The unique element in the parable before us is the willful refusal of those who were invited. It was not that they could not come. Rather they would not. The reason for their refusal is not spelled out, but it is suggested in the way the servants were treated. They “seized” the servants, “mistreated them and killed them” (v.6). If the invited guests felt that way toward the servants, they obviously felt that way toward the king who had sent them and would have seized, mistreated, and killed him if they could have. In other words, they would not come because they actually despised the king and were hostile to him.
From time to time in our study of the parables I have noted that a particular parable is difficult to interpret, and have mentioned several ways the details of the story could be taken. That problem does not exist with the parable of the wedding banquet, however. On the contrary, it is all too clear. It speaks of God's gracious invitation to us in the gospel and of the indifferent and arrogant way men and women sometimes respond to it. It speaks of hell, the end of those who attempt to enter the king's presence without the wedding garment of Christ's righteousness. Wise is the man or woman who learns from it.
Here I think of the title of another of Jonathan Edwards sermons: The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners.” When most people hear that title today, they are quite taken aback and ask themselves, What kind of person must Jonathan Edwards have been to have talked like that? What kind of a person would link justice to damnation” But Jonathan Edwards was not the originator of such thoughts. They come from the words of the Pharisees and scribes as they pronounced judgment on themselves in replying to Christs question. Moreover, that is the judgment you and I must render on ourselves if we are honest. What would you say if Jesus asked his question of you: “What do you think the owner of the vineyard should do Unless we are absolute hypocrites or absolutely ignorant, we would answer as the leaders of Jesus day did and thus, likewise, render judgment on ourselves. We are such people, and that is our doom.
In yesterday's study, we began a discussion of Jonathan Edwards' statement that we are God's enemies in several ways. First, we are enemies in our judgments. The second way in which we show that we are enemies of God is in the natural relish of our souls. Third, Edwards says that people are enemies of God in their wills. That is, the will of God and their wills are set at cross purposes to each other. What God wills, they hate. What God hates, they desire, Edwards says that is why they are so opposed to God's government. They are not God's loyal subjects, as they should be, but are opposed to his rule in this world. Their whole desire is expressed by the psalmist: "Let us break [God's] chains, and throw off [his] fetters" (Psalm 2:3).
Years ago the greatest theologian this country has ever produced, Jonathan Edwards, wrote a discourse that developed this theme at length. It was entitled "Men Naturally Are God's Enemies” and was based on Romans 5:10 ("For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son..."). Most of us, when we take a text like that, focus on the good part - in this case, on the wonder of the death of Christ, Edwards did not go about things in that way. He saw that no one could appreciate the death of Christ, the second part of the verse, until he understood that he was an enemy of God, the first part. So in that discourse he examined how we are God's enemies until regenerated.
