Podcast of "Always Being Reformed" (MP3)
Podcast Powered By Podbean
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
One of the joys of cable and
satellite TV is that there are hundreds and hundreds of channels; and once
someone finds a program that works it is copied and spun off until there is a
channel devoted to it. Sports channels began that way, so did the Fox Reality
Channel until it went off the air. I’m waiting for “The Wedding Channel.”
Somewhere, with all of the shows devoted to one bit of the wedding industry or
the other, there’s going to be one place where “Bridezillas” everywhere can
hook up with the “Cake Boss” and then “Say Yes to the Dress.”[1]
It is the nature of the parable to
have several different kinds of truth in its words, this parable about a
wedding banquet is no exception. There is historical and cultural truth. Since
we are not fully familiar with those times, we may not catch some of those
references. 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 setting of
our parable, the king who gave a wedding banquet for his son. One of the
historical things we need to know is that before a wedding celebration, days or
weeks in advance, the guests would have received invitations delivered by the
king’s slaves. This announcement would not have the precise time or day of the
wedding feast though. Another bit of history we need to know is that at this
time weddings were not the timed to the minute thing they are today. It would
take some time for the king’s slaves to prepare the great banquet.
Our parable doesn’t say how many
oxen and fatted calves were slaughtered and prepared, but as it was a king who
gave our parable’s banquet, we can imagine the number was substantial. The
language tells us it was absolutely plural, so the preparations took quite a
while. The banquet master would get in touch with the priest to butcher the
animals. Then they would need to be cooked. How long does it take to cook not
an ox but oxen? Just consider how long it takes to smoke a brisket an go up
from there.
He would have needed the people who
provided bread, spices, and other foods. And don’t forget the wine merchant.
Since so many were involved in its preparation, the kingdom and all who were
invited would know the feast was coming, just not exactly when.
Since preparing a wedding banquet was
a long and inexact process, there was a two-step invitation procedure. The
first invitation was sent so that the guests would know something was coming.
The first invitation also made it so they would not be surprised when the
slaves came with the “day of event” invitation.[2]
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 historical
and cultural nuances that the chief priests, elders, and Pharisees would have
known are lost on us 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 delay his son’s wedding and let his supper
get cold to go and wage war on a city, his city? This is wonderfully epic,
filled with dramatic exaggeration, and highly unlikely.
As a nation, our recent experience
with “shock and awe” warfare shows there is no way to wage war and be home for
dinner in any age. So in the realm of factual events, the battle described in
this story would not have happened. But in the parable we are given a clear
lesson, 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 church
of Jesus Christ
The history of interpretation gives
us a chronological progression of stories warning the Pharisees, chief priests
and elders who rejected John; then 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 him as his bride.
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, and it is true for us today.
Ecclesia reformata, semper
reformanda; the church reformed and always reforming. This has been the call of
the reformed churches since the days of Luther, Calvin, Knox and dozens of
others. These words are being shared still in Sunday Schools, pulpits, and in
seminaries. These words are important to what we understand as our specific
place in the Body of Christ, the universal Church.
There is another way to translate
this statement which I prefer. “The church having been reformed is always being
reformed.” It’s longer and not nearly as catchy, but it’s important for us.
This translation maintains the Latin verb forms[6] which focus on God’s
work on the church. The church is not an active participant in the kingdom,
it’s passive. This is important, from a grammatical point of view, it’s passive
not active.
This means that we can do nothing
on our own, it is only by God in Christ, it is only by our salvation. It is
only by our constant sanctification that we can make any difference at all. The
church exists only to do God’s work shaped by God alone. The church does work,
but only under the authority of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.
The chief priests, elders, and
Pharisees seemed to have forgotten this. They thought they were the king, the
mice and the cheese[7] and they thought they
had the world by the tail. They knew their positions were precarious, the Holy Land was under Roman rule, but they had the system
figured out… as long as nothing changed.
Jesus was there to tell them that
times were changing. Using three parables of judgment, Jesus shows us, history
teaches Jesus did not show them, Jesus shows us that there is peace and there
is grace, but it is not cheap. God paid a great price, suffering death on the
cross to give us what we could never earn.
So like the guests who came to the
banquet, we are called to be transformed, reformed, and dressed in our own wedding
robe. If we are not transformed by God’s invitation truly we are in no better
shape than those who rejected Jesus 2,000 years ago.
Today Marla and Baby Elizabeth will
put on that robe. Symbolically they will receive the sign of the beginning of
Christian transformation in the waters of baptism. They have been called and
they have chosen to answer. God honors the sacraments he institutes.
Our reading ends as Jesus says that
many are called but few are chosen. While this sounds like a threat, it is actually
a promise. It sounds like a warning, but it is a goal. It is up to us to live
into our baptism. It is up to us to remember these promises, the ones we made
when we were baptized. It is up to us to remember these promises when we were
baptized as babes and someone made them for us. It is up to us to remember the
promises we have made as elders, sponsors, and members of this part of the Body
of Christ. This is how we begin to remember our baptism.
Now it’s up to us, do we remember
and live into the promises of God or do we fade into the antiquity of the chief
priests, elders, and Pharisees? Friends, let us go to the banquet and put on
the wedding coat of the Lord. Let us remember the waters of our baptism. Let us
approach God in joy and peace. Let us be reformed, and continue always being
reformed.
[1] Actually,
it has been done, a couple of times; at least once as a TV channel and more
recently as in internet portal. So the idea’s out there, all it needs is a
little more traction and then it’s off to the races.
[2] The New
Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. VIII. Leander Keck, General Editor. Nashville
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
pages 412-419
[5] Ibid. page
419
[6] “Reformata” is the Perfect Passive form of the verb. This denotes action
performed with future implications. “Reformanda” is the Passive Present form
which means action is taking place on it, not by it.
[7] Title of
an old children’s book.
No comments:
Post a Comment