Jason and Cindy -
I’ll have a chat with Drew about this when he’s available and then I’ll PM you if that’s OK? In the meantime boys adn girls - you don’t have to argue over old Sobornost 
All the best
Dick
I can’t speak for Cindy, but for me it was quite random (and/or providential): I was busy doing other things; finally had some time and energy to check out the thread; decided to post my thoughts on it per Joel’s request, which would have naturally differed from the theory proposed by Dick et al (although that was an interesting theory, hadn’t seen it before, enjoyed reading about it 
); saw Jaxxen providing the more directly traditional interpretation (which happens to fit a lot more closely with mine, too); decided to preface my own contribution to Joel’s seeking of EU thoughts with a diplomatic nod that I agree with Matt on several points where he thought the other theory was “torturing the texts”–although I spent a good bit of time and effort describing in detail not only the data involved but also how Calvs basically have to foist their theology into this text over-against major data points, whereas I spent no time that I can find or recall criticizing the Girardean interpretation specifically.
Matt (Jaxxen) might have come back complaining that if I was going to spend so much effort dissing Calv interpretations of the text for running against the data, why didn’t I say the same thing against the Girardean theory which by the standard of my theory has to “torture” the data even further?!–NEPOTISM AND FAVORITISM THAT’S OBVIOUSLY WHY!! 
But he didn’t and instead we had a civil exchange. Though he would have been right. 
I didn’t go out of my way to explicitly mention that my critiques would apply even more against the Girardean theory, because I was trying to be nice to Dick and its proponents, by extension thus nicer to them than to Jaxxen.
Immediately after that I pre-empted your challenge to Jaxxen about evangelical rationales, as an attempt to show a bridge that Calvs and Kaths can meet on: despite our differences, we ought to be able to meet here among some other places, too.
And I haven’t called coup on anyone here for the subsequent kerfluffle. Although I think I contributed quite a lot of material to specific examples of what might be nastily called Calv theological gymnastics in their interpretations of the text.
Has anyone else here done that yet in this thread on this topic?
Relatedly, has anyone actually responded to Jaxxen’s critiques of the Girardean theory yet, other than by complaining about his (admittedly distracting) accusations of theological gymnastics and blasphemous identifications, and retorting an accusation of gymnastics and blasphemous identifications back in his direction? He had some specific exegetical details and critiques that could be discussed.
(I know some people have replied moderately to Jaxxen, such as Jael and Cindy, but they weren’t defending the Girardean theory against his exegetical critiques and alternate analysis of the details. Dick’s reply, though fairly moderate, wasn’t about Matt’s exegetical critiques and details per se.)
Universalists can afford to be nice to Calvinists because we believe God will make all things clear in his own good time.
Calvinists also must be nice to Universalists because they cannot know who are the elect, and besides, no one (not even an evil Universalist) can snatch the elect from God’s hand.
So there we have it.
More light, less heat.
Allen – great points!
Thanks Jason – I appreciated reading what you had to say.
Dick, you are one of my best buds on the forum and I would never purposively ruffle your feathers unless you really, really deserved it.
Johnny, You are a prince, dear brother.
Matt, don’t run off. We like you – even Johnny and CL like you.
And CL, your passion is magnificent, and I love your sensitivity to Dick. I’m sorry that I skimmed over his contribution, but I didn’t mean to skim over HIM at all. I just disagree with that interpretation.
Pog, always the diplomatic philosopher! And yes, I absolutely agree that a parable can have multiple interpretations.
Alright all, I’ll try to add some clarity. I don’t have time to respond to every post-not to mention I STILL haven’t figured out how to isolate quotes 
-
CL, you’re using the word “casual”-I said “caustic”. Jael seems to have picked up on that.
Re derailing Miss Tea’s thread…if I remember correctly, she was wanting to overcome or deal with her fear of Hell. I mentioned that PSA does this-at least for the believer. The UR view of purgatory consigns all to the lake of fire, but don’t lose heart, for it is not permanent. TD had already touched of the contraversy. I’m sure I contributed to it, inasmuch that I’m not a UR, but if I fanned the flames it was inadvertent. I also apologised to Miss Tea in her introduction thread as well as the fear of hell thread and that I would no longer post in that thread unless Miss Tea specifically gave permission.
I even went so far as to publicly admonish TD.
Pog, I’d disagree with you regarding multiple, simultaneous yet conflicting truths about what Scripture teaches, parables or not. God is not the author of confusion. The key here being “conflicting”. There may be layers or facets, but not conflicting. In the case of the wedding feast, one view is that the king is God. The other view is the king is Herod or some other type of archvillain. Those two views are not possible to hold together. One is wrong. One view is calling good, evil and evil, good. Whichever view you hold that is how it ends up. This is why theology is not meant to be taken lightly or haphazardly.
Jael, re Dick-I’ve read many of his posts and he seems to be one of the most tender, gentle members of this forum. I do not believe that I’ve treated him poorly or causticly. Hell, his interpretation of the parable isn’t even his. And even he said he and his colleagues struggled with how it reads. Hence, an alternative take. He himself said that he had mistaken my meaning in one of my posts and apolgised for the mistake. I immediately replied “Peace, we all make mistakes and I’m not better myself”. Twice he admitted that he had “the grumps”.
Re “theological gymnastics”-I believe that to be true AND I said that each group, be they Calvinist, Arminian or UR can accuse the other groups of this with varying degrees of legitimacy. I did not say that only UR’s do this.
I challenge any of and all of you here to come up with anything that I’ve ever said against UR or “your God” to be even remotely as insulting and hate filled as what some of the posters here have to say about the traditional view of God. As a Calvinist, it goes without saying that I contend that UR is a heresy, but I don’t projectile vomit some wanna-be Hunter S Thompson vitriolic, hate screed against it, the way that certain members here do. I wouldn’t tolerate that from my youth group, let alone adults. I’ve always been agreeable to the rules of the forum and if I’d stepped out of line, I’d apologise. Jason and Sonia can attest to that via PM’s I’ve sent to them in the past. I’ve always tried to post in the appropriate forums, with Miss Tea’s thread perhaps being a possible exception.
Jael, re that many people here used to be Calvinists. I disagree, but maybe I’m wrong. Compared to the number of members of the site, how many were actually believing, convinced Calvinists as opposed to not? Phillip MacDonald? Recently mangosteen? Firedup2000? Bob Wilson? Alex? Auggy? My guess is that it’d be a minority. Btw, where is Auggy? I always liked his style.
Jason, thank you for trying to clarify certain points. FWIW, I do the same for UR in the circles I run in. Most recently even with TD, via a phone conversation.
Cindy, bless your heart, but do you not realise that when you say things “so and so must not have followed their theology through to its logical conclusion” that so and so might think that they have and would level the same accusation against yourself?
Anyways, thats it for now.
Matt
fair enough, then…perhaps i was a little unfair to you and your intentions!
it’d be great to hear a bit more in depth defense of the Girardian interpretation, ie direct counter-arguments to jaxxen’s distracting bit of propaganda, in the few places he wasn’t going on about “torturing the texts” or “calling good evil and evil good”, etc etc. have to say, as to that last scriptural reference, that has to go up as yet another over-used out of context scripture along with “touch not mine anointed”. both can be used in defense of stuff i like, as a fallacious reply to an argument, to seemingly “trump” any further argument. as if God is so small that He can’t take a bit of us questioning, or positing less obvious theories.
i will try and look into this a bit more and hopefully post again soon.
Allen…we can “afford” to treat them nicely, sure…on a personal level. but we ought not to tolerate hateful, abusive dogma that arguably preys on the vulnerable. we most certainly ought not to tolerate those who preach said dogma pouncing inappropriately on someone who has openly confessed their very strong fear of hell for themselves and their loved ones as both true disciple and jaxxen did to Miss Tea. they can apologise, but sadly this is exactly what calvinism does. it always pounced when you’re down.
Hi Jaxxen sorry to hector you on another thread – but I guess I did want you to divert your energies until the thread was split. I don’t think that someone terrified not only for themselves but for family and friends is going to be comforted by limited atonement too much. If you want a civilised discussion with Universalists it don’t think it was the right thread to choose to come in on (I wish it had been locked actually when TB entered); people can make decisions about election etc. when they are not already terrified – it really wasn’t the place for anyone to be discussing doctrine. That goes for all of us.
But of course you have every right to be here and have a chat about your beliefs in terms of open debate.
Hi Jason – to tell the truth I wasn’t bothered by your post. That’s absolutely fine. I did the post in January because it was at a time when I think you were away because of your Dad – and Joel wasn’t getting any responses. What I’d say at the moment about the Girardian interpretation is that I first read of it in germinal form in the writings of the Russian Orthodox Universalist Berdyaev, and then again the writings of Raymond Schwager who develops the thought of von Balthassar on Theo-Drama in a Girardian direction. Let’s discuss it sometime – but I don’t want to at the moment. But certainly in the light of all this my belief that the wrath and violence is not in God but in us has and that the key to scripture including the parables is the perspective of the victim has actually stronger; and I wouldn’t wan tot deceive anyone that this is my view (and I d hope that I don’t actually have ‘followers’ Jaxxen).
To the Londoners – who certainly aren’t my followers or they’d behave themselves more – you know I need a rest and I could do with a boring life for Lent. Thanks for being kind.
Love
Dick
By the way, the forum engine has been double-posting some entries in the past few weeks. I’ve been trying (not very successfully) to remember to poke Alex about looking into that, but meanwhile the ad/mods are deleting the duplicated posts. My practice on that is to delete the first post(s) of the duplication set, unless on a quick scan I can see updates to the earlier ones not the later ones, since it’s more likely that the last one will have any updates or fixes out of the set.
On another issue that ends up being kind of a technical forum thing: I forgot to address CL’s question about why it seems the ad/mods here defend Calvinists and Calvinism more than Arminianists and Arminians.
There’s no conspiracy about that, it’s simply a matter of incidental math: it happens that up until the present day there have always been more members vocally annoyed about Calvinistic soteriology (in some variant or broadly speaking) than about Arminianistic theology. Administrators and moderators are chosen by the site owners partly for our willingness to make peace with both Calvs and Arms (and among forum members generally), thus fulfilling one of the mandates they intended for the forum.
So when we defend Calvinism and Calvinists we’re doing what the site owners asked and expect us to do in regard to both Calv and Arm theology and proponents, but due to circumstances that has (so far) involved more Calv peacemaking in emotionally bristly situations than Arm peacemaking in similarly bristly situations. If the circumstances change and we come to have more people here vocally annoyed about Arminianistic soteriology, I fully expect the proportions will change accordingly.
Now, back to actually discussing the parable from various EU and non-EU interpretations.
Going back to Jaxxen’s exposition of a more traditional interpretation (with some Calv flavoring, although Arms would usually agree with most of what he’s saying, too–as do I the Christian universalist!), as a comparative critique of the Girardean theory, allow me to try to re-present it without the undiplomatic language. (I’ve also added a bit of clarification [in brackets like this], and fixed a few spelling, grammatic and formatting issues.)
Some additional comments along this line later:
As far as I can tell that’s all the direct analysis of the parable from Jaxxen in this thread, including compared to the Girardean theory. Claims that the Girardean theory only works by foisting UR theology into an interpretation might also be included, but I didn’t see any detailed discussion from him on that; so I’ll provisionally include the claim in principle as part of his discussion (since that might or might not be disputed as a matter of interpretative procedure) but not various repetitions on the theme of the claim. And I’ll remind readers as Jaxxen himself recently did that he DID say that Calvs are not immune to doing this either.
The question of whether, to what extent, and perhaps why Kaths are reading UR into an interpretation (such as for the Girardean theory, or my own for that matter), and how much (if any) doing so may run against (or fit?!) the details of the parable and its contexts, is an entirely salient question in principle and can be discussed soberly–so long as people aren’t outright accusing each other of cheating, which is an ethical charge (thus also an insult to those who don’t regard themselves as cheating for whatever reason).
I think it might be helpful to set up a comparison and contrast with how the different interpretative theories relate to the data in further relation to each other. I have to go do some other things this morning, and I wouldn’t mind at all if someone else set that up. But I’m willing to try later if someone doesn’t get around to doing it first.
i’ll agree with the potential for tension in the king definition.
i’d have thought that might’ve been addressed though at some time by the proponents of this view.
Matt, I’m glad you didn’t bow out. You said:
Absolutely I realize that. Of course I know some of the things I said would possibly rub you the wrong way – I don’t WANT to irritate you or anyone, but if I have to, I at least do try to do it in as kind a way as possible. I realize you think I’m mistaken. And I think you’re mistaken. One of us are wrong and I hope and believe it’s you – because to be honest, my vision of God is bigger and more loving than yours (insofar as I understand it). I believe you made a brief comment recently to the effect that it would be nice if we EUs were right. (Please forgive me if I’m misquoting – it was just an aside in a remark about something else.)
Assuming I’m getting that right – and even if I’m mistaken about you personally, I’ve heard such comments from many – both Calvinist and Arminian – it strikes me as odd. If they believe that God is always good all the time, why would they say such a thing? What He DOES is good. How could a thing we imagined be better? He’s made us in His image, and those of us who have believed and confessed Him in all sincerity have begun the process of being transformed into His image. How could we imagine something better than He actually provides? He will exceed all of our expectations. We have been given a new heart. We would love for Him to be able to save all the ones we love and all the ones we deem desirable to be saved (at the very least). Our rebellious children, for instance, or the little Jewish boy hanged by the Nazis, or the little Muslim girl given at age 7 in marriage to a 39 year old man, who died in childbirth at the age of 11, and so on. We WANT God to love and value and save these people.
Is it His will for us to desire that? Or are we supposed to hate them since from all appearances, perhaps all of them died in their sins? What about the prodigal child who dies a prodigal? Should we hate her when we hear she died upside down in a creek at the age of 15 because she hit the brakes at the wrong moment on an icy road – and we know in all probability she never repented? Should we hate her then because we must assume God does? Or maybe we should hold on to the feeble hope that in the seconds before her death she somehow managed to say the sinners’ prayer (or whatever it is that Calvs say you have to do to be saved). But if we’re wrong then we’re in the position of loving someone God hates, and He wouldn’t like that, would He? That sort of a god – the god who sends the little Jewish boy to eternal hopeless torments and his Nazi guard who repented years later to paradise – that god is not a good god. His mercies are not everlasting, and his faithfulness to that boy has come to an end.
It’s that sort of thought that causes people to say that your God is a bad god. I don’t think, Matt, that your true God is a bad God at all. I don’t believe you’ve thought it through. That isn’t intended to be an insult to you or anyone else. We all have these filters through which we view the world, and one of the chief aims of the life-long learner is to get rid of the filters and see the truth. Because if we can know the Truth, He will set us free not only from lies, but from the father of lies.
Blessings, Cindy
!?!PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE FEAST!?!
(Just saying, that part of the thread might be better as a p-mail discussion. I’m making a heroic effort to get the thread back on track, because this parable is a tough one that doesn’t get discussed much on the forum. HALPZ!)
Hi Matt
You issue another ‘challenge’ to those who reject Calvinism, but like Calvinism itself your challenge is a chimera, holed fatally below the waterline. You say:
“I challenge any of and all of you here to come up with anything that I’ve ever said against UR or “your God” to be even remotely as insulting and hate filled as what some of the posters here have to say about the traditional view of God.”
Huh? The traditional view of God? Whose tradition are we talking about here? Because as I’m sure you know Christianity had been up and running and doing quite nicely thank you for around five hundred years before Augustine came on the scene and made up all that crap about predestination to ECT. And forever after the theology he started, and which Calvin and the Calvinists perpetuated, has only ever been a minority viewpoint within the Church. So, no ‘traditional view’ for a start.
And then you seem to be looking for a pat on the back for not throwing stones at the God of UR - the God, let us remind ourselves, who is both so loving that He desires to save everybody, to make everybody supremely happy for all eternity, and so powerful that He is able to save everybody. Only a crazy man would want that sort of a God not to exist, or throw stones at Him if He did. So it’s hardly anything to be proud of that you haven’t done that is it?
On the other hand you seem to think it worthy of condemnation that some people, including me, have spoken the truth about Calvin’s God - a god, let us remember, who avowedly doesn’t love everybody and doesn’t wish to save them, doesn’t want to make them supremely happy for all eternity, even though he supposedly could. And not only does this god not love everybody, he actively hates probably the vast majority of people and deliberately wills that they suffer for all eternity even though he himself made them, and made them that way, in the first place. This charming deity is sovereign over all creation, unchangeably ordains everything that comes to pass - every murder, every rape, every long, drawn out and agonising death from a cancer, every pain and terror-filled nightmare of every abused child. You don’t like it when that sadistic tyrant - that god who is indistinguishable from a devil - is condemned as unworthy of any love or respect or worship or belief? But tell me, what is there to love or respect or worship in such a deity? Why would any sane person want to believe in or worship such a being?
It’s not like you’ve got two different conceptions of God, both equally worthy of love and respect and worship, and you pays your money and you takes your choice between them according to your taste. No, the two conceptions are as far apart as the East is from the West. It is possible that the UR God is too good to be true, although of course I don’t believe it. But Calvin’s God is simply too bad to be true. If it were even possible that such a being existed, it would not be God it would be the devil. This isn’t a question of disrespect for differing opinions about the nature of God. This is simply the dismissal of an imaginary demon.
I do find it extraordinary that you or any other Calvinist fail to see the plain truth of this situation - which is that by misrepresenting God as you do you are stubbornly calling white black, the divine demonic. And I for one would be very wary of doing that.
All the best
Johnny
Cindy, I love what you said, sister Honestly you need to write a book
Aw thanks, Matt.
And oh yeah, Jason. Right.
I don’t know what else to say about the parable though. It doesn’t seem like a problem to me at all. Here it is in Luke:
And here it is in Matthew:
According to Kenneth Bailey, (Poet and Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke (Combined edition)) invitations for a great feast of this sort would be sent out and accepted early. The chief men of the kingdom would be expected to come as a sign of loyalty to the king. So their late refusal after having accepted was a calculated insult and a veiled threat of insurrection. Their excuses weren’t even an attempt at a genuine reason for failing to show. As today, and even more so, no one but no one would buy a field without inspecting it thoroughly. Not only that, but the sort of people we’re talking about would have lived in the community all their lives and be well acquainted with all the land in the vicinity. Same with a team of oxen, let alone five teams. It was a huge investment. He would certainly have already tried them out again and again during weeks of negotiation. As for the guy who had “married a wife,” Bailey says that what that really meant was, “I have a woman in the back room. I have better things to do.” That is for the parable as given in Luke.
As to the parable in Matthew, my own interpretation is that this is a role-reversal situation. The Jews (particularly their leaders to whom Jesus told the parable) had rejected the invitation by refusing to acknowledge the Messiah. Having spent some time looking at the signs in John and studying what they meant and what they would have meant to the Jews, I can’t see any way whatsoever at all to suppose that the Jewish leadership did not know that Jesus WAS the prophesied Messiah. But He wasn’t the Messiah they were looking for. They wanted a military leader to put Israel at the top of the food chain and they second in command to him. So despite the signs He performed, the signs in the heavens, the time-table He perfectly fulfilled, and even eventually despite His resurrection from the grave, the majority of them snubbed their promised Messiah. Their excuses were lame. They KNEW and yet they somehow deluded themselves into thinking they could keep the vineyard for themselves.
IMO, the King did destroy the city, through the Romans in 70 AD. The poor, halt, lame, maimed, blind, etc. were admitted to the marriage feast (that would be us outsiders – Gentile beggars – like Lazarus with the rich man) and those for whom the feast was prepared refused to even taste it. So they miss the big event; the Messianic Kingdom the Jews all longed for, and many of them do still long for. That is the marriage feast they’re going to miss out on and in which we get included in because they, not willing to come, made room for us to be invited as substitute guests.
As for the guest without the wedding garment, he’s like the baby goats, depending on his own righteousness. Or you could suppose him to be bereft of good deeds, since the white linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. Either way it all comes down to the same thing. He gets tossed out on his ear because he hasn’t seen fit to put on the wedding garment provided by the king.
Many are called; few are chosen. I understand how the calvs see this, but my take on it is that the chosen are those who get to come to the feast, those to whom the message of reconciliation is given, those who will be saying with the Spirit, “If anyone is thirsty let him come and drink the waters of life freely, without cost.” Those are the chosen who join with the Spirit in calling the many. Will the many come? The parable doesn’t say. They’ll miss out on the marriage feast, apparently, but that’ doesn’t mean they’ll never be drawn in.
So fwiw, that’s my take on the parable of the Marriage Feast. Comments?
that seems reasonable, Cindy.
one thing i will add though, is that our righteousness is as filthy rags. i really don’t think the guy’s deeds were what got him thrown out…rather not being clothed in the righteousness that comes from God.
i think the idea of AD70 being the destruction of “those murderers” has a problem for this interpretation however. God did NOT destroy Jerusalem…Rome did. that actually lends credence to the idea of the Roman king (the emperor, or the lesser puppet kings perhaps) being the inviter, and thus the destroyer.
now my problem with an eschatological interpretation is this: Jesus was preaching a kingdom that was at hand. He wasn’t saying “this will happen in the future”, he was saying “this is what it is like now”…although He uses past tense in the parable, so he may in fact be referring to past events, such as judgements perpetrated on Israel for their sins, as per all the prophets of the OT. Jesus Himself may’ve been gathering those 2nd choice guests.
but here is another issue…all through the Bible, God shows that our 2nd choice (the poor, sick, etc) are God’s 1st choice. this is something that is in keeping with the Girardian interpretation of all the Scriptures, as he notices that those on the margins, that humanity is quite happy to villify and kill, God instead takes their side…gives them a voice, and ultimately legitimises them by raising their King, Jesus…who was rejected and killed in classic scapegoating manner (again Girard noticing this particular emphasis…as opposed to the PSA model which puts our sins on Christ in a literal way, rather than having Christ expose our sins, which Girard does).
gosh sorry i’m aware i’m rambling. coffee not kicking in yet.
anyway…given these issues, i confess i have some doubts about all these interpretations of this given parable. perhaps we are overcomplicating it. parables are symbols, afterall, and may not describe literal events, although i can understand the murder of the prophets being alluded to.
so apart from latching unto “reformed” eschatology and PSA, which need theological/scriptural gymnastics (ha!) to apply holistically to the Bible, how can we do justice to what Christ really was talking about? i think we’ve already uncovered the fact that a “plain reading” is not good enough…there are problems so far with many of the views put forward. is there a way to start from scratch?
also again, it couldn’t have been the guy’s deeds that counted against his being clothed for the wedding because the invitation goes out to the good and the wicked.
Hi, CL
Sorry – I wasn’t clear about the good deeds/bad deeds thing. What I meant to say is pretty much what you said. But the church IS clothed in white linen, which is the righteous acts of the saints (or something like that – I’m quoting it from memory best I can – I think that’s somewhere in Revelation. The thing is, we can only ever DO righteous acts when we’re dead to this world and living by the life of Christ. That said, I only mentioned the white linen as an aside and it obviously confused the issue. Yes. The wedding garment is the righteousness of Christ. Having received that righteousness we will naturally act in accord with it, but it is HIS righteousness that counts. Ours is a reaction; an affirmation – and “ours” ultimately comes only from Him anyway. But if you receive that righteousness, you are righteous – whether or not you’ve had the opportunity to act it out.
God also did not destroy Jerusalem the first time either – when everyone got carted off to Babylon. Babylon did. Still, God took the credit. He says Babylon was His tool – His hammer if I remember correctly. So while you could argue that 70 AD isn’t what Jesus was talking about (or even more convincingly, wasn’t ALL that Jesus was talking about), I don’t think you can convincingly use the “it wasn’t God; it was Rome” argument. Except in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah and a couple of Israel’s enemies, God did not personally fight most of the battles in which His judgments fell in the OT. Why would He feel the need to do that in the NT?
“Now” is a relative term. The invited guests were currently refusing the invitation – that is, rejecting the Messiah. It was in process, even if it did take 70 years (less really) for it to all play out. Not a long time in God’s book. In addition though, I think this could also be a prophecy of things yet to come, but I wasn’t talking about that in my post.
In the parable, I believe the king’s guests represent Israel, and particularly their leaders. The WERE invited first. The chosen people, given the oracles of God, the spoken word of God, the privilege of seeing His acts, the prophets . . . they had so much and yet then ended up out of the party, and the poor (the not chosen nations) became the honored guests. While I agree that God is totally into blessing the poor and hurting of the world, I don’t think this parable is talking about that either. Why? Because in this parable the first choice WASN’T the poor & etc. It was the “man,” the wealthy, the rulers. They were the first line, and they turned Him down. They represent (imo) the chosen people – the elect, if you will.
It was also their job to bless and care for the poor – which they didn’t do, except for a few of the poor of their own nation – and even that, inadequately. Maybe they refused the king’s invite because He DID care for the poor instead of sucking up to THEM, the important ones. So they crucified Him. (sigh) Very bad move, that.
G’mornin, Cindy! Yesterday afternoon I made a long reply to your post, but unfortunately I lost it as I was submitting it 
So what appeared was just a quoting of your post with no reply. Sorry for any confusion. Anyway, I’m pressed for time this weekend with family visiting and doubt if I’ll be able to do much until maybe Sunday or Monday. If I reply as I plan to, it’ll probably be in this thread but I think maybe it’ll be appropriate in the new thread that Jason has started and if so, maybe you can move your post and my reply over to that. That’s it for now. Have a good weekend!
Matt
I think what Cindy was going for (certainly what I was going for, and my analysis is pretty much the same, including with reference to Kenneth Bailey’s cultural accounts) was that the man chose not to accept the freely given wedding sash yet tried to get the wedding feast anyway. That’s what gets him thrown out–even though the king himself calls him “Friend”!
(That’s a detail I forgot in my prior account, which also doesn’t mesh at all well with standard Calv interpretations. Nor even with some Arminian interpretations, although they’d be in a better position to incorporate the detail that the king was or in some way even still is a friend of this sinner. On the other hand, if a Calvinist went the route of this parable referring to chastisement and/or post-mortem salvation of misbehaving elect, the “Friend” would make sense.)
Except that in the preceding parable (also reported in the parallel scenes from GosMark and GosLuke) Jesus explicitly tells the same people that the epic destruction of the king punishing the enemies who murder his representatives (up to and including his beloved son), definitely applies to rebel Israel (and the religious leaders who murder Jesus specifically):
"'So I say to you: the kingdom of God will be taken away (from you), and be given to a nation producing its fruits.
‘And he who falls on this stone, will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.’
Now when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking of them. And when they heard it, they said, ‘May it never be!’!" (Harmonizing in Luke’s data.)
In answer to which Jesus tells the more overtly rebellious and murderous version of the parable of the wedding feast.
During the Greater Condemnation scene subsequent to this (probably occurring on the following day, from a harmonization standpoint), Jesus again clearly puts the coming punitive wrath, as well as their coming acceptance of His coming kingdom, in the future.
(Their future positive acceptance of His coming return to the Temple is an important post-mortem salvation detail of the scene!–I’m certainly not going to be getting rid of it. But by the same token I am obliged to take the future punishment coming language seriously, too, be that only in 70CE or also later.)
So even though Jesus does preach a kingdom of God that is already starting, He is also (and in many other places than this) talking about a kingdom of God that is in some sense still to come.
I think Jaxxen is contextually correct to be connecting the interpretation of this parable with at least the one preceding it.