Traditional Context
We continue in the temple with Jesus speaking to the chief priests (and the Pharisees who entered at the second parable). All the while, the crowd is listening in. Tensions are high and Jesus keeps adding to it as he tells his third parable in this trilogy that we’ve heard the last two weeks.
This third parable has been looked at as two parables that build on each other by some scholars. The parable of the wedding feast has parallels in Luke 14:15-24 and the Gospel of Thomas 64. However, the parable of the man without the garment is unique to Matthew and some suggest that it seems to drive at a different point altogether.
Traditionally, the parable of the wedding feast is a pretty easy connection with the kingdom of heaven. And just as last week, there have been heavy antisemitic interpretations over many generations. Essentially that interpretation is that God is uninviting all of Israel because they rejected God’s invitation (even after multiple messengers/prophets). So, just like last week, we need to avoid that pitfall. Again, Jesus is not speaking to all of Israel but only to the religious leadership who Jesus has lambasted for faltering in their authority (particularly regarding their doing nothing about John the Baptist’s death).
I don’t want to regurgitate the many commentaries that are out there that summarize the wedding feast pattern and the allegorical imagery that illustrates what’s above. R. Alan Culpepper summarizes and refutes it well in his commentary.[1] And Ulrich Luz’s commentary is often regarded as the best.[2]
Addressing a couple points though. In Luke’s version of the wedding feast, there is a clearer indication that it is representing the rich and the poor (particularly with the addition of v. 21 and expressly inviting the poor, maimed, blind, and lame). However, that is a harder argument to make in Matthew’s version as there is no reference to riches, only that everyone is invited, ‘good and bad’. I think, while nuanced, a better interpretation for Matthew (in this traditional lens) would be the “elite.” It is the “elite” who are invited but reject the invitation. This then encompasses all the religious authorities that Jesus is addressing in the temple but also those within the world power in the secular environment as well. This plays relatively well regarding the fact that the crowds are standing around the chief priests in this moment. Verse 9 says that the slaves should go out and invite “everyone,” the “good and the bad.” This means the whole masses; the whole crowd is invited. This could represent the duality of the crowd that we hear from Palm Sunday to Good Friday. It could also represent Jesus’ statement in 9:13, “For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.”
Then traditionally, the second portion of the parable plays into that theme. The fact that all are invited, means that not all will be worthy. To be worthy, you must be clothed in the Christ’s righteousness. It was an image of the early church to wear the robe of Christ. To be made righteous by Christ. In some ways it’s very Lutheran, our righteousness can only come from the righteousness of Christ. And so, this man who comes in without a robe, is deemed unworthy and cast out because he has not accepted and worn the robe of Christ.
If you go this route in preaching, you are backed by generations of commentary. In some ways, this is one of the most traditional parables.
However, there are aspects of it that strike me as odd and there are a number of other commentaries that suggest other possibilities.
A Different Approach
Back in 2020, Debie Thomas in her commentary Journey with Jesus, posited the question, “What would change for you if Jesus was the unrobed guest and not the furious king in this story?” (if you haven’t read it, you definitely should).[3]
The first issue that Debie Thomas raises is this question of a violent king. While many commentators explain this as allegorical of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70CE, it seems to be a little out of nowhere for Matthew. If you remember my commentary last week, Matthew seems to have a harsh critique of those in authority who abuse their power and use violence. “Less obvious than other gospels, Matthew is very concerned about abuses of power by those in authority. We see it in Herod’s use of the Wise Men to find Jesus and then we see it again in the slaughter of the Holy Innocents. It is exemplified further in Herod’s beheading of John the Baptist at a banquet of rich guests (only to then be immediately followed by Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000). It will be further exemplified throughout the passion narrative.”
Additionally, Jesus never resorts to violent action within the Gospel of Matthew. Even in Jesus’ overturning of the temple he does not fashion a cord for whipping in Matthew. He only turns over tables and drives the moneychangers out.
Or another evidential scene is when Jesus is arrested one of the disciples draws a sword:
“26:51 Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56 But all this has taken place, so that the scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.”
While tradition has told us that God will take this more violent approach on the Day of Judgment, Jesus always seems to choose a different way in Matthew.
So, what if God and Jesus aren’t the King? What if this King represents Herod or Caesar? Afterall, those are the more likely candidates of enacting violence when they don’t get their way.
Now, Debie Thomas’ main question was, ‘What if the unrobed man was Jesus?’ And last week’s parable introduced the possibility of Jesus not always being the Lord or hero figure in a parable.
There are a lot of interesting connections to Jesus that we’ll talk about, but that question can also be explored to think about another prophetic character.
One of the most interesting points of the parable is the silence of the unrobed man. The king asks, “‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding robe?’ And he was speechless.” Culpepper writes, “The man is “speechless” (ephimōthē; lit., “silenced”: Matthew 22:34; Mark 1:25; 4:39; Luke 4:35), a strong word, often used for muzzling animals (1 Cor 9:9; 1 Tim 5:18).”
While Culpepper points to this being often used for the muzzling of animals, it is only “to silence” a person, a storm, or a demon in any of the Gospels. If we think about the conversation that was just taking place in the chief priests’ questioning of Jesus’ authority, was John the Baptist not silenced by Herod? A man who us not wearing what ought to be worn. Shouting for repentance. He is even killed because of a banquet. There could be a little bit of a call back to this man who was just killed by “King” Herod.
But back to Jesus as a possibility. Twice (three times in reference) during the trial in the Passion story in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus stays silent when being questioned.
Matt 26:62-63a, “62The high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?” 63But Jesus was silent.”
Matt 27:11-14, “11Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus said, “You say so.” 12But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he did not answer. 13Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?” 14But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.”
Now Greek experts are going to call foul here. None of these ‘silents’ or ‘giving no answers’ are the same Greek word. So, standing up against the test of a Word Study is not going to hold much value. However, from a narrative approach, Matthew’s going to this imagery three times is potentially significant. The unrobed man is confronted by a king and asked an impossible question but given no chance to reply (the question is impossible because how is he to know how he got in unless he is a thief or a bandit). When Jesus is confronted by two figures in authority, he remains silent because he is asked impossible questions, ‘What is it that they testify against you?’; ‘Are you the King of the Jews’; ‘Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?’ Any answer given to these questions would implicate him or force him to address every accusation. But beyond that, his silence is an infuriating response to an authority figure that believes they are entitled to every answer.
Additionally, when he is first arrested, Jesus asks if they brought weapons because they think he is a bandit. Jesus will then be stripped of his clothes and robed in scarlet. He will then be taken to Golgotha, a hill outside the city limits where he is crucified and nailed to the cross. ‘Bound hand and foot.’ ‘Take him to the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
Just as the previous parable seemed to parallel the Jesus story (the son being killed), this has some strong similar parallels to the Passion story.
The final connection comes from arguably the most important parable of Matthew, the parable of the king (with the sheep and the goats) in Matthew 25:31-46. ‘When was it that we saw you hungry, naked, imprisoned?’ ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’
Now, there are all the reasons in the world why this doesn’t match Matthew’s intention. This is supposed to be an illustration of the kingdom of heaven (unlike the previous two parables); the Greek doesn’t match perfectly; the tradition of the early church celebrated the wedding feast and the bridegroom as central images; Matthew only seems to use “Friend” for those who are falling short.
However, nothing in Matthew suggests that someone would be cast away from God’s favor because they are not in a rich robe. None of Jesus’ actions suggest that God will choose violence. From everything that I’ve posted from last December until now, I believe Matthew’s Gospel contradicts and argues against that form of power/authority at every turn.
I think there is enough here that we should give pause while interpreting this parable.
Preaching Possibilities
We don’t have to be who we are not.
So, if Jesus is the one that is thrown out, the one without the wedding robe, then the story gets flipped on its head.
Putting it into perspective, think about if you are a wedding guest that was invited off the streets after everything you had just witnessed this king do. The killing of the first guests who refused to attend, the King destroying his own city. And now the king is walking around the party surveying everyone who enters. Every person at this wedding banquet would probably be on edge. Afraid to be themselves. Afraid to step out of line. Afraid to be anything other than perfect. What else might this king do if he is not satisfied?
But in walks this one man. He’s not wearing a wedding robe but walks into the space with everyone else who came in off the street. Just being himself in a situation that asks him to be something that he’s not.
Maybe this is our good news today.
How many of us feel out of place from the expectations of the world?
How many of us feel the pressures of the world, the expectations of society or of work, and attempt to meet those expectations to achieve perfection by being someone, some person that we are not?
How many of us have experienced real fear because we weren’t sure how to mask our flaws in front of someone else?
Every person at this party, who is being called off the street, who would never have been invited to a royal wedding, is being asked to be someone that they’re not. Is being asked to be perfect, to be presentable, to be flawless, to look just like everyone else in the room, down to wearing the same kind of clothes, when that is nowhere near who they are individually.
Beloved, the Kingdom of God would never ask us to be someone that we’re not for the purpose of perfection or uniformity. The Kingdom of God would never want us all to act identically with everyone else.
The kingdom of God is found in our outcast in this parable. The one who did not conform to the oppressive power, but instead was fully himself. In his own clothes. This is Jesus.
Jesus is invited in from the streets with everyone else. Jesus attends the banquet along with these other impromptu guests. But he is displaying that we can and should always be ourselves, who we were created to be, and never to be anything different.
And Jesus is thrown out. Jesus is cast out for not fitting in. For not meeting expectations. For not conforming.
But, good news, even in the outer darkness we will find Jesus there.
Even on the cross, we will find Jesus there.
We are not called to be perfect. Despite the pressures of this world, internal and external that expect us to be superhuman. That expect us to hide our flaws. That expect us to conform to others’ ideas of perfection.
But we are not called to be perfect. We are not called to be someone that we’re not. We are not called to be uniform with all the rest of our church, our community, our nation, or our world.
We are called to be exactly who we are. Beloved children of God made in the image of God. Fearfully and wonderfully made. Unique, amazing, beautiful, and extravagant in our own ways. We don’t need to hide the flaws that make us human. We too can walk into the banquet, just as we are. In our own skin, in our own clothes, being our true self.
Because that is what Jesus did. Our Emmanuel, God with us, who came to us as one of us. Unique, beautiful, flawed. Embracing his identity and calling for us to embrace our own.
[1] R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew, 414-420.
[2] Ulrich Luz, Matthew vol. 3, 45-60.
[3] Debie Thomas, https://www.journeywithjesus.net/essays/2777-the-god-who-isn-t
Micah Krey 
Leave a comment