Righteous Garments, Matthew 22:1-14

This chapter is in the middle of the last week of the Lord's life upon the earth prior to the crucifixion. This began in chapter twenty-one at the beginning, describing what we traditionally call Palm Sunday.

What has happened in the context is important for us to understand. The point that we are going to see in the parable in Matthew 22:1-14 is the importance of having the right kind of garments in order to enter into heaven and have eternal life. Matthew 21 describes what happens after Jesus enters into Jerusalem. On the second day we are told that He is going to Jerusalem and on the way He sees a fig tree by the side of the road. He goes there expecting to find figs and there is no fruit on the tree, so He curses it. He is making a point through visual imagery. There is no fruit; therefore there will be judgment.

The fig tree is a symbol of Israel and there is no fruit from Israel. They have rejected God and substituted a legalistic idolatry, and idolatry of the Torah; and not just Torah but the traditions of men that grew up around the interpretation of the Torah.

But what we see here is an emphasis on the fundamental truth of salvation: that if we are going to go to heaven we have to have the right clothes on, the righteous garments.

What has happened on this particular day is that Jesus came into the temple after cursing the fig tree and there was a confrontation with two groups, the chief priests and the elders. Later we will learn that the Pharisees were also there. Their question in 21:23 is: “By what authority are you doing these things?” They are challenging His authority.

We saw that what He did in a very sophisticated manner was avoid an answer. But then He does answer them in a subtle way through this collection of three parables. Each of these parables is going to describe something about authority.

1. Each develops a more subtle answer to the question of Jesus' authority. We have to think of them as a collection that must be interpreted together. The reason for saying that is because when we get to this third parable are was a group of theologians in the 1800s whose theology in a broad sense was somewhat accurate but they went to the Matthew 22:1-14 passage and applied it to the church and the judgment seat of Christ. And that is erroneous. These passages have nothing to do with the church; they have to do with God's indictment and judgment of the religious leaders of Israel at that time.

2. Each parable involves a father, a son or sons, and rejection of the father's authority. That is how we know that each of these parables develops a subtle answer to their question about His authority.

3. Each of these parables is addressed to the unsaved, unbelieving religious leaders, not to the multitude. (Those who abuse this passage an apply it to the church try to argue that that passage is directed to the multitudes, not the religious leaders)

4. Each parable builds the case for God's rejection of the religious leaders of Israel, even as they are rejecting His Son. They are rejecting the authority of Jesus even as they are rejecting the authority of God, and so because they have rejected God and God's grace, God is going to bring judgment on that nation and on the religious leaders. Because when the leaders make bad decisions the people suffer. If the leaders are not righteous and building policies on righteousness and what the Word of God says, then they will bring judgment upon themselves and upon the nation.

In the first parable we see the point of the rejection of the Father's authority indicated a lack of faith. It talks about two sons. The first son says he won't work in the vineyard, and then he goes and does it. Then the second son says yes, so he has the appearance of obedience, but he doesn't do it. That is the religious leaders. They had the appearance of religion and following God but they don't do what the Torah really says to do.

Matthew 21:32 ^NASB “For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing {this,} did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.”

What was the issue? Faith, belief. They didn't believe him. The tax collectors and prostitutes believed Him.

What makes the difference? Faith.

That is the issue in salvation. It is not what we do. It is not our goodness or our badness; we are all bad in God's eyes because all have sinned and come short of the glory [essence] of God. We fall short of whom He is (Isaiah 64:6). God who is perfectly righteous cannot have a relationship with a creature that is less than perfectly righteous.

Then a second parable (21:33): “another parable”, the Greek word ALLOS, another of the same kind. This shows us that He is developing, and He goes from the first story to the second story. In that story we saw that the landowner was God the Father, the vineyard was the kingdom that has been offered but has been rejected by the religious leaders, the contract that the landowner with the vineyard workers is the Mosaic Law, the landowner has built a wall or fence around the vineyard, a winepress and a tower, demonstrating the provision of God for the vineyard.

In other words, God has historically cared for Israel to provide for His ultimate plan and purpose, which is the kingdom. The tenant farmers and the vinedressers who so abused those whom the landowner sends are the religious leaders of Israel. They get that point. Matthew 21:45 ^NASB “When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.”

The servants that were sent represent the prophets of the Old Testament, and the son that was sent represents His Son, Jesus the Messiah. They reject all of them and so there is going to be judgment that is announced on them. Matthew 21:43 ^NASB “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.” The kingdom that was promised in the Old Testament and offered by John the Baptist and by Jesus is going to be postponed. It will come at some time in the future. When Jesus returns as the Messiah He will establish the kingdom.

The problem, then, is religious legalism that gets in the way. This is the idea that we do something that will impress God that He will bless because of something that we do, and it is just another form of idolatry.

Now we come to the third parable. Matthew 22:1 ^NASB “Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying ...” He is not talking to the multitudes; He is talking to unbelieving religious leaders. This is crucial to the interpretation of this parable.

Matthew 22:2 ^NASB “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. [3] And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come.”

Here the wedding feast represents the millennial kingdom, a time of feast and fellowship with God. It fits within a pattern that we have seen in Matthew. This parable is about the kingdom of heaven. Kingdom of heaven is a precise term that refers to a literal, physical kingdom on the earth. This is what was promised in the Old Testament to Israel. So Jesus is describing characteristics of this Jewish kingdom that will come in the future.

He is not talking about the church; He is talking about this Jewish kingdom that will come in the future. This describes the kingdom parables. All of them describe something that is happening in relation to the kingdom and its postponement. Because John offered it; they rejected it; Jesus offered it; they rejected it, and then in Matthew chapter twelve Jesus pronounced a judgment on the religious leaders and basically said that because they had rejected the kingdom it would be postponed to the future.

There is no kingdom today. You can go to some churches and they say, “We are doing this for the kingdom”. That comes from amillennial theology. That is not what the Bible teaches; it is based on allegory and a non-literal interpretation of the Scripture. We are not in a kingdom; there is no King upon the throne of David in Jerusalem.

The kingdom of heaven describes what is going to happen in the future when the kingdom is established. This is the story of a king who is going to celebrate the marriage of his son and there is this marriage feast, and we are told a few things about what happens here.

He is going to send out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding. We see the first use of the word “call” and it refers to the invitation to the wedding. The reason that is important is because a verse that has entered into the idiom of religiosity, and also into the culture, is “For many are called but few are chosen”.

The calling refers to the general invitation to all. It is rejected by many. This is not referring to what Calvinists describe as the “efficacious call”. They will go to this verse to substantiate a doctrine called the efficacious call, which means that when God is calling you it will be efficacious and the elect will respond. As we will see that is not what this verse is talking about.

The call is the general challenge to people to respond to the gospel, to believe that Jesus is the Messiah. He came to earth; He is the eternal God who entered into human history for the sole purpose of going to the cross to die for our sins. He was our substitute.

The son here is a term that refers to Jesus as the Son of God. The servants are called to invite those to the wedding by proclaiming the gospel. We are told that they were not willing to come.

The king in the parable is God the Father; the son in the parable is Jesus the Messiah who is the Son of God. The wedding feast represents the kingdom. The servants sent out to call the people into the kingdom represent the prophets of the Old Testament. They are the ones who challenge the people to turn back to God and who gave the prophecies and promises of the coming Messiah. This will be rejected eventually and we will learn that armies will come to destroy the city, and this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.

He is going to talk about those who are not worthy. The reason they were not worthy is because they were not willing to come to the wedding feast. It didn't have anything to do with whether they were good or bad. It had to do with their willingness to come. The issue in salvation is volition. This is what John 3:18 says, ^NASB “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

The wedding garment is what is described theologically and by the apostle Paul as imputed, that is, credited righteousness.

We see the second and third rejections related to the next sending out of the servants.

Matthew 22:4 ^NASB “Again he sent out other slaves saying, ‘Tell those who have been invited, “Behold, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened livestock are {all} butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding feast.”'

This, again, describes the grace of God. He has done everything; He has provided everything. Everything is ready, everything is provided, and everything is ready for their salvation. They don't have to do anything except respond to the invitation.

But they made light of it; they ignored it.

Matthew 22:5 ^NASB “But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business ...” They were too busy for God, too busy to be concerned about their eternal life. They were caught up with raising their kids, getting an education, paying the bills, having fun, etc.; not that any of those things were wrong in themselves but they were so distracted by the details of life they just didn't care about God.

And then there was another rejection, a more extreme rejection.

Matthew 22:6 ^NASB “and the rest seized his slaves and mistreated them and killed them.” This is what happened in the Old Testament. Many of the prophets were martyred. This is illustrated in 21:35, 36 “The vine-growers took his slaves and beat one, and killed another, and stoned a third. Again he sent another group of slaves larger than the first; and they did the same thing to them.” And last of all they killed his son.

So this parable fits and develops the ideas that are in the second parable.

The king's response. Matthew 22:7 ^NASB “But the king was enraged, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire.” This is the judgment of God, a summary statement of what is described in a series of five stages/cycles of discipline that God would bring upon Israel if they were disobedient to Him. These are described in Leviticus chapter 26. The last one is that they would be taken from the land that God had promised them.

Matthew 22:8 ^NASB “Then he said to his slaves, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy'.” Those who were initially invited were the Jewish people. Why were they not worthy? It was because they didn't accept the invitation. They didn't believe.

Matthew 22:9 ^NASB ‘Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find {there,} invite to the wedding feast.’ Invite everyone, not just the original ones. Go throughout the world. That is the message of the gospel today: take the gospel to every nation.

Matthew 22:10 ^NASB “Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests.” There is no qualification. He didn't say to find the good ones, the right kind of people. They were to go to everybody whether they were good or bad. The issue wasn't what they had done, the issues was whether they were going to accept the free invitation, the free gift. It was a free feast.

That is the simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Morality, sinfulness, status in society, or religious works are not relevant to the reception of the invitation.

Matthew 22:11 ^NASB “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes...” Everyone else had on a brilliant white garment but this man has on a dirty, stained garment. He didn't have on the right clothes.

There are a number of lines of evidence to show that in many circumstances like this the person who was giving this kind of banquet would provide the garment for those who came. Understanding these garments is really important because that is the issue. You can't get into the kingdom if you don't have the right kind of clothes. Jesus is talking to the unbelieving Pharisees and elders and chief priests. They don't have the right kind of clothes because they don't believe. They have rejected the offer; they have not trusted in the offer of the gospel of the kingdom. It is not the gospel that we have today because Jesus hadn't died yet.

Matthew 22:12 ^NASB “and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And the man was speechless.”

The word here for friend is not a word based on AGAPETO, for beloved, and used in the New Testament to describe believers. It is not PHILOS a word for an intimate friend. It is the word HETAIROS which is just another word referring to somebody else and doesn't imply anything.

This idea of having a certain kind of garment is based on Old Testament passages.

Isaiah 61:10 ^NASB “I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, My soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”

You don't clothe yourself with the garments of salvation; you have to have the right God-given clothes that are righteous. The issue in salvation is righteousness. Some people are better than others. We have relative righteousness. But the righteousness God requires in His righteousness. At the point that we trust in Jesus Christ as savior He gives us His righteousness. We are saved not because we have righteousness but because we are clothed with the righteousness of Christ.

This is also illustrated in Zechariah 3:1-5 where Joshua the high priest is being challenged by Satan before God, and God gives new clothes to Joshua. It is a picture of the fact that when we trust Christ as savior we are clothed with His righteousness. Just as our sins were imputed to Jesus Christ and He paid for them, His righteousness is imputed to us from that point on. And it doesn't have to do with what you do or don't do, sins you commit or don't commit, because Jesus paid for all the sins.

There is punishment, though, for those who don't have that righteousness.

Matthew 22:13 ^NASB “Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’”

This is a debated passage by some people who hold to a free grace gospel. Some say this is a punishment for believers who have been sinful all their lives and are punished at the judgment seat of Christ. That is wrong!

That is trying to take this passage that is addressed to Israel and applying it to the church and the judgment seat of Christ, and that is the worst form of taking something out of context.

This is a depiction of eternal judgment. Earlier it was used in Matthew 8:12 ^NASB “but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

The sons of the kingdom were Jews who had a birthright to the kingdom, but then because they didn't believe either Jesus or John the Baptist they forfeited their birthright.

Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few {are} chosen.”

Many are called means many are invited. All are invited; the gospel is for everyone: to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. People who come from some backgrounds will look at the word chosen and think this leans elect; that many are invited but few are elect/chosen by God. I believe that is a mistranslation based on tradition that goes back at least as far as Augustine in the fourth century, and that this is an abuse of the term.

It is the Greek word EKLEKTOS, which can mean elect, but it means a choice one, something that is choice.

In terms of English word meanings the word choice is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as something of very good quality, something that is excellent, something that is the best, something that is special, something that is valuable. The ones that are valuable, the ones that are choice, are the ones that respond to the invitation. What made them choice was that they had righteousness. They were given righteousness.

This idea of choice is not something I've just made up because that is what I prefer, this is one of the meanings for the Old Testament word, bachar, which means choice, select and most excellent one. What made these people in Matthew 22:14 choice was the quality of their garments—imputed righteousness. The contrast is between those who had imputed righteousness and those who did not.

Slides