For what it’s worth, Matt (Jaxxen), I for one agree (so far) with the gist of the traditional interpretation: the king is God, and He’s punishing various rebels.
One type of rebel is represented by the people who give insultingly lame excuses not to come to the wedding feast. Jesus is reported as telling this parable on two occasions, the other being during a banquet at Luke 14:16-24. In that version there is no violence done; in the version reported at Matt 22, the violence starts with the rebel but wealthy servants of the king, some of whom are not satisfied to give insultingly lame excuses (calculated to be polite indications of rebellion and no confidence in the reign of the King, by the cultural standards of the time).
The other type of rebel is the one who agrees to come to the feast but tries to get in on his own terms. The king would have provided at least a sash for his poorer guests to wear so that they would not be ashamed. This man, having accepted the offer to come to the feast, has bluntly refused to wear the sash. The king is entirely correct to throw the ungrateful and insulting freeloafer into the outer darkness.
Comparing this king to Herod or one of the other tyrants is highly inappropriate. The king is acting honorably, and those who are being punished have acted very dishonorably, even criminally or murderously.
At the same time, the parable (in one or both forms) features details that don’t synch well with Calvinistic soteriology.
The main Calvish detail is that some of the doers of good and evil (Matt 22:10) who don’t start out servants of the king are compelled by the king (Luke 14:23) to attend the feast, not simply invited. But then there are big differences, too.
1.) The king’s offer to His chief servants is, by all story details, sincere. He’s surprised they didn’t come, and annoyed at their grave (even murderous) disrespect of His offer. He doesn’t choose in advance not to even seriously invite them, and their invitation isn’t incidental. Except for what happens to them they would have fit the Calv notion of the elect: they have already been called to be servants of the king (or they wouldn’t be in their current position) and they’re directly and intentionally called again to attend the wedding feast. In fact, they’re called TWICE: once to let them know the wedding feast is on the way (so they have plenty of time to prepare), and once to let them know the specific time they ought to arrive. This social protocol is more evident in GosLuke’s version. In GosMatt’s version the repeated invitation isn’t about properly and politely alerting them to be ready and to come, but about persisting to some degree at bringing them in, with the persistence met by murderous rebellion rather than only further insults.
2.) The other big difference is that if the wedding feast represents heaven and the guests who are brought in are the Calv elect, God apparently elects some to heaven who ungratefully insult Him for His charity, and who then are thrown into the outer darkness with the others!
3.) The moral of the story at the end of GosMatt’s version, “For many are called but few are chosen”, whatever it may mean, doesn’t fit the parable on the face of it. Very many (actually everyone in the story population) was very seriously called; by Calv standards they ought to therefore have been chosen for salvation, too. And the group actually at the wedding feast clearly outnumbers those who have to be outside. The numerical contrast of the moral doesn’t fit the details of the parable (either in GosLuke or GosMatt) at all.
It might be replied that the wedding feast actually represents the Church, not heaven per se; but the notion that God would sincerely and intentionally invite someone into the Church, and they would actually come in, in direct contrast to those who don’t come in, and then throw that guy out for being an ungrateful rebel, doesn’t mesh well with Calvinistic notions of election.
If anything, these details would be indicating that some of God’s elect will unexpectedly rebel and be severely punished. Which fits the basic notion that the Pharisees (and Israel more generally) are being talked about here. But that doesn’t fit Calvinistic notions of election, the compulsion of those who have done nothing to earn the graciousness of the king notwithstanding. The king ought to be persisting in bringing the rebel servants or the rebel pauper into His kingdom until He gets it done; and He shouldn’t be seriously inviting them into the feast if He isn’t going to persist at bringing them in.
Of course, if the story isn’t over yet for the ones being punished, and if the doctrine of divine persistence is well-established elsewhere, then there is no problem for a Calvinistic interpretation–there might have to be a minor adjustment to expect some post-mortem salvation of God’s elect, and a Calvinist might have to suppose that the parable simply isn’t talking about those God doesn’t seriously evangelize (much as Calvs interpret the parable of the 100th sheep and the 10th coin). The main adjustment would be that the parable should be read as a warning that even God’s elect may seriously rebel against Him and have to be seriously punished.
But then, neither can the parable on those terms be read over against an Arm or Kath interpretation. If the story isn’t over for those who are punished, then it can’t count as testifying in favor of hopeless punishment.
Similarly, the total disparity between the numerical contrast of the moral and the details of the parable, is a main reason why some radical interpreters figure it means few are chosen to be punished. But if the meaning of election isn’t primarily about being elected to salvation from sin (although that, too), but about being elected for some purpose, then the moral doesn’t have to be about punishment one way or another. For example, if election is about being chosen to be an evangelical witness to the world, then the election cannot be exclusively salvific; and bringing such an interpretation (exegetically established elsewhere) into the interpretation of the moral would result in a coherent criticism by Jesus of those who had been elected (the rich nobility and landowners, who by the king’s authority have been given administrative advantages) to be the light of the world to those who are called (everyone, rich and poor alike). The warning, like most of Jesus’ other warnings about eschatological punishment on the way, is certainly directed against lazy and/or uncharitable and/or rebellious servants of His: if the moral is proposed to critique against misbehavior by those relatively few whom God elects for special evangelical service (such as originally Israel and even the Pharisees), that would cleanly fit the gist of the parable’s details.
At any rate Kaths (universalists) would notice that the people being punished look a lot like they were elected by God to be at the wedding feast, and agreeing with Calvs that we should expect God to persist in saving those whom He elects for salvation; therefore we would conclude, with dovetailing evidence exegeted from elsewhere, that the story for those being punished isn’t over. And we would notice with the Arminians that, so far as the parable seems to indicate, everyone is seriously called to the feast. We wouldn’t be able to get continual original persistence from this parable, but neither can the Calvinist; for this parable, taken only as itself, the Arms would have priority of direct exegesis (in my estimation).
There is one small but significant problem with an Arm interpretation: the fellow without the sash is thrown outside again. But this is only a problem if the wedding feast is regarded as final salvation. If it is regarded as membership in the Church, then neither hardshell Arminians (who would say that anyone can lose their salvation short of heaven) nor softshell Arminians (who would say that he was in the Church without having seriously converted, so of course God would not be expected to persist in saving him yet) would have no problem at all.
Or almost no problem for the Arminians, since the language does look like eschatological punishment, not merely exclusion from the church, which either hardshell or softshell would regard as reversible (unless the sin against the Holy Spirit was invoked perhaps. The man without the sash might be argued to be treading underfoot and regarding as worthless the sacrifice of Christ, so Heb 10 and related verses from Hebrews might be appealed to).
I appreciate the fact that theology is not to be taken lightly and you feel it’s necessary to put what you feel is relevant information out there, but this is the internet. You’re not having correspondence with Meredith Kline and Karl Barth. Anyhoo, I’ll suffice it to say that we agree on the identity of the king, that the “many are called, few are chosen” refers to the Reformed understanding of the general call and the effective call and that like you, I will not be too dogmatic on certain components of the parable, and that we both agree that the king had offered a type of covering-which I say would equate to being “clothed in Christ”, and woe unto those who are found naked.
How dare He?!!