READING TIME: 5-10 MINUTES
February 20, 2020
What does “many are called, but few are chosen” mean in Matthew 22:14?
First of all, I want to thank my friends Pastors Dennis Rokser, Tom Stegall, and Kurt Witzig for their excellent book Should Christians Fear Outer Darkness? I very highly recommend this book. It was very helpful to answer this question. Check out this book and many other very helpful books on the Grace Gospel Press website: https://www.gracegospelpress.org/.
OVERVIEW OF THIS PARABLE
This parable is a group of three parables Christ gave after His triumphant entry at the beginning of passion week, and in all three parables, He stated that his own “choice people” had rejected Him because they refused to place their faith in Him. His people had refused to accept His invitation that He had extended to them in His three-year ministry, so the invitation would now go out to all whom the king will then qualify to be His select guests. These select guests were previously “evil and good” (Matt 22:10). What a powerful irony here between the choice nation being set aside and these invitees becoming choice by God’s gracious plan in providing His righteousness to those who place their faith in Him.
CONTEXT
It’s important to first look at the context. Who are the “them” in verse 1? To answer this, we need to go to the previous chapter (Matthew 21) and make some observations on the confrontation between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders (Matthew 21:23-27), followed by two parables (Matthew 21:28-32) that precede this one.
In Christ’s confrontation in Matthew 21:23-27, He’s addressing the religious but unregenerate chief priests and elders. He proceeds to give them a parable that shocked them.
The parable in Matthew 21:38-32 contains a striking contrast between those who “did the will of his father” and those who did not. The truly obedient were they who “believe Him” versus those who sounded willing but “did not believe him.” The application of our Lord in Matthew 21:31 was especially shocking and striking to the religious leaders of Christ’s day.
Jesus Christ does not state that these religious leaders could never enter the Kingdom, but those who were viewed as the lowlifes of Jewish society would enter “before you.” Why? It is because these down-and-outers were not deceived into thinking that their works-righteousness could gain them entrance into the Kingdom due to the massive guilt of their sin. Thus, they would more readily believe in Christ for the forgiveness of sins and imputed righteousness than would these religious leaders who thought they could gain entrance upon human merit and their works.
To bring even more conviction to these religiously blind, lost Jewish leaders, the Lord Jesus adds a second parable (see Matthew 21:33-44).
This parable hits these religious leaders right between the eyes due to their rejection of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah, as it poignantly describes them as the guilty, responsible party.
A VERY UNFORTUNATE CHAPTER BREAK
There is an unfortunate chapter division here that blurs how Jesus’s confrontation and condemnation of the religious leaders continue in Matthew 22.
But the antecedent of “them” in Matthew 22:1 is not “the multitudes” of 21:46, for Jesus all along has been addressing the religious authorities (21:23, 32, 45). That’s why Matthew 22:1 says Jesus spoke “to them again” by parables. The word “again” is the key. It fits perfectly with the word “another” in 21:33 where Jesus says to the religious authorities, “Hear another parable . . .” To whom had Jesus been speaking parables leading up to Matthew 22:1? Not “the multitude” in 21:46. In that verse, Matthew is narrating and makes an editorial passing mention of “the multitudes” once to support his main point about the religious authorities.
MATTHEW 22:14 DOESN’T TEACH A CALVINIST UNCONDITIONAL DIVINE ELECTION
Laurence Vance makes an excellent point that in this verse, the ones chosen are chosen because they accepted the invitation (Matt 22:9) and had the prearranged wedding garment (Matt 22:11). The ones chosen were invited to the wedding feast (Matt 22:9), not foreordained to go. The ones chosen were “good and bad” (Matt 22:10), not just the “elect.” And finally, the ones chosen responded to a general invitation (Matt 22:9), the invitation to a particular group was refused (Matt 22:8) (p. 349).
THREE REFUSALS
Refusal #1: These Jews rejected the invitation to the wedding because they just refused to come (Matthew 22:2-3).
Refusal #2: We see in these verses the willingness of the King to invite others to attend the wedding and banquet in which the dinner was ready, but they failed to accept the invitation and attend because they were indifferent and did not take the offer seriously (Matthew 22:4-5).
Refusal #3: This happened repeatedly to God’s servants in the past who proclaimed the truth of God’s covenants and promised Kingdom on earth (Matthew 22:6).
Matthew 22:8: “Worthy” in this context means “willing” (22:3) to accept the invitation of the king and attend the wedding and its feast.
Matthew 22:9: because of the graciousness and persistence of the king, others are invited who were not originally asked to attend, namely, the Gentiles.
Matthew 22:10: The servants invited and many accepted, both bad and good, which indicates that the invitation was full of grace without regard for personal merit or righteousness.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WEDDING GARMENT
Matthew 22:11: It is helpful to understand culturally that to have on a wedding garment was not merely nice but necessary to be presentable at the wedding of the king’s son. However, it is imperative to realize that these wedding garments were provided by the king as a gift to all who were in need and attended the wedding. Therefore, to attend without having on a wedding garment was an act of utter refusal of the king’s gracious gift.
Matthew 22:12: He was speechless because there was no valid excuse to be uttered. If he had to have purchased or bought his wedding garment himself, he may have had an excuse. But he had no excuse for not being properly dressed, for the wedding garment was a gift offered and provided solely by the king’s grace. This has allusions to Isaiah 61:10.
IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS THROUGH FAITH ALONE
Isaiah and the rest of the Old Testament declared, consistent with the New Testament, that justifying righteousness is lacking in man (Psalm 130:3; 143:2) and must come from the Lord Himself (Isaiah. 45:24-25; 46:12-13; 51:5-6; 54:17; 61:10), who is our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15-16).
From these passages, we observe once again that the requirement for Kingdom inclusion was to have a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, that is an imputed righteousness which is a gift of God’s grace received simply through faith and not of works or human righteousness.
IMPUTED VS. PERSONAL RIGHTEOUSNESS
This “righteousness” cannot mean “personal” righteousness because both “bad” and “good” were not only invited but entered the wedding feast with the needed wedding garment on—the provided robe of God’s righteousness.
This was none other than the King, and it was the King’s own Son getting married. Certainly, the King of all people would have the means to provide special garments for such a unique, splendid occasion. Therefore, in the context of this parable, the lack of a wedding garment on this occasion showed not only willful disregard for the Son, who was the reason for the occasion but even presumption that one’s clothes were sufficient.
This point of Jesus’s parable would have been particularly poignant with the religious authorities since this first-century Jewish audience was part of an honor and shame society where the wealthy (James 2:1-16) and self-righteous (Matt. 23:5) prided themselves in their distinctive clothing.
IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS ISN’T A “LATER PAULINE” DOCTRINE, BUT IT BASED ON THE TANAKH
I’m convinced Paul’s doctrine of imputed or transferred righteousness came from the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible). So, in that case, this isn’t a “later” doctrine but actually, a much earlier doctrine that Paul simply “fine-tuned” in his epistles. Especially see the following passages: Genesis 15:6; Exodus 12; Leviticus 16; Psalm 32:1-2; Isaiah 45:25; 53:11 ; 61:10; Zechariah 3:1-5.
“FRIEND” DOESN’T MEAN “BELIEVER” AND THE IDENTIFY OF THE OUTER DARKNESS
Some commentators have pointed to the use of the word “friend” in Matthew 22:12 to marshal the argument that this improperly dressed man was actually a believer in Christ but somehow unworthy to attend. But we have already shown that attendance was not based on personal merit (22:10) but a willingness to accept a gracious offer. Furthermore, the greeting “friend” would be used by our Lord later in Matthew of unsaved Judas coming to betray Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (see Matthew 26:50).
How does the King then treat the invited but wrongly dressed man who refused the King’s gift of a wedding garment (imputed righteousness) (see Matthew 22:13)?
This man is bound, forcibly removed from the feast, and cast into outer darkness. Why? It is because he refused to accept the King’s wedding garment, which had been fully provided and offered to him based on grace.
The following comment in the Moody Bible Commentary is helpful. “Some scholars view those in the outer darkness as believers excluded from the celebrative aspects of the kingdom because they failed to live for God (the view of Zane C. Hodges, Grace in Eclipse: A Study on Eternal Rewards [Dallas: Redención Viva, 1985], 83-95). This view is impossible, however, in light of 13:42, 50, where tares, who are labeled “sons of the evil one” in 13:38, and bad fish, called “wicked,” not righteous, in 13:48, experience this judgment” (notes on Matthew 8:5-13).
For this man to be saved and simply losing out on rewards, this has to be the only non-salvation parable among eleven parables which Jesus introduces with the phrase “the kingdom of heaven is like.”
The Messiah refers to one man to point out to the Jew the fact that the judgment was to be based on individual standing and not mere nationality.
Sources Consulted
Badger, Anthony B. Confronting Calvinism: A Free Grace Refutation and Biblical Resolution of Radical Reformed Soteriology.
Chay, Fred, David R. Anderson, Joseph Dillow, Ken Wilson, and Paul Tanner. A Defense of Free Grace Theology: With Respect to Saving Faith, Perseverance, and Assurance. Grace Theology Press.
Figart, Thomas O. The King of the Kingdom of Heaven: A Commentary on Matthew. Grace Gospel Press, 2016, 414-418.
Keathley, Hampton, IV. “The Outer Darkness: Heaven’s Suburb or Hell?”
Lewis, Gordon R. & Bruce A. Demarest. Integrative Theology. Zondervan.
The Moody Bible Commentary. Moody Publishers.
Olson, C. Gordon. Beyond Calvinism & Arminianism: An Inductive Mediate Theology of Salvation. 3rd Edition Expanded, Revised, & Updated. Global Gospel Publishers, 319-320, 361-362.
________. Getting the Gospel Right: A Balanced View of Salvation Truth, 277-278.
Rokser, Dennis M; Stegall, Thomas L.; Witzig, Kurt. Should Christians Fear Outer Darkness? Grace Gospel Press, 103-109, 111-114.
Toussaint, Stanley D. Behold the King: A Study of Matthew. Multnomah Press, 254-255.
Vance, Laurence M. The Other Side of Calvinism. Pensacola, FL: Vance Publications, 266, 348-349, 385, and 494.