m thankful it’s in there. I’ve been stubborn enough at times to resist the wedding garment only to be drawn back to the king when he entreats me to return to the Kuftan closet and put it on. In this parable, the wedding garment is not a sign of judgment. It’s availability to all guests is a sign of God’s mercy and grace to anyone and everyone who wants to attend the feast.
Sam, do you have a source for this cultural tid-bit?
Hi Mike –
I pulled the info from Wilbur Rice’s Orientalisms in Bible Lands, an older work (1910) that you can still find fairly easily through Univ. of Michigan’s library preservation program. I think I originally found the work through a passing reference in some of Kenneth Bailey’s writings. Kuftan is more often translated Kaftan or Caftan in modern contexts, though its use has changed over the centuries. Usually of cheap material and any bright color the father of the bridegroom may desire, they were “throw-over” garments, usually for the poorer guests. Fancier versions were worn by Sultans and the like, but this version is the one Jesus references in the parable. Rice also mentions less gracious hosts taking the life of those who would insult him by attending the party without a Kuftan – once again, showing the benevolence of the master in this parable and by way of analogy, God.
it’s a good interesting piece of cultural tid-bit too!
And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son, And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage. But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise: And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them. But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless. Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
For many are called, but few are chosen.
It is this last verse that has me thinking limited atonement. (I also don’t see any second chance for the man who does not wear the righteousness of Christ, nor do I see where anyone has a particular choice about coming to the wedding: I think they were bid to come.)
Hello all –
Rarely do I comment on my comments, but Mike above asked me for a reference. I want everyone to know that I don’t mind in the least citing a specific reference for you. All you have to do is ask. Why don’t I generally do that? Normally it’s because I have the info in my brain but can’t always immediately put my finger on where I read it. I don’t mind looking it up – however, I’m not going to go out of my way to do that unless asked. It would take too much time. Of course, there’s a danger in that – I might misquote or forget who said what. All of that happens on occasion but I’ll try to keep things well-referenced when you ask. If I can’t remember, I’ll just say so.
Thanks to everyone who keeps up with this blog – your comments and questions are always welcome. I realize I am not getting to comments as quickly as I used to, much less posting as much as I hope in a regular basis. Please forgive the slowness of my posts – hopefully they’ll get better in time.
Sam
Joe, did you actually read the post? The guests were invited, not forcefully dragged there. And the unfortunate one who lacked a wedding garment wasn’t denied access to a garment (but rather refused one which was offered) and was given a chance to respond but failed to. If you read the last verse completely devoid of context you can get limited atonement; otherwise, not so much.
Yep, I did read. I was very interested in your comments. Your analysis of this parable raises a question about limited atonement for sure. I am not being hostile by commenting. Of course there are many other Scriptures that also need to be taken into account, especially because of what Jesus said about His parables.
Matthew 13:10-13 “And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.”
Joe
I also have trouble with the injected idea of the man without proper atire refusing to take a proper garment from the loyal servants who were charged to give every guest a proper garment. I think the man came in through another entrance, which was not the proper entrance.
I also still do not see where this man was offered any second cahnce to retrieve a garment.
In light of Jesus statement in Matthew 13 concerning parables:
Mat 13:10-13 “And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.”
Joe
Hi Joe –
Thanks for your questions – that’s what the blog is for: to flesh out theological concepts that have a bearing on our understanding of God.
I don’t get how you’re finding atonement in Matthew 13. Much of it is about eschatological fulfillment and indirectly it demonstrates the special place (authority) and understanding of the apostles in the post-ascension church.
But the parable of Matthew 13 shows four responses to the kingdom message, not a bifurcation of elect and reprobate. As Sam said, spiritual decisions have consequences. Some never receive the message. Some receive the message and later fall away. Some receive the message and produce fruit. This passage isn’t particularly about atonement, and in my opinion it is an error to read atonement into passages where it really isn’t under discussion.
Sam,
Thank you for the kind and patient response. I still do not see from the parable any way you can inject either the idea of the man without the proper attire rejecting that garment from the servants at the proper door. I can see that he absolutely rejected the garment in that he entered the wedding without it, somewhat as did Cain bring an improper, bloodless sacrifice, expecting God to observe with satisfaction the fruits of his own work. More clearly, Cain offers his own righteousness, as does this man in his own garment.
I still also do not see any inclination of a second chance offered this offender.
I am reminded, however, of what Jesus is recorded as expressing in John 10:1-2,7 “Verily, 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. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.” “Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.” I expect that the door to the wedding feast is representative of the door to the Kingdom. That door is Jesus Christ. The proper attire is the robe of His righteousness. If one rejects this robe and presents himself in his own righteousness (filthy rags), he will find himself removed at the last day. In this, I do agree that there is an eschatological overtone.
As for Matthew 13, I believe the other guest blogger (I cannot allow my mouse to touch his signature since doing so closes my explorer connection) mentions, the first parable is really about the sower of the seed. Observe how he sows. This is only responsible sowing if the sower does not intend in the end for all seeds to grow and produce fruit. The seed cannot plow the soil it lands in. Interesting that we usually concern ourselves with the seeds. I agree that these are four reactions to the gospel, and the gospel preached does not come back void. Since the Lord tells His disciples clearly that the seeds are the Words of God, His intent is to “sow” those Words, through preaching, into the whole world and aim them to every heart of every man. However, the plowman has not been to every heart, and only the hearts which have been properly plowed are going to contain the seed. Usually, the same farmer who sows seed, plows the field into which he intends to plant the seeds. Like this sower, we are told to preach the Gospel to everyone. The Holy Spirit prepares the soil and provides the seeds through us. I guess we are similar to the mechanical spreaders.
As for the question of eschatology, I agree that it is not present in this parable.
Thank you again for your attention, and for allowing me to comment. Although I disagree with the premise of synergistic salvation (for I am more in line with George Whitfield’s Methodist theology) as presented in your article, I am still intrigued by the natural understanding that the latter guest bid to come do seem to be given a choice. However, if one considers the original guests to be natural Israel, and the Lord clearly states that He blinds them * (yes – because of their obstinacy; but who among us, being already condemned and standing helpless** before the Great Judge, without any means or strength to do anything but await the lawful pronunciation of death deserved by our sinful acts, is not obstinate until God – the same judge – gives us with faith to believe and repentance for the forgiveness of sins – and thus gives us mercy as a reward for Christ Jesus’ work on the cross.
*John 12:37-40 “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.”
Reference Sriptures:
(Ephesians 2:8 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”)
(2 Timothy 2:25 “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;”)
(Acts 5:31 “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.”)
(Acts 11:18 “When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”)
** see Whitfield’s sermon “The Seed of the Woman, and the Seed of the Serpent.”
Again, thank you. I apologize for the length of this comment.
Joe
Hi Joe –
Great reply. You know, your comment about John is really interesting – I’ve never thought of it in light of this parable before. If so, the “door” and the garment could hold similar significance. You could also look at the latter guests as a sort of dispensation, if you assume that the first guests we “Israel” proper and the second guests included future dispensations. However, I’m not sure that there is any more evidence in that interpretation than one for unlimited atonement.
Sam
Sam,
My apology. In my former comment I left a sentence unfinished. Here is the complete sentence:
However, if one considers the original guests to be natural Israel, and the Lord clearly states that He blinds them * (yes – because of their obstinacy; but who among us, being already condemned and standing helpless** before the Great Judge, without any means or strength to do anything but await the lawful pronunciation of death deserved by our sinful acts, is not obstinate until God – the same judge – gives us with faith to believe and repentance for the forgiveness of sins – and thus gives us mercy as a reward for Christ Jesus’ work on the cross), then who among these guests did actually choose to come not having been made willing to come. (Philippians 2:13 “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”
Again, thank you.
Joe
momojin (?),
I assumed your last comment was directed toward my earlier comment, but I cannot comprehend where you found any discussion about atonement or election or reprobation in the section of Matthew 13 I quoted. My simple point was what Jesus said about His use of parables instead of straight talk.
Joe
I assumed that since the topic was limited atonement that the passage you cited was related. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
momojin,
Thank you. Actually it is I who should apologize to you. Atonement is the subject, and it was actually included in my response of which you commented, although I did not recognize this fact. I just did not originally intend this with my quote from Matthew 13.
Sam,
You wrote:
“Parables can be symbolic – that’s true – but parables are also given in narrated form so that they are easy to understand.”
This is also what I was taught as a child in Sunday School by a well meaning teacher. However, this is exactly opposite of what Jesus, our Lord, says about His parables. This is the impact of the Matthew 13:10-13 quotation I earlier submitted. The disciples asked, “Why speakest thou unto them in parables?” Jesus said, “Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” He also said, “Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” Does this not directly speak of God’s Sovereignty over who may hear the Gospel and who may not? So I think this may also be included under the topic of limited or unlimited atonement.
Joe
Sam,
I also see no dispensational separtism in the people of God. I see the first invited guests as natural Israel, those related to them that were led out of Egypt by Moses, they that had the mercy of God upon them all as a nation that was under the covenant of law and allowed to have the Gospel freely preached while Satan was allowed by God to deceive all the rest of the nations. When Christ came, He gave Satan a new boundary in that he was allowed no more to deceive the nations of the whole world such that forevermore, the Gospel may be preached to all nations. The first guests, as a nation, did not know christ and refuse to this day to come to the wedding. With the coming of Christ and His bringing the second covenant which now includes all nations and the whole world, men (and women, as well as Kings and paupers, slaves and free, Jews and Gentiles) are call and chosen to come to the wedding. They all must come through the same door – Jesus – and they all must be granted His righteousness – His robes for us to be allowed to stay. We must be willing to come when we are invited. However, being the sin-natured beings we have become through the fall of Adam, being absolutely dead in sins and trespasses against God, not being righteous not ever seeking Him, we would, by our own life experiences, forever avoid God and Christ unless a miracle happens. And God is the ONLY author of miracles. By His Holy Spirit He gives us faith and repentance and accepts us by the sacrificial death of Christ. Christ, being resurrected, promises us and does give us eternal life and the hope of the resurrection. Thus I do not see the possibility of free choice to accept the invitation except by a resurrection unto the life of Jesus Christ by the spiritual rebirth spoken of by Jesus in John 3. So the second group of guests invited are the present day believers along with all the believers of all ages. I only see two groups of people – b elievers and unbelievers. Christ reigns in heaven now on earth, and we are citizens of that Kingdom of Heaven if we are in Christ. the rejectors are outside of the Kingdom and are in the realm of control of Satan.
Joe