Where Truth Lies

This sermon was heard at the First Presbyterian Church in Berryville, Arkansas on Sunday October 12, 2008, the 28th Sunday in Ordinary Time.

Exodus 32:1-14
Psalm 106:1-6, 19-23
Philippians 4:1-9
Matthew 22:1-14

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O Lord, our rock and our redeemer. Amen

Parables are wonderful stories with one big problem. As the parables are read, people who know scripture tend to respond saying, “Ah yes, this is a wonderful story” and with that, tune into past experiences with the parable instead of paying attention to it as it is being shared anew.

This is one of many truths about the parables of Jesus Christ; we listen to them through the ears of our experience, not the ears of the Holy Spirit. Believe me, when I say “we” I mean “we” because I have to fight this temptation as much as anybody else.

Within this parable, there are many different kinds of truth. There is historical and cultural truth as the parable has references that we may not catch because we are not familiar with the history and culture. There is literary truth, because the parable as a form of literature contains truth in that context. There is also the truth of interpretation since there is nearly 2,000 years of analysis behind Matthew’s gospel.

So, let’s begin with the king who gave a wedding banquet for his son sending his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding banquet. One of the first historical things we need to know is that long before the celebration, the people would have received invitations. While they did not know the precise time or day of the wedding feast, because of the hustle and bustle of preparing for the celebration, they would not be surprised when the slaves came with the “day of event” summons.[1]

Another bit of history we need to know is that at this time weddings, while grand feasts, are not the timed to the minute thing they are today. For the king’s slaves to prepare a great banquet, the oxen and the fat calves had to be slaughtered and prepared. This is nothing like my macaroni and cheese with summer sausage casserole in the oven for today’s potluck.

Preaching another scripture passage about cooking a full team of oxen, the Reverend Doctor David W. Johnson said:

“I’ve never actually boiled an ox. Or wanted to. I do a brisket now and again. That takes all afternoon. I have no idea how long it took to boil the oxen, but it wasn’t done in an afternoon. How long would it take to butcher and dress twenty-four oxen, cook them all up, and prepare beef stew for a bazillion? Maybe a week. Maybe a year. Maybe three years plus two summers.”[2]

Our parable doesn’t say how many oxen and fatted calves were slaughtered and prepared, but as it was the king who gave the banquet, we can imagine the number was substantial. The language tells us it was absolutely plural, so took preparations took quite a while. Many were involved in other preparations for the wedding feast, not just the slaves but other citizens of the kingdom too. The banquet master would get in touch with the priest to butcher the animals. He would have needed the people who provided bread, spices, and other foods. And don’t forget the wine merchant. Since many were involved in its preparation, the people knew the feast was coming.

Another important historical element to this piece is that when the people say, “we’re busy” to the king’s servants; it means more than “we’re busy.” To reject the king’s invitation, or more properly the king’s command, is an act of rebellion. To do it en masse is a sign of conspiracy.[3] Historically, no king would stand for this.

Parables are great, but these nuances are lost until we learn them. There are elements of truth in the history and culture of this story, but there is truth beyond history and culture.

Another part of the truth comes from the literary qualities of the parable. One of the key concepts of the parable is that it is not a true story. Even though as we have just heard, there is historical truth mixed in, this story does not reflect an actual event.

So in our story, after the slaves return to the king mistreated and worse, the king wages war on those who reject him and his invitation. This part of the story should be a red flag that this is not a true story. I ask what king would let supper get cold to go and wage war on a city? This is wonderfully epic, filled with dramatic exaggeration, and highly unlikely.

Further, as a nation we have recent experience about the success of a campaign of “shock and awe.” There is literally no way to wage war and be home for dinner in this or any age. So in the realm of factual events, the war events described in this story would not have happened. But in the parable, we see that those who betrayed the king got what they deserved.

As literature, this parable brings us a broad epic sense of scope which the story misses without its literary elements. It’s not that all pieces of the parable add up, but as a story, there is truth within the exaggeration.

As for truth found in interpretation, there is much. This is the third of three parables Jesus spoke to the Pharisees, chief priests, and elders in the temple. Scholars say the first parable, the one of the two sons, focuses on John the Baptist and the people’s response to his ministry. The second, the parable of the vineyard, uses allegory to interpret Jerusalem’s fall as punishment for the leaders’ unfaithfulness. This third parable is a final warning to the church of Jesus Christ to remain faithful and not follow the footsteps of the Pharisees, chief priests, and elders.[4]

The history of interpretation gives us a chronological progression of stories warning first those who rejected John; then the Pharisees, chief priests and elders who rejected the prophets and then the Son; and a final warning that the church might never reject Jesus and the vocation he has lain upon it.

Often, we speak of faith in terms of putting on new clothes. We talk of the church as being the bride of Christ. So a part of the history of interpretation leads us to be called to put on Christ as we join together with Christ as the bride of Christ.

The truth found in the history of interpretation is that while all are called, those who do not respond to this call are dealt with harshly. I am not saying that we are saved by works because we are saved by grace through faith. I am saying that there are dire consequences if we accept the Lord’s invitation and all we do is show up expecting to be fed.[5] This judgment was true in the days of the prophets, in the days of Jesus, in the days of Matthew’s gospel; and it is true for us today.

As these words are the words of Jesus, there is more truth in them than we will find in our interpretation of them. Two thousand years of interpretation alone cannot give us the truth of God’s word.

A way to consider the differences between historical truth and mythical truth comes from the voice of the Rev. William Sloane Coffin. On February 5, 1978 he spoke these words in a sermon about the miracle of turning water to wine from John’s gospel:

“Several years ago, driving south through Virginia, I crossed the mighty Rappahannock River. Amazed at its width, I couldn’t help concluding that George Washington’s throwing arm must have been comparable to Reggie Jackson’s if he hurled, as he reputedly did, the silver dollar from one bank clear across to the other. Suppose one day modern scholarship should establish that the silver dollar splashed. Would George Washington no longer be father of his country? Obviously not, because George Washington is father of his country not because he hurled a dollar clear across the Rappahannock or because he could not tell a lie about that fallen cherry tree—what choice did he have?—but because he was commander of the Revolutionary forces and the first president of the United States.”[6]

Let us consider this question for ourselves, was George Washington the father of our country because of the cherry tree incident or because of his service in the American Revolution? Was he father of our country because he could throw a coin across a river or because he was our nation’s first President? I think we can agree he is the father of our country because of the important work he did in securing our freedom and leading the nation.

In a way, sometimes the facts can get in the way of the truth. The debate over whether these stories actually happened or not gets in the way of the truth that they embody. These stories may not be true in the sense that they actually happened, but this does not dilute the truth behind them. The myth helps inform the truth that makes us better able to understand who Washington is to the people of this nation.

This brings us to the question we must ask ourselves about Jesus. Is he our Lord and Savior because of all of the cool stuff he did? Is he Lord of our life because he could turn water to wine? Is he Lord because he could best the highly educated leaders of the temple as they tried to trick him into speaking heresy against the temple or rebellion against Rome? Is he Lord because he could turn a phrase and tell a wonderful story? Or is he our Lord because he is who he says he is; the Son of God and the Son of Man?

The truth we find beyond history, beyond literature, beyond interpretation, beyond anything our minds can fully conceive; the truth we find is that Jesus is Lord because he is God. He is God since before the beginning. He is God when he walked the earth. He is God when he was crucified and on the third day rose again from the dead. He is God who sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. The parables help us understand who Jesus is; but they do not define who Jesus is.

The wonder and the glory of the truth is that all are invited to the wedding banquet. All are welcome to a place at the Messiah’s table. The wonder and the glory of the truth is that all are sought by the king’s slaves.

This leads us to one more truth, the truth beyond being called to the table. The truth of our call and our vocation as the church of Jesus Christ is that we are all called to be God’s faithful servants; calling the people, both good and bad, to join the messianic feast of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In this truth we are called to respond to the Lord our God as faithful servants, putting on Jesus as we enter into the banquet and into the world.

And as the servants of the Lord Almighty, we are called to invite others to the banquet. As we are called by the Lord to come, we are called by the Lord to bring others. By grace, our faith is to be an active expression of God’s love for all creation. This is one of the ways we wear the wedding robe. This is how we put on the garment of Jesus Christ.

There is much this parable offers us to find where truth lies, and its eternal truth is this: We are called to come to the table. We are called to bring others to the table. And it is the King of Glory who calls us first.

[1] The New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. VIII. Leander Keck, General Editor. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995, page 417.
[2] Johnson, David W. from personal correspondence. The “three years and two summers” is a reference to the usual amount of time it takes to earn a Master’s of Divinity from Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid. pages 412-419
[5] Ibid, New Interpreter’s Bible, page 419
[6] Coffin, William Sloane, “The Collected Sermons of William Sloane Coffin.” Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1987, page 40.