The Wedding Garment
The Wedding Garment
"'Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?"' (Matt. 22:12)
The incident of the man who had no wedding garment is attached in Matthew's Gospel to the parable of the wedding feast (Matt. 22:1-10). The parable of the wedding feast has a parallel in the parable of the great banquet in Luke 14:16-24. There are differences of detail between the two parables, but the main outline of the story is the same: the host (a king, in Matthew's version) invites many guests, but on the day of the feast they excuse themselves for various reasons. But all the preparations have been made: the food (and plenty of it) is waiting to be eaten. The host therefore sends his servants out into the streets and lanes to round up those whom they find there and bring them to the banqueting hall. All the empty places are filled, and filled by people who are only too glad to be set down face to face with a square meal. They do full justice to what has been provided, even if those who were originally invited are not interested.
This is readily understood as a parable of Jesus's proclamation of the kingdom of God. The religious people, those who attended synagogue regularly, were not really interested in what he had to say and despised the good news which he brought. But the outcasts of society recognised his message as just what they had been waiting for. The blessings of the gospel, the Father's loving forgiveness, exactly suited their need and they eagerly seized what Jesus had to give.
But the wedding garment presents a problem. How could people who had been swept in from the streets be expected to have suitable clothes for a festive occasion? One man was asked how he got in without a wedding garment, but they might all have been expected to be similarly unprovided with suitable attire. It would have been more surprising if one of them had come in actually wearing a wedding garment. It may be suggested that the royal host thoughtfully provided them with suitable clothes, but this is not said in the parable, and the implication is that the man who was improperly dressed could have come properly clad. When taxed with his failure he had no excuse: he was `speechless'.
It is most probable that this was originally a separate parable. If the host was a king, he would expect those whom he invited to a banquet to honour him by coming appropriately dressed: failure in this respect would be a studied insult to him. The culprit in this case might count himself fortunate if nothing worse befell him than to be trussed up and thrown out into the darkness, to grind his teeth in annoyance with himself for having been so foolish. The requirement of a wedding garment, unsuitable for people peremptorily conscripted from the streets to come and enjoy a free supper, was eminently suitable for the guests whom a king or magnate would normally invite to dine with him. What then is the point of the garment in the parable, if it was originally a parable on its own? Clothes are not infrequently used in the Bible as a symbol of personal character, and it is possibly implied that some might think themselves entitled to be counted among the `children of the kingdom' or the followers of Jesus whose character was out of keeping with such a profession. If so, then the parable of the wedding garment would be a warning against false discipleship: it is not saying `Lord, lord' that admits one to the kingdom, but doing the heavenly Father's will (Matt. 7:21).