In Matthew 22.11-13, the king enters the banquet hall and notices a man who is not wearing wedding clothes. He asks him why, but the man is speechless. The king then orders that he be thrown out.
How could the listeners in Matthew’s context have understood this? If this man was poor and had no means of obtaining a wedding garment, is he responsible?
In the of the wedding feast in Matthew 22.11-13, several commentators suggest that the king himself provided the wedding garments to the guests, as was the custom at royal banquets of that time.
Historical and cultural context
In the ancient cultures of the East, especially in the Middle East, it was common for the host, especially a king, to give his guests a suitable garment at a wedding or a great feast. This garment symbolized:
_The honor of being invited
_Acceptance of the host’s authority
_Preparation for and respect of the occasion
Thus, the fact that the man had no wedding garment does not mean that he was poor or unable to obtain one, but rather that he refused to wear the one that was offered to him.
Spiritual interpretation
_The wedding garment represents the righteousness, holiness or faith that God offers to those who answer his call.
_To refuse this garment is to come to God without letting oneself be transformed, without repentance or commitment.
_The man excluded from the feast is not punished for his poverty, but for his inner refusal to conform to the spirit of the Kingdom.
Conclusion
The idea that the king provided the garments reinforces the message of grace: God provides everything needed to enter his Kingdom, but each person must accept this gift and put it on. It is not a matter of means, but of heart.