Was salvation originally meant for the Jews according to the parable of the wedding banquet?

Question

It looks as if salvation was originally meant for the Jews, at least that is what I can infer from the parable of the wedding banquet, that God sent Jesus to the Jews first and if they accepted him as the promised Messiah then , salvation and sonship would be theirs and theirs alone, but if they refused then God would spread the good news to the gentiles and this can be seen where God sends invitations to houses beyond the house of Israel.

Mathew 22:1-14

Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’ 5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless.13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Could this in addition to Jesus' response to the gentile woman, that you cannot take food belonging to a child and give it to a dog, mean that salvation was originally meant for the House of Israel and that the world received an invitation because the Jews rejected him.

Answer 1

The parable of the wedding banquet never mentions salvation (from anything). Nor does it mention the Jews or any other nation.

The next account pointed to - Matthew 15:21-28 - certainly does flag up Gentile people as opposed to Jewish people, but it never mentions salvation. It just says that, due to a Gentile woman's great faith, the miracle of delivering her daughter from a great affliction was granted her, by Jesus. This, despite Jesus saying he was "sent to the lost sheep of Israel" (vs. 24). That, actually would have been a good text to base this question on.

However, sticking to the text in question, the verse prior to the quotation, and the verse immediately following it, gives the answer.

"And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables [the one about the two sons instructed by their father to work in his vineyard, and the one about the unfruitful vineyard eventually being dug up and left to ruin by the owner], they perceived that he spake of them." Matthew 21:45 K.J.V.

"Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk." Matthew 22:15 K.J.V.

Certainly, the religious leaders all those parables were really addressed to were Jews. They knew Jesus spoke of God turfing them outside of his favour. They also knew that many people whom they despised (even within Judaism, and all Samaritans, and all Gentiles) were being spoken of as invited into this banquet, in their stead.

Beyond that, interpretations abound, but there is no category of Christian group sought for their particular interpretation. Stack Christianity requires that to be pinpointed, otherwise a free-for-all with interpretations may occur. So, I will not go into any interpretations but just leave it there, at what the bare text does (and does not) say. This might be less than satisfactory for you, but I will not be drawn further.

Answer 2

What's interesting about this parable is that the bride is not clearly revealed, yet she is in Revelation.

The king (God the Father) has set a marriage banquet for his son (Jesus Christ). The king sends his servants (OT prophets) to invite certain guests, who may include Jew and Gentile, but who refuse.

The king sends forth his armies (Rome) and destroys them and their city (Jerusalem).

The king then sends his servants (NT prophets) to bid all to come to the wedding.

The wedding is well attended whether good or bad (saved by grace, not works), but one guest "got in" without the proper clothes (belief/clothed in Messiah, Son of God). That guest is sent to outer darkness where he may gnash his teeth complaining eternally.

OP: Could this ... mean that salavation [sic] was originally meant for the House of Israel and that the world received an invitation because the Jews rejected him.

It is fairly clear that there had been numerous marriages and genealogies that included Gentiles. When they left Egypt, for example, some Egyptians came out also.

It is also clear that the blessing and seed of Abraham included the nations (Gentiles).

So, it seems that the parable is more an expression of disappointment than a commentary on nationality.

Answer 3

The Mosaic covenant was a representation of two eternal covenants, the covenant of works and the covenant of promise.

These covenants were first given to the Jews but had always been destined for both first the Jew and then secondly the Gentile as well. The intention to provide salvation to all was not because the Jews rejected it and then only as a consequence given to the Gentiles because “is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too” (Rom 3:29) and “ As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations.” (Genesis 17:4-5)

While the Mosaic covenant was in force the Jew was like an actor on a stage for the rest of the world to watch God’s drama be played out for the benefit of the world. In this play the Jew represents the chosen elect, though not truly the elect but only physically as a type for all the true invisible elect who had faith in Christ. In general the gentile represents the lost and damned who are worse then dogs, but not all truly damned and not all truly dogs for even under these old shadowing representations of the gospel, under the overall reminder of the covenant on works under the laws from mount Horeb, there were gentiles with faith not treated as dogs. A good example of this is when Noah was sent to preach to Nineveh, and Noah actually did not want to preach God’s love to them as he wanted his won works and the works of his fellow Jews to alone be honored. God had other plans and in the belly of the whale without the possibility of any works, and hardly even breathing allowed made his faith renewed in death, symbolizing Christ taking out own death and spitting out life, which led to the preaching and salvation of the gentile Ninevites. So you see regardless of any parables or sayings of Jesus who was only to preach to the Jews as he was still under the Laws of Moses, God always was a God of the gentiles also. Once the laws of Moses were all satisfied by his death, the Mosaic legislation was made obsolete and the promise fully published to all the world.

When we do see phrases that seem to indicate God turned to the Gentiles only because the Jews rejected it, this is only transitional in focus. For the gospel was first to be fully proclaimed to the Jew but once widely understood and rejected, the speed and focus would naturally turn to the Gentile, who was always to be included as in a second position.