We near the end of a parable Jesus told on Tuesday of Passion Week (according to Ralph D. Heim, whose Harmony of the Gospels I’m using). Surely now the king is satisfied, for after invitations extended to two populations of guests, Matthew tells us that Jesus declares “the wedding hall was filled with guests” (22:10b. But, there is still a problem....

“[W]hen the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment....” Some observations....First, this king is purposeful: He came in specifically intending to see who had responded to his invitation this time. Second, he is individually focused, not seeing the group en mass, but each guest within it. Third, he is attentive, noticing what they wore and whether it’s appropriate for the occasion.

These observations support other impressions I have of God (whom the king represents): First, that he cares whether we respond to Him; this matters to Him because we matter to Him. Also, that we are not faceless beings lost in the crowd; rather, He notices us individually, somehow one-at-a-time simultaneously with all-at-once. We aren’t—and can’t get—lost in the crowd and overlooked, even when we might want to! And thirdly, that when He sees us, what He sees matters...to Him, and therefore, to us.

The king not only surveys the crowd, noting the presence of the one guest in the entire room who is not properly dressed; he also encounters him: “Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?” Again, God is personal. He invites. He notices. He approaches. He speaks! He still does all these things....Are you paying attention? ‘Answering’ Him? For we are about to see that our responding to Him is critical!

If I were doing a study of this passage in order to teach it, I would have to do some research on the next short sentence, “And he was speechless,” because it’s an example of inexact use of a pronoun, unclear antecedent. Does ‘he’ refer to the guest or to the king?

I interpret it as referring to the guest, now thunderstruck by two realizations...1) that the king noticed him out of the entire assemblage; and 2) that it really did matter that he had not bothered to dress appropriately to enter the king’s presence.

Now, let me quickly point out two things: 1) It was not the man—who he was—not even whether he was among “the bad” or “the good” (vs.10) who had assembled there, that the king had a problem with. And 2) that “clothes do not [ever] make the man,” and did not ‘unmake’ this man; rather, his failure to dress appropriately for the occasion reflects an attitude of irreverence, a lack of respect, a disdain for the difference between a commoner and a king. Clothes here are completely symbolic. I don’t think it makes one whit of difference to God whether, for example, men have on tees or ties, whether women wear denims or dresses to church. But it matters tremendously whether we enter His presence ‘wearing’ reverence for Who He is, ‘clad’ in the awareness that He is holy and we are sinners still, even though saved by grace.

And our response to the manifest presence of the King also matters. The man neither bows, apologizes, nor begs forgiveness for disrespecting the king (and his son and heir, in whose honor the feast was being given). This failure to humble himself was disastrous, for the king orders his servants to “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness...,” the abode of Satan and his demons. It’s where we live, figuratively speaking, if we do not honor “the Light of the world.” And it is the forever-home of those who think themselves the equal of God, refusing to acknowledge Hs Lordship.

How are you ‘dressed’ today? Do you “walk in the light, even as [Jesus] is in the light”?

Have a good week!