See
now the parable of Matthew 22:2-14. It is the parable of the wedding.
These are the parameters – the king prepared the wedding for his
son, there was a predetermined list of guests for the wedding, there
were servants tasked with gathering the invited guests. Oh, and the
king had an army.
The
king had great resources, and preparations for the wedding were
extensive. He had looked forward to the wedding for a long time and
rejoiced to do all he could for the joy of his beloved son. Not
everyone was invited, but certainly representatives of various
peoples and cities. A king with an army is quite likely a conquering
king, and the invited guests were people with which he had a covenant
of peace. They were a surrendered people who enjoyed the king's grace
only through the instrument of a treaty.
It
seems that in the course of time these people got uppity and took the
king's grace for granted, feeling superior and seeing the king as
ineffectual. What a mistake! Look at all they lost – they had been
chosen by the king and would have remained chosen by the son. In
their pride and arrogance, they threw all that to the wind.
This
is another situation where Christ directly accused the governing body
of the Hebrew nation. Such an accusation would have seemed like a
knife in the heart, for Jewish theology was based on the notion of an
unbreakable bond to God through Abraham; the seed of Abraham could
not fail. Sadly, they held to the promise of God to Abraham without
honoring their end of the bargain. There were terms for both sides in
the covenant, and the treaty hinged in no small part on the
compliance of the Hebrew nation.
This
is a parable equal to the one in which Christ stated that the kingdom
would be taken from them and given to another nation. The servants
report the non-compliance of the first set of guests, and the king
chooses a second set of guests. Not only is the favor of the king
removed, but certain guests who mistreated the servants had their
cities burned.
The
servants were sent into the highways to gather travelers to the
wedding, and it is at this point that we come to our need for
definition. Here, we will want to define the nature of the highway,
the types of people found there, what they were coming from, why, and
where they were headed. The gathering of the second set, at least on
the surface, was indiscriminate – which means they were not
'chosen' as were the first. These new guests were merely
replacements, all the rest would be sorted out later. What was to be
sorted would include their abilities to recognize the treaty and the
readiness to comply.
The
highways may be considered as the avenues between nations. They may
also be considered as timelines between critical historical
junctures. The highways serve not only as a means of conveyance but
as a spill-over: a place to be when there is no place to be.
The
types of people found on the highways will be more than a few. Also,
these types may be representative, in a larger sense, of nations and
peoples without a clear connection to a king and a king's grace.
They're a mixed bag. Some have no place, they live as vagabonds and
hobos and Gypsies. Some seek purpose and travel toward something
elusive which may be found in the next city. Some flee the places
where they used to live but have yet to realize they have no place.
There are those who embrace the place-less voids, they may follow
those who travel and inhabit the highways, preying upon them at their
leisure.
Those
who seek purpose take a calculated risk. The place they were failed
them in some regard, the place they go to may provide advancement.
The purpose may only be a personal construct, they may not see the
bigger picture. It could be that they suspect there is a bigger
picture and only need an opportunity to embrace it.
Those
who flee may do so perpetually – as those who are always at the
wrong place at the wrong time, or those who can never make the right
decisions. They may be the criminals and derelicts who somehow carry
with them the mark of Cain. They are the chaff that every wind will
drive before them.
Whoever
the people are, those who seek or those who flee; those who have
ceased to care and make a bed for themselves in no-man's-land, or
those who make their living off the wayward, they represent a type
without connection. They are like the men found in the marketplace
who stand idle because no man has hired them.
Imagine
the surprise of one such person who is approached by the servants of
a mighty king. Perhaps the servants are accompanied by armed
soldiers. You get a sense of urgency from the invitation. You realize
the power and authority of the king. How do you choose? If you are
the seeker who has been long in your travels, you may see this new
opportunity as a step in the right direction. You will treat your
invitation with respect. Should you garner the grace of the king,
your advantage is assured wherever you find yourself.
If
you are the one who flees you might view the invitation with fear.
The power of the king and his army fills you with trepidation. You
will treat your invitation with caution, acting in compliance as an
extension of your sense of self-preservation. Besides, if you garner
the grace of the king, your place may be assured. You may find a
home. The king will protect and guide you so you no longer need to
flee.
If
you are the one who preys upon others, you may only see a greater
opportunity. You care nothing for the invitation, you have no respect
of persons, kings or soldiers. You are in it for the loot. If you are
the one who has lost everything, and the only home you have, is no
home at all, the invitation may humble you. Why would a king bother
with the like of you? Life is hard in between, and if nothing else,
you may benefit from a free meal.
Now,
this is a wild-card of a king. He is impressive not only in his power
and authority, he blazes the non-traditional trail. In other words,
he pretty much does things his own way. Whether you have accepted the
invitation out of fear or respect or a hope of getting something for
nothing, you would be wise to arrive in a wedding garment. This might
be akin to a Tux in some cultural applications, or to one's
Sunday-go-to-meeting attire in other cultural settings. At least one
owes it to oneself to put on one's best bib and tucker.
The
wedding garment was a sign of respect, not so much station. In the
parable, almost everyone, no matter their personal circumstance, was
able to dress in a wedding garment. Now, one does not travel through
life with a wedding garment in their backpack for just-in-case. The
wedding garment, while not described in the parable, might have been
no more than a clean white robe, or a garment adorned with some token
of respect. As I just noted, while one does not travel equipped with
a wedding garment, almost all of those invited to the wedding were
able to obtain or accomplish the requirement of respect.
One
who did not was singled out. He came to the wedding but failed to
dress accordingly. It must be a given, and the king would have known,
that many who frequented the highways were destitute and without the
ability to provide for themselves. Yet, even the poor can wash,
adorn, and present their selves respectfully. I think that if one
tries, there will be an acceptance. It would likely be the rogue who
was found in a disrespectful state. It would be someone emboldened by
their own bravado. It would be someone working the fringe of the
crowd who chose to wear their independent nature as a badge
self-importance.
Is
there a type that is known for such blatant disregard. Actually there
are many, and they range from the supposedly benign to the unbridled
antagonistic, and violent. Since the wedding of the son has greater
spiritual implications, who would be the ones who choose not to wear
the wedding garment? The basic definition of this parable is: you are
either with the king, and his son or you are against. From the king's
point of view, if you do not have the decency to respect the son, you
do not belong. Those who do not belong, then, are those who disregard
Christ. This group includes both the radical Islamist and the
supposedly benign atheist. Are you worthy of the king's grace, or
will you be thrown out?
No comments:
Post a Comment