One of my favorite comedians, Ron White, has a wonderful punchline to a story in which he was arrested for being drunk in public. It was all the fault of the bar’s doormen who ejected him from the bar. “I was drunk in private,” he bemoans, “they threw me into public!” The man without a wedding robe in Jesus’ parable can relate! For, this is one of the most confounding texts in the New Testament:
But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing a
wedding robe, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’
And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and
throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For
many are called, but few are chosen (Matthew 22:11-14).
What makes an interpretation of this passage difficult is its context. Thus far, Jesus’ parable has been straight-forward. Yet again, Jesus critiques the chief priests and Pharisees. (Previously, they were the ‘target’ of his parables of the Laborer’s Wages, the Two Sons, and the Vineyard.) Now they are the ‘bad guys’ in a parable about the wedding banquet of a king (God), given in honor of his son, the bridegroom (Jesus), wherein those invited (called) and expected to attend (the chief priests and Pharisees) did not show up (act faithfully). When the king sent his slaves (the Prophets) to find the missing guests, they were mistreated and killed by the very ones whom the king had invited. In retribution, their city was then destroyed (as Jerusalem would be in 70AD, at the hands of the Romans). Those who appeared to be most worthy (outwardly) were found to be unworthy (unfaithful). So, the slaves (now disciples) are sent to the edges of the city (diexodos is not really a main street, but the point at which the main road meets the city boundary) to find those who are unworthy (outwardly) and unlikely ever to be invited to such a banquet. (In Luke’s version, a list is provided: the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame – Luke 14:21.)
Thus far, it all makes sense. But what then of the one man who is subsequently ‘caught’ inappropriately dressed? At first glance, this makes no sense. Was he leftover from the previous invitation? Did he slip in unnoticed? What is the appropriate “wedding robe”? The clue may well lie in the parable’s objective, which is not only to critique the chief priests and Pharisees, but to describe the kingdom of heaven (vs. 2). What Jesus seems to be warning is not just that “…many are called, but few are chosen” (vs. 14), but apparently, as one scholar puts it, “Admission to the kingdom is not enough to guarantee staying in it.” However, this is not some arbitrary, capricious act on God’s part, for the invitation described in verses 1-13, is in verse 14 referred to as “called.” We know that not everyone who is called by God accepts the call. And experience tells us that even those who say ‘yes’ to a call (think of the second son in the previous parable, Matthew 21: 28-31) do not necessarily follow through on their ‘yes’, or are perhaps ill-prepared for the discipleship for which they signed up. Thus, as another scholar points out: “It is not enough to just show up, but to be prepared to enter as a full participant.” Discipleship, and full participation in the kingdom of heaven, are thus the “wedding robes”.
