This is something that has puzzled me for many years. The Lord has revealed to my heart and now I see. If what I see it correct, and I belive it is, the revelation and implication is quite profound for the church.
The Bible speaks of the Kingdom of God being likened to a wedding feast given by a king with everyone required to wear his wedding garment. (See Matt.22)
Question: How come this man didn't have one?
:-(rm
Ormy posted:
"The Bible speaks of the Kingdom of God being likened to a wedding feast given by a king with everyone required to wear his wedding garment. (See Matt.22)
Question: How come this man didn't have one? "
xxxxxxxxx
Stever responds:
You and I know that Christ is the one that gives us the garment to wear. He "puts on" His robe on those that believe in Him, and then we become righteous because of our belief in what He did for us at Calvary.
The man in Matthew is an example of a non-believer that thinks he deserves heaven because of his own works, and therefore is denied entry.
In the ancient Jewish wedding, the Groom always provided the garments for guests to wear. Also, in the Blood Covenant Ritual, each of the two men participating would put their coats on the other. This would symbolize that they are putting on "their nature" onto the other. Also, they would exchange belts. The belt is what carried their weapons. This symbolized that they would each fight to the death for the other.
In ancient Jewish history prisons were not necessary because the blood brother of the one killed would provide retribution for his slain blood brother. They did have cities of refuge (6) that were run by Levite Priests, that were established to house those that had accidentally killed someone. The Priest would interview the person that wanted to enter, and if he was satisfied, he allowed the person to enter and live there. The blood brother was bound not to enter. Once the Priest died, the person was allowed to leave and the Blood Brother was not allowed to slay him.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Our belief in Jesus Christ as LORD, and in his death and resurrection provides us with "HIS NATURE" that He gives to us, that he "puts on" to us. No one can enter heaven or be married to HIM and live with HIM forever without it.
God bless,
Stever :-)
Hello Ormly,
I believe the wedding garment is a metaphor for a genuine walk with God. I think the Lord is saying
the exact same thing here only using a different metaphor:
Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried
in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white
raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the
shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint
thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
I believe the Lord is teaching us that we need to understand that in coming to him serious attention is to be paid to his commandments so that we will truly walk in his ways. In the first part of the parable of the wedding feast the people invited despised the Gospel and did not think it worthy of their time and effort. I believe the guest without the wedding garment represents the person who thinks salvation is a great idea but doesn't come to terms with the commitment to righteousness that is necessary to embrace the Gospel.
Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of
Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's
elect, and [b]the acknowledging of the truth which
is after godliness;
I believe that a person who trusts in the blood of Jesus to cover their past sins and who earnestly seeks first the Kingdom of God and his Righteousness will have a wedding garment and white raiment and gold tried in the fire.
I respectfully disagree with Stever on this subject.
I am curious to what the Lord is showing you on this subject.
But he did enter and was given the boot. Based on your explanation, how is it that he got that far? I can visualize him sitting there waiting to be served the first course, can't you?
Side question: Why do you think he was speechless when informed of his error?
May I suggest you let the verses say what they say and not let the garment mean anything other than what it was, i.e., a wedding garment, a requirement for entry.
:-)rm
Thanks np! May I call you that for short?
You are touching on some of what I'm given to understand that the Lord has revealed to me. I will post it after a few more get a chance to respond with their versions. I guarantee this will cause a few ripples in someones theology..
Thanks
:-)rm
I've been praying about something that Wesley referred to as "entire sanctification." It's discussed at length by Oswald Chambers and a host of others, but it's not practiced within most holiness denominations in the church today.
Based on my understand is that this man was never fully sanctified. Justified yes (he was at the supper) but never sanctified (never wore the right garment). He was speechless because he new he wasn't properly clothed and it was too late for sanctification.
I was a bit terrified at this and then I did a search to see what others taught on this and it's consistent with what the Holy Spirit has been showing me.
Here's what Matthew Henry said regarding this passage.
Here's what Adam Clarke states in this commentary on this passageMany are called to the wedding-feast, that is, to salvation, but few have the wedding-garment, the righteousness of Christ, the sanctification of the Spirit. Then let us examine ourselves whether we are in the faith, and seek to be approved by the King.
"Now, as without holiness no man can see the Lord, we may at once perceive what our Lord means by the marriage garment-it is HOLINESS of heart and life: the text last quoted asserts that the fine, white, and clean linen (alluding to the marriage garment above mentioned) was an emblem of the RIGHTEOUSNESS of the SAINTS. "
This is a very difficult passage to absorb and I pray that you will take it to your prayer closet and lay it out before Jesus.
Good insight, Hab.
Consider these few insights:
#1. He wanted what went with the occasion like food, fellowship, goodies, etc., but he didn't want to submit to wearing a garment for reasons we could easily speak of when making spiritual application.
#2. The servants at the door who were handing them out did not have the authority to prevent him from entering without one, nor were they given to judging him. He wanted in alright; wanted the blessings and goodies he was told would be his upon accepting the invitation, but on his own terms. In other words he refused to take the garment believing the invitation and association with the others would be sufficient---presumption to be sure as he soon found out.
#3. By "his own terms" I see as an unwillingness to be in what he viewed as "lock step" with the others.
#4. The "wedding garment" speaks of belonging; wanting to belong --- to what degree of intimacy it provided, I can't say, and the way to intimacy is strait.
This can open up much discussion that can bring needed rectification to many. When fully seen the Bible will read excitingly different.
:-Drm
Ormly,
As I read the text, I noticed the explanation Jesus gave in v. 14: "For many are called but few are chosen." The key is to discern the meaning of "chosen" and what is implied by this word.
As I understand it, many will accept Jesus as Savior but will not allow him to be their LORD and MASTER..all they want is some fire insurance. Big difference. Obedience is not considered essential in the redemption process.
ginnyrose
Indeed Ginny, That's how I see it also. Our churches are full of them. By the the thousands they flock to preachers who demand nothing from them; Who speak nothing of striving to enter the kingdom; Nothing of the strait gate and how only a few will enter; Service as a substitution for being...........Frightening and sad.:-o
Preach holiness and receive rebuke and riddical for teaching "self's - effort". There is no revelation to them that Love for God, per the great commandment, is the motivation for the self to please Him, self that should be a habitation for HIS SELF, the very nature of God. See John 17 and union with Him.
Thanks,
:-Drm
Stever wrote:
Ormy posted:"The Bible speaks of the Kingdom of God being likened to a wedding feast given by a king with everyone required to wear his wedding garment. (See Matt.22)
Question: How come this man didn't have one? "
xxxxxxxxx
Stever responds:
"You and I know that Christ is the one that gives us the garment to wear."
And we must wear it. By choice it is ours to refuse. We must choose the way of the cross now that the work of the cross is completed.
"He "puts on" His robe on those that believe in Him, and then we become righteous because of our belief in what He did for us at Calvary."
Please define the word believe. Put legs on it.
"The man in Matthew is an example of a non-believer that thinks he deserves heaven because of his own works, and therefore is denied entry."
No. I don't believe that was the case. I believe he did believe the report and accepted the FREE salvation thus gaining entrance. He may even have been a good worker after entering, showing much congeniality, could even have taught sunday school. Good man --- just don't cross him. It will then you find out who or what it is he really loves.
"In the ancient Jewish wedding, the Groom always provided the garments for guests to wear. Also, in the Blood Covenant Ritual, each of the two men participating would put their coats on the other. This would symbolize that they are putting on "their nature" onto the other. Also, they would exchange belts. The belt is what carried their weapons. This symbolized that they would each fight to the death for the other."Yes... but a symbol to be sure of what it should have been. WE both know that symbols don't work. We each can put a mask on but God will respect masks.
WHY? He sees the heart.
"Our belief in Jesus Christ as LORD, and in his death and resurrection provides us with "HIS NATURE" that He gives to us, that he "puts on" to us. No one can enter heaven or be married to HIM and live with HIM forever without it."
Words mean something Stever. Jesus put His nature IN us (John 20.22)and then upon us (Lu.24,49-Acts 2)to win the battle over our old nature that will wage war against Him. "He who overcomes I will give to eat of the Tree of Life". That's what He said. We all know the demands of our old nature and it is only when we LEARN to hear His (still small) voice that we have the opportunity to become overcomers. When we hear His voice, His "tug", we then have a choice to make, obey or rebell. Re-read Gal.5.16-26 again in that light and remember Paul is addressing Christians, not the unconverted.
I now give it back to you.
Thanks,
:-)rm
Dear NP,
You mention the garment as a representation of walking with Christ. That's good however these folk were dragged in off the street. Not much chance of them understanding what walking with the lord meant, do you suppose? May I submit that this whole thing is an acceptable heart issue and not one of performance aside from an acceptable heart. Performance can be a mask for an upright heart.
Thanks,
:-)rm
About this wedding garment: if I understand this correctly, people were given this at the door as they approached the wedding feast. Now here you had a person at the feast without one which means he refused to take one.
When we come to Jesus, he offers cleansing of our sins, a new heart and mind which is required in order to walk with him or "to be able to participate at his wedding feast". Now if one refuses to be cleansed - or accept the wedding garment - he is to be thrown out! Unless you have been cleansed of all that filthiness in your heart and life, you cannot have communion with Jesus.
Are we all sayig the same thing but using different words to describe it?
Interesting and edifying thoughts shared here...
ginnyrose
Thanks Ginny,
Basically, but what I read I don't believe satisfies the understanding Jesus would have us recognize in the parable. Other than that, we are saying much that is the same.
Ravi Zacharius said this that explained much to me concerning present day attitude/condition in the church. He said: "Guilt is expelled by irreverance". Now I have a question: Do you think the "casual Christian" will be a joint-heir with Jesus Christ? For that matter, do you believe the "casual Christian" wears a wedding garment? Do you believe he even knows anything about a wedding garment, or cares? My view is that the wedding garment represents more than just salvation. [u]It is given to the Christian
I'm open for correction on this but ask first ask yourself the question: "Why was he speechless"?
What say you -- or anyone?
:-orm
Hello Ormly,
I really believe what brother Habakkuk posted on this subject sums up the message that the Lord intended for us to learn from this portion of the parable about the wedding garment.
"Now, as without holiness no man can see the Lord, we may at once perceive what our Lord means by the marriage garment-it is HOLINESS of heart and life: the text last quoted asserts that the fine, white, and clean linen (alluding to the marriage garment above mentioned) was an emblem of the RIGHTEOUSNESS of the SAINTS."
I have noticed that most of the parables are of a narrow scope and concern extremely serious subject matter. I believe that if we really get hold of the simple message in this teaching about the wedding garment that we will have understood what the Lord intends for us to understand. I am all for gleaning the nuances, subtleties, and shades in scripture, but on a subject of this magnitude (the eternal fate of a professor of Christ) I can really appreciate the Lord's simple forthrightness and clear explanation. I believe the essence of the teaching about the wedding garment is a warning to those who profess Christ to live holy, and diligently seek the Lord if they expect to be saved. I believe the time element that you mentioned is incidental to the main thrust of what is being taught here. I am curious, why do you think the man was speechless? God bless you.
I am curious, why do you think the man was speechless? God bless you.
Because he thought he was saved; "going forward" was sufficient.
The folks around him never dreamed of bringing rectification into his thinking concerning the narrowness of the Lord AFTER salvation--- after all who are they that they should criticise another, right? Sorta like todays church in many ways and in particular where no one sees the need to be modest in their dress and wear proper apparel as being part of the way of holiness. After all they say: God looks upon the heart and not the outward appearance. Remember, guilt is expelled by irreverance; The heart is changed as a result of changing church attitudes. We witness that alot these days. People dress like they are going to the beach instead of church; The sanctuary of God. How come they think that way accept the pulpit lead the way? "Sloppy Agape".
The wedding garment is a type of holiness seen upon the heart as the Master would discern it. Ask yourself why anyone wouldn't want to wear it (do it) given he knows who the Master is and has accepted His invitation and plan of salvation put forth by the servants of the Master? And don't you believe the servants also bear some responsibility in all this? That part is not addressed in the parable --it is elseware in scripture, i.e., the unfaithful servant.
Luke 12:47 (KJV)
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
[b]One more thing: The righteousness of Christ was what got the man entrance to the wedding banquet.
Thanks.
Your turn,
:-)rm
This discussion is locked.
