I wouldn't argue with that.I see the cross as being the ultimate sanction to His right to judge (as if being the creator wasn't enough)
Jn 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
However, I won't debate the issue is anyone disagrees....it's just my opinion
Acts 17:30-31 KJV
30) And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31) Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
God says Jesus is the One because He raised Him from the dead. This tells us that even though Jesus died, yet He was righteous, not deserving, therefore able to judge.
Because he was a literary device, to make the point.How did the guy get to the feast without a garment?
I know there are some who look at all the details in parables forming various doctrines from each one, sometimes ending up way off in the weeds, and seldom in agreement with others who do the same.
The easiest example of why we don't do this is "The Parable of the Unjust Judge". Jesus was not teaching that God is unjust. And how many contradictory doctrines are built on the Parable of the 10 Bridesmaids? Here again Jesus gave it away, we are to watch, because we don't know when He is coming. Go the sellers of Holy Spirit so you can buy more? You have to allow the details to tell the story, and discern the truth being taught "alongside".
The master who loaned his servant a massive fortune, said servant being unwilling to forgive another servant who owed him some pocket change . . . think about it. This master, it's his servant. He would know perfectly well that the servant would never be able to repay such a debt, so why did he loan it to him in the first place? This is what I'm talking about. I could go on to answer that question, and then build a doctrine. But I don't think that is the way.
Much love!