Parable Math 22 Why was the wedding guest punished for not wearing wedding clothes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ccallbeck
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ichen said:
I was always really confused with this parable too until our priest explained it during a homily.

Back in ancient times, when there weren’t paved roads, traveling was very dirty and dusty. So the host would have wedding garments for the guests to change into when they got there. That’s why the king throws the man without wedding robes out. The king had given the people clothes to wear, and for some reason this man had rejected them. The man was insulting the hospitality of the king and his son.

God gives us all an invitation to His feast in celebration of His Son Jesus… He gives us the gifts of grace, and when we reject them we are insulting Him and Jesus.

Thank goodness God forgives though 🙂
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this explanation, too. Supposedly, the ‘wedding garment’ was a simple wrap, like a Jewish prayer shawl.

But I wonder if there’s any evidence for this from cultural or anthropological sources: it’s such an easy, pat answer for a difficult passage, it’s strange to me that it isn’t more widely known… if it’s actually true, that is.
 
The people invited to the banquet (and who accept the invitiation) are the Church–notice the parable says both good and bad are called. Those who reject the invitiation are obviously damned, but so are those enter the Church but approach the Bridegoom without their wedding gown–that is, not in the state of grace.
 
Hays,

I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is the “proper name” of what most of us call confession.

It’s the same thing others have pointed out - don’t come to God’s wedding feast with sin on your soul!

God bless us all,

Ruthie
 
Lots of great answers so far. Scott Hahn discussed this on his website St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology last week.
But are we dressed for the feast, clothed in the garment of righteousness (see Revelation 19:8)? Not all who have been called will be chosen for eternal life, Jesus warns. Let us be sure that we’re living in a manner worthy of the invitation we’ve received (see Ephesians 4:1).
Click to expand...
Here is the St. Charles Borromeo Bible Study lesson plan for last week also.

Finally, here is what Blessed Theophylact had to say about vv. 11-14:
The entry into the wedding takes place without distinction of persons, for by grace alone we have all been called, good and bad alike; but the life thereafter of those who enter shall not be without examination, for indeed the king makes an exceedingly careful examination of those found to be sullied after entering into the faith. Let us tremble, then, when we understand that if one does not lead a pure life, faith alone benefits him not at all. For not only is he cast out of the wedding feast, but he is sent away into the fire. Who is he that is wearing filthy garments? It is he who is not clothed with compassion, goodness, and brotherly love. For there are many who deceive themselves with vain hopes, thinking that they shall attain the kingdom of heaven, and they include themselves among the assembly of the dinner guests, thinking great things of themselves. Being justified in regard to that unworthy man, the Lord demonstrates these two things to us; first, that He loves mankind, and secondly, that we ought not to pass judgement on anyone, even if they sin openly, unless they have been reproved for their sin. The Lord then says to His servants, the angels of punishment, “Bind his hands and feet,” that is, the soul’s powers of action. For in this present age is the time to act and to do, but in the age to come all of the soul’s powers of action are bound, and a man cannot then do any good thing to outweigh his sins. Gnashing of teeth is the meaningless repentance that will then take place. “Many are called” for God calls many, indeed, all, “but few are chosen.” For few are saved and found worthy to be chosen by God. For it is God’s part to call, but to become one of the chosen or not, is our part. He shows, then, that this parable was spoken for the Jews who were called but were not chosen, as they did not listen.
Click to expand...
 
?Actually the wedding garment was not the point of the entire parable.

the point was the Pharisees was trying to trick Jesus into proclaiming he was not God and just a man, and had no authority of any sort, and that the king had all the authority, and that Jesus should bow down to him.

The inappropriate dress was just a tool.
 
Starwynd said:
?Actually the wedding garment was not the point of the entire parable.

the point was the Pharisees was trying to trick Jesus into proclaiming he was not God and just a man, and had no authority of any sort, and that the king had all the authority, and that Jesus should bow down to him.

The inappropriate dress was just a tool.
Click to expand...
Umm. . . would you care to support this assertion? For myself, I find it rather difficult to believe that Jesus chose His words so carelessly that He just threw in a ‘tool’ by which He meant to express nothing in particular. . .
 
Your bridal chamber, O my Savior, I see all adorned, but I have no garment so that I may enter it. Make bright the mantel of my soul, O Giver of light, and save me!
 
Dose ANYONE read the Bible footnotes?? If you did, you’d find this about the parable:
  • The wedding is an Old Testament portrayal of salvation (Isaiah 25:6).
  • A wedding garment is a symbol of repentance, which is the condition for entry into the Kingdom (Matthew 3:2; 4:17) and which must be continued in a life of good deeds (Matthew 7:21-23).
  • The Christian who lacks the wedding garment of good deeds will suffer the same fate as those Jews who rejected Jesus (Matthew 8:11-12).
 
Revelation 19:7-8:
7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory. For the wedding day of the Lamb has come, his bride has made herself ready.

8 She was allowed to wear a bright, clean linen garment." (The linen represents the righteous deeds of the holy ones.)

We are the bride, Christ is the bridegroom. The wedding garment is not what gets into the wedding feast, but we must “clothe” ourselves in righteous deeds to keep from being thrown out.
 
Cattitude said:
Revelation 19:7-8:
7 Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory. For the wedding day of the Lamb has come, his bride has made herself ready.

8 She was allowed to wear a bright, clean linen garment." (The linen represents the righteous deeds of the holy ones.)

We are the bride, Christ is the bridegroom. The wedding garment is not what gets into the wedding feast, but we must “clothe” ourselves in righteous deeds to keep from being thrown out.
Click to expand...
God clothes us in His radiance. It is the garment of grace. It is our baptismal robe we need to bring spotless and bright to the feast. We stain it with sin, but His blood cleanses us again and again, mixed with our tears of repentance.
 
Nickkname said:
Dose ANYONE read the Bible footnotes?? If you did, you’d find this about the parable:
  • The wedding is an Old Testament portrayal of salvation (Isaiah 25:6).
  • A wedding garment is a symbol of repentance, which is the condition for entry into the Kingdom (Matthew 3:2; 4:17) and which must be continued in a life of good deeds (Matthew 7:21-23).
  • The Christian who lacks the wedding garment of good deeds will suffer the same fate as those Jews who rejected Jesus (Matthew 8:11-12).
Click to expand...
Well golly, Nickname: maybe we don’t all use the same translation with the same footnotes as you do.

And maybe those footnotes aren’t the first, last, and only word possible on the subject.
 
Sam_Maloney said:
Well golly, Nickname: maybe we don’t all use the same translation with the same footnotes as you do.

And maybe those footnotes aren’t the first, last, and only word possible on the subject.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I sounded uncharitable. 😦 I’m just amazed that some people just interpret the parables as they personally want to, without actually going to the Bible and seeing what the parable means. The footnotes are there to help the reader to understand the text. 🙂
 
I have to say i think the explaination where the king provided garments makes the most sense to me because the reading we read didn’t just say the king “invited” people. It said he sent his soldiers out into the sdtreets and compelled everyone who was there, the good and bad alike. They didn’t have the chioce of going home to get their best clothes on. So why force people, then kick out one who wasn’t properly dressed if he never had the chance to get dressed? Seems unduly harsh unless it is part of that whole “you never know the time so be always ready” kind of thing.
 
Nickkname said:
Sorry if I sounded uncharitable. 😦 I’m just amazed that some people just interpret the parables as they personally want to, without actually going to the Bible and seeing what the parable means. The footnotes are there to help the reader to understand the text. 🙂
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget that the parables have multiple meanings on different levels that are all compatible with the Catholic faith. Each one will speak to each individual in a different way depending on where they are in their life, as well. And, yes I agree that footnotes and bible commentary are invaluable for interpretation of scripture (although the NAB commentary can be problematic in some areas, I’ve heard).
 
If you come to the banquet of the table of the Lord, just like we are invited to come to receive Holy Communion at every mass…then we need to prepare our soul…

You cannot receive worthily the body of Christ if your soul is filled with mortal sins. But how often do people do that?
We have long communion lines, but the lines for reconciliation are non existant in most cases. So many must be receiving communion unworthily…which is a sacrilege and they will be punished.
That’s how our homily was addressed. The provisions for reconciliation are available, but we don’t accept them.
Sad, but many of us don’t understand how important it is because we have turned our hearts away from Christ for the culture…
 
Umm. . . would you care to support this assertion?
Click to expand...
By tool I mean it wasn’t the important part of the story, just an element of the story that led up to the most important point.

Which was that the pharisees tried to use it to get Jesus to admit that he was just a man, Jesus was not just a man, but God and the son of God, and that he was beholden to no human king.

It’s also the parable where we get “render unto Ceaser what belongs to Ceaser” which the Pharisees should we not give tribute unto Ceaser? With which Jesus threw it right back in their faces saying “render unto Ceaser’s that which is Ceaser’s”.

Read the chapter.
 
Starwynd said:
By tool I mean it wasn’t the important part of the story, just an element of the story that led up to the most important point.

Which was that the pharisees tried to use it to get Jesus to admit that he was just a man, Jesus was not just a man, but God and the son of God, and that he was beholden to no human king.

It’s also the parable where we get “render unto Ceaser what belongs to Ceaser” which the Pharisees should we not give tribute unto Ceaser? With which Jesus threw it right back in their faces saying “render unto Ceaser’s that which is Ceaser’s”.

Read the chapter.
Click to expand...
I did. What I am saying is, where do you get the authority to assert that the garment was ‘not an important point in the story’ when several other posters have brought out reputable and DOCUMENTED evidence that the garment IS important, and has been taught as such, in Catholic teaching?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top