1 Kings 1: Election Debate 970

Presented to Swift Current Corps of The Salvation Army

By Captain Michael Ramsay, 21 October 2012.

Today’s pericope is about an awkward family situation and an awkward political situation. Now, I don’t really follow politics like I used to once upon a time. I no longer put my faith in the idea that whoever happens to win a popularity contest every so many years will or even can do anything to better a nation. On the contrary, as a 21^st Century Christian, I recognize as the Scriptures say that ‘I know from where my help comes; it comes from the maker of heaven and earth’ – not from some politician (Psalm 121).

That being said, there have been some interesting things happening in our world in politics recently. We in this city are in the throes of a municipal election and while no one is officially challenging Mayor Jared Schafer and the work he is doing, there are 11 people – I believe – vying for just six city council jobs and there are school board elections as well. In Ontario, I understand that there is quite a tempest brewing in that the relatively recently re-elected premier has just offered his resignation. In the United States, they have just finished another round of presidential debates and they are in the midst of another very close election.

The situation in the United States right now actually does have some parallels to our text today and it has even more parallels to elections south of the line where a sitting president isn’t up for re-election. Does anyone remember the election campaign highlighting Al Gore and George W. Bush? That was a very tightly contested race. In the end it was actually left up to the courts to declare who would be president of their country.

Then and there you had a sitting President, Bill Clinton, who was no longer able to wield his official power. He was on his way out. His own party put forth his Vice President as a possible successor to him and the other political party put forth the son of another past president as their choice. There are many states that always seem to support the same party and only a few swing states for the taking in any election. That country then, like their country now, was divided.

It is the same in our text today. King David is the leader of the Kingdom of Israel. In the early days of his reign he was a political force to be dealt with; he was involved in no shortage of scandals and political intrigue and he managed to hold his office as long as he possibly could: winning some really close contests for his job and sacrificing a lot of innocent lives in the process (1 & 2 Samuel). Even as a young man in all his victories, errors and sins though, he seemed to always return to God and was actually remembered as a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22). In our text today however, David is no longer a young man. David is old. David seems impotent.[1] The country is once again divided.  David’s term is coming to an end and a new leader will be chosen to succeed him.

David is from Judah (1 Samuel 17:12). Just like there has been an historic East-West or French-English division in Canada and an historic North-South division in the United States with the Democrats and Republicans fighting for control since the time of their second civil war (1861-1865),[2] there is a similar traditional divide in Palestine between the Israelites in the North and the Jews in the South (cf. 1 Samuel 16 - 2 Samuel 5). David is from the South. The conservatives, the old guard is from the Hebron area in the south. Their stronghold is the state (tribe) of Judah. Many powerful people are there. There is Joab, David’s nephew and the leader of David’s fighting men; he is the person who was used as much as any other person to put and keep David on the throne. There is Abiathar, the last high priest in the lineage of Aaron, Moses’ brother.[3] And joining their ranks now is David’s oldest surviving son, Adonijah. This is the old guard, the conservatives. They are the Judah Party and they figure that they have all of these important electoral votes locked down for the coming contest (cf. 1 Kings 1:5-9).

Now about the other side, the Jerusalem Party: even though David himself is from Judah, for political reasons, he relocates his capital to Jerusalem, which is on the border between the states (tribes) of Benjamin and Judah (2 Samuel 5:1-16). David abandons his old guard and David becomes surrounded by the new Jerusalem Party. This faction is made up of other members of David’s family as well as the traditional opposition groups to the Judah Party (1 Kings 1:28-40). In this Jerusalem Party we have the prophet Nathan; he was the one who – without asking God first - told David that he should go ahead and build a temple for God; God then vetoed Nathan (2 Samuel 7:1-17, 1 Chronicles 17:1-15). Later, however, Nathan did speak on God’s behalf. We remember that it was Nathan who God spoke through condemning David for having an affair with Bathsheba and killing her husband in the ensuing cover-up (2 Samuel 11-12). This brings us to our next Mandarin (or at least an instrument of them) in Jerusalem of our text today: It is Bathsheba herself, the woman whose husband David murdered after he impregnated her and tried to cover it up; She is now one of David’s wives (2 Samuel 12, Matthew 1:6). Our next member of the Jerusalem Party is Bathsheba’s son Solomon. Then there is Benaiah, an Army officer, assassin, and Solomon’s personal enforcer; Zadok, a new High Priest who in all likelihood was not even an Israelite;[4] and a number of foreign mercenaries.

That is the situation leading into Chapter One of First Kings: the country is potentially divided. We have David’s old guard in the South of Judah and we have the Jerusalem Party to the North who some even suggest are even holding David hostage in his palace in a similar way to the way that the Shoguns of old held the Emperor of Japan hostage.[5]

Now there is something else that we have to mention about David before we get to the events of our pericope today. David was known as a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22). David was a great warrior (1 Samuel 16 – 30). David could have been a great king. David was not a great dad. His failure to discipline, limit, instruct, guide, teach, direct, or even actually really help his children contributed to the deaths of many of his country people -including more than one of his sons (2 Samuel 12-19). We remember the murder of Amnon (2 Samuel 13), his oldest son, and we remember the rebellion and slaying of Absalom (2 Samuel 15-18), his second oldest son: both of these tragedies in all likelihood could have been avoided if David had looked to God for help instead of just letting his family run wild and these tragedies in all likelihood could have been avoided if David had learned what we know from the food bank ministry here: sometimes the most loving answer is ‘no’. There are limits to what God finds acceptable. There are guidelines that point to life. If we know them, if we know where our help comes from we will be okay. If we rebel however, trying to do things for and by ourselves, things can go terribly wrong. Today’s pericope reminds us of this.

It says that Adonijah, rather than relying on God, it says that Adonijah exalted himself: verse 5. He is testing his dad. It says that his dad, – verse 6 – David never bothered to rein him in while he was growing up. Adonijah has been given no way to figure out what are the boundaries in life. He has been given no way from his dad to figure out what are the parameters. David, it says, refuses to help. David does not name an heir to the throne and David’s health is failing. Something must be done. A new leader must be chosen. Adonijah decides that he should be the next leader of God’s people. The election campaign is underway.

Adonijah prepares well for his campaign, as recorded in the verses 5-8 of our story. He is handsome. He is the oldest surviving son. He organises first; he gathers around him prominent people from his father’s rise to power. He has a big leadership campaign kick-off. He invites almost all the high profile people of Judah who are his supporters: princes and royal officials alike (1 Kings 1:9). The Judah Party: the grand ole party of the old days of David’s reign, they have had their leadership convention and Adonijah is their man. They don’t however invite the Jerusalem Party and the election is on.

Now, in all this preparation, do you notice what it doesn’t say that any of them do in planning all of this? Even though it does mention that the last Aaronic High Priest has endorsed Adonijah’s candidacy, it doesn’t mention anywhere that anyone prays or even consults God in this matter.

The election fight is on and Nathan gets wind of this and he mobilises the Jerusalem Party in response, giving them their plan of action. Notice here too that nowhere does it say that Nathan or anyone in the Jerusalem Party is praying or seeking God anymore than those of the Judah Party. Verses 11-14: Nathan goes directly to one of David’s queens: Bathsheba, the one –we remember- who many years ago he condemned David for sleeping with and murdering her first husband. Nathan goes straight to Queen Bathsheba. Nathan, like any great political organizer, seemingly exaggerates his case as he tries to enlist her in his plot. He tells Bathsheba that Adonijah, David’s son by another wife, has ALREADY become king. Nathan apparently gets her all worked up and then he tells her to go to tell King David, who is very old and who is seemingly politically and/or physically impotent; Nathan gets her all worked up and he tells her to go to tell King David, who is very likely suffering from arteriosclerosis and is very weak;[6] Nathan gets her all worked up and he tells her to tell David that David had already promised that her son, Solomon, would be the next king.[7] Nathan says, you do this and then I will come running in while you are still speaking with the king and I will confirm everything that you have just said. These is quite a plot and again notice that nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that this plot is endorsed by the Lord anymore than were Adonijah’s plans.

This is just the beginning. There is more. Look at how and where Nathan unleashes his plot to put Solomon on the throne. David is in his bedroom when Bathsheba comes running in and David is not alone. Abishag, who it says in Verse 2, is a young woman who used to lie with him to keep him warm (cf. 1 Kings 2:22, Josephus, Antiquities vii.14.3);[8] Abishag, it says in verse 15 is attending him right at this moment when in they come running. Here is this possibly senile seventy-something year old man, who is suffering from a number of ailments, cuddling this concubine in his bedroom when in comes his wife who tells him all that Nathan told her to tell him, making sure to inaccurately state that Adonijah had already been made king and to implicate by name David’s old guard in this and to tell David all that Nathan had told her tell David including the idea that David had previously agreed to make Solomon king. This has got to be more than a little awkward –like our comics from the beginning of the talk today - and more than a little bit confusing for David – even if he is not ill (1 Kings 1:15-21).

Nathan then joins the party in the bedroom and the Jerusalem Party carries the day in the election to the throne: Solomon is named co-regent with his father (1 Kings 1:38-40). In the next few chapters, like new Presidents and Prime Minister’s in our part of the world today fire their predecessor’s chief staff, Solomon sends out his assassins to consolidate his power, killing off the key members of the Judah Party and anyone else he sees as a political threat (1 Kings 2:13-46).[9]

This is quite a way to start the book of 1 Kings and you will notice that God isn’t really mentioned in this story at all. God isn’t mentioned until Chapter 3 and by that time Solomon is already begun his undoing: Solomon is already king and Solomon is already married to Pharaoh’s daughter. If we had the time to address the rest of Solomon’s story, it ends in the same tragic way it begins, with conspiracies and death as the Lord Himself raises up adversaries to Solomon (1 Kings 11). As we read through 1 Kings over the next week we will notice that Solomon at times in his life loves God (1 Kings 3:3-15, 9:1-14, 2 Chronicles 1:1-13), Solomon at times in his life serves God but Solomon’s heart is turned away to other gods by his foreign wives and his rejection of God is so complete that God eventually tears the whole kingdom from his line… except two tribes for the sake of the promise that God made to King David (1 Kings 11-12; cf. 2 Chronicles 10). Solomon turns away from God (cf. TSA doc. 9).

But in the midst of the tragedy of the life of Solomon, who we will be reading about over the next few weeks, and after having just read today about the political intrigue of his rise to power what can we learn that applies to us today here in Swift Current, 3 millennia later? I think our lesson is this: God foreordained that David would have a descendant as a king forever (2 Samuel 7, 1 Chronicles 17). God had even planned that that descendant would not only be king of the tribe of Judah, that king would not only be king of the people of Israel. That king would be king of the whole world because that king would be the Son of God and that King would be God (cf. Genesis 12:1-3).

Even though Solomon and his friends and colleagues, like his adversaries, plotted and killed in our story today and even though before the end of Solomon’s life, his heart would turn after other gods, The LORD is still faithful and the LORD still provides a descendant of David and a descendant of Solomon to sit on the throne forever. Even though Solomon, who once was faithful, becomes faithless (Romans 3:3-4; cf. Deuteronomy 31:6, Joshua 1:5, Hebrews 13:5),[10] God is still faithful to His promises to save the world through the lineage of David – this he does through the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.[11]

The question for us today then is, ‘what are we going to do about it?’ Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Are we going to serve Him? Are we going to read our Bibles and pray on a regular basis? Are we going to love God and love our neighbours and so enjoy being a part of His Kingdom forever – or are we going to plot and scheme on our own to achieve our own goals and then ultimately be led astray to follow other gods like Solomon (cf. Matthew 25:31ff., TSA doctrines 6,10,11)? Today the choice is ours. We can look to ourselves and our own plots, schemes, plans, and agendas, that will lead us where they lead us or we can lift our eyes up to the heavens to where are help comes from. It comes from God the maker of heaven and earth. Today let us serve Him.

Let us pray.

www.sheepspeak.com

---

---

[1] Choon-Leong Seow. The First and Second Book of Kings, (NIB III: Abigdon Press, Nashville, 1999), 14

[2] The first civil war lasted from 1775-1783.

[3] But cf. R. D. Patterson and Hermann J. Austel, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:1 Kings/Exposition of First Kings/I. The United Kingdom (1 Kings 1:1-11:43)/A. Solomon's Exaltation as King (1:1-2:11)/1. Adonijah's plot to seize the crown (1:1-10)/b. Adonijah's attempted coup d'etat (1:5-10), Book Version: 4.0.2 

[4] J. A. Soggin, ‘Der Offiziell Geförderte Synkretismus in Israel während des 10 Jahrhunderts’, ZAW 78, 1966, pp. 179–204 in Donald J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1993 (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 9), S. 75

[5] cf. Choon-Leong Seow. The First and Second Book of Kings, (NIB III: Abigdon Press, Nashville, 1999), 14

[6] Choon-Leong Seow. The First and Second Book of Kings, (NIB III: Abigdon Press, Nashville, 1999), 14

[7] Cf. Jonathan Burnside, ‘Flight of the Fugitives: Rethinking the Relationship between Biblical Law (Exodus 21:12-14) and the Davidic Succession Narrative (1 Kings 1-2), JBL 129, no.3 (2010): 419

[8] Donald J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1993 (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 9), S. 74: The use of a youth to restore vital warmth was an ancient medical practice

[9] Cf. Tim Gorringe, “David's Big Ideas 1Kings 2:10-12; 3:3-14; Ephesians 5:15-10, John 6:51-58”, Expository Times 120 no. 10 (July 2012): 498

[10] Cf. N.T. Wright, “Romans and theTheology of Paul,” p. 37. See also N.T. Wright, “The Law in Romans 2.

[11] Cf. Captain Michael Ramsay, 'Praise The Lord For Covenants: Old Testament wisdom for our world today'. Vancouver, BC: Credo Press, 2010. (c) The Salvation Army. Available on-line at http://www.sheepspeak.com/Ramsay%20Praise%20the%20Lord%20for%20Covenants.pdf

Matthew 22:1-14: Thanksgiving Earring

Presented to Swift Current Corps of The Salvation Army, 07 Oct. 2012

By Captain Michael Ramsay

Today is Thanksgiving Sunday. It is often a time to get together with family, make new memories and recall old ones. Maybe this is why my mind drifted back to my teenage years this week. I remember when I was 16. It was the 1980s on the west coast. Things are a little bit different there and things were a little bit different then. I remember when I got my ear pierced. Now, I haven’t worn an earring for years. It probably wouldn’t go so well with my uniform. When I was a teenager it was a little bit different than today. Today I see men and women, boys and girls – especially in the large urban centres – with either or both ears pierced, noses pierced and even eyebrows pierced. I have even seen cheeks or tongues pierced as well, in not only teenagers but in adults and children alike. Now, when I was a teenager, teenage boys were just starting to have one ear, their left ear pierced. Does anyone remember why back then it had to be the left ear pierced? What did it used to mean if the right ear was pierced in Canada? (It used to mean that one was an open and active part of the homosexual subculture)

I remember one Saturday when I was 16. My friend Alex called me and asked me to come over. Okay. I had or had access to a car so I drove over. We hung out for a bit and then he asked me if I wanted to go downtown. Okay. I drove downtown and he told me to park in a certain place. Okay. His older brother and his brother’s girlfriend were waiting for us. Okay. Alex never told me we were meeting anyone but okay. We went into the store with them. Okay. Monica was looking at jewellery. Okay. She then asks Alex what he thinks of some gold earrings; he then asks me. I don’t care; why do I care about earrings. Then she tells the clerk that she will take them and tells Alex to sit in the chair to get his ear pierced. Unbeknownst to me that is the whole reason we are down here with his brother and Monica - so that Alex could get his ear pierced. Alex then starts to chicken out of his previously made deal with his brother when Monica says something that takes me completely off-guard. She says, ‘Okay you go first, Mike’.

“What?” I said  – How did I get involved in this? I think.

“You’re not afraid too? You’re not afraid like Alex are you?” I stood there a moment. You know how it is like when you need to make a decision and you need to make it quickly but it is a decision that normally you would like to take a little time to make. My mind is desperately running through all the pros and cons. My brain tries to think of a good reason to get out of it actually. I can’t. I can’t think of any good Biblical reason not to do it. I can’t think of anything but we do wind up leaving that store in a very few minutes anyway, Alex and I each… with our left ears pierced. And then I go home…

I don’t think anything could have prepared me for the response of my parents who were known as some of the more accepting parents on the block. I walk into the house – I immediately wished Alex was there with me but I had taken him home – I walk into my house and my mother actually grabs my ear and tries to tear the earring out of it while calling me quite a number of names and telling me that I don’t have any right to pierce my ear; I have no right to do that to my body and that it is really her body and that it is the temple of God and, and, and, and… and her yelling at me and her trying to pull the earring out of my ear is causing quite a scene and leaving me more than a little perplexed but that isn’t half as bad as my dad’s response. I don’t think I could get him to even speak to me for a month; I did not anticipate this response to having my pierced ear anymore than I had expected getting my ear pierced this day. It was a very confusing day for me and it was a very upsetting day for my parents and I think they were both relieved somewhat and very happy shortly afterwards when I brought home my next girlfriend.

Years later, when earrings became more and more common, I did stop wearing one. That’s another story that I’ll have to tell you on another day and that one relates to my family as well: This time, my children. I don’t know why that story came to my mind when I was reminiscing about family leading up to Thanksgiving but it did.

Today’s pericope comes from our Gospel reading in the Bible: Matthew 22:1-14 (cf. Luke 14:15-24 and Gospel of Thomas 64). It is about a big dinner not unlike the big dinners that many people may be having with their families for Thanksgiving this weekend. The parable about the Kingdom of Heaven talks about a feast. It is actually about a wedding feast and some not very thankful people. This wedding feast is a big deal for the parents of those being married. This is an important dinner. Dad invites everyone he knows and more. Dad is really important in our parable today. He is referred to as a king. He is an important political leader like Premier Brad Wall or Mayor Jared Schaffer and he has invited some important people to his son’s wedding. Matthew 22:2-5:

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business.

Can you imagine if an important political figure invited other important people to his own son’s wedding and everyone just “made light of it and went their own ways?” Can you imagine now if this political figure was really powerful? Can you imagine if he was the President of the United States? Can you imagine if he was the President of the United States and he invited leaders of the 100+ countries that they militarily occupy right now and can you imagine what would happen if they each defied the world’s paramount superpower? Remember Iraq? Remember Afghanistan? And can you imagine if these people, Verse 6 “…seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and then killed them”? What would be the response nowadays? What would be the response then in the first Century when Rome was the paramount superpower? Most commentators mention that this act of turning up their noses at the king and his son by this act of turning down the wedding invitation is more than just an insult. It is a tantamount to a declaration or independence, a provocation, an enticement to war (cf. 2 Samuel 10:4; cf. also Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 9.13.2).[1] How do you think any leader of a superpower past or present would respond to this? Verse 7 records, “…when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their cities.”

Now most commentators on this parable will emphasize its allegorical qualities at this point. Jesus said that this situation is like the Kingdom of Heaven. The King therefore is God.[2] The King’s Son is Jesus (cf. also Matthew 9:15, 25:1; John 3:29; Ephesians 5:25-32; Revelation 21:2-9).[3] God then sends out the prophets and the early Christian disciples, missionaries to Israel and instead of coming to celebrate Jesus, those who should have know better, those who were supposed to be subject to the king, those who were supposed to be subjects of God instead rebelled against Him (cf. TSA docs 7, 11).[4] They responded by murdering His prophets and martyring the early Christian missionaries. Some commentators even suggest that when the Bible here refers to the burning of their cities, it is saying that this is some of why God saw Jerusalem destroyed in 70 CE - because they rejected Christ.[5]

But how does this relate to us today?  The Judeans in the first century were the ones who probably knew the most about God and the most about the promised Messiah therefore should have been the most thankful and they -by and large- still rebelled against Him, rejecting His Kingship and turning their back on His only begotten Son. Who in the first half of the 21^st century here is in a very similar situation and doing the very same thing? We are. Canada, Europe, the US, Australia, New Zealand: the western world. Most of our countries were founded as tributaries to the King of Kings and servants of the Lord of Lords. We have mentioned here again and again how Canada, in particular, was founded on the Word of God. Our nation’s very motto “From Sea to Sea” comes from Psalm 72:8 and the motto of one of our highest orders, the Order of Canada is taken from Hebrews 11:16, “they desire a better country.” But now in our country when we should be thankful to our Lord, it seems that we are thankless and even rebellious. We used to open sessions of the House of Commons with prayer. We used to have prayer in the public schools. We used to have scriptures as a foundational part of our literature and our schooling. Even when I first came to Saskatchewan, still not too many years ago, virtually every public dinner would begin with a prayer of thanksgiving for the meal. Not anymore. In our western world today instead of being thankful, we are thankless and even rebellious. And we know from this parable what happens to thankless and rebellious people who reject the invitation to God’s eternal banquet with His Son: They perish (TSA doc. 11).[6]

There is more to this parable though. It doesn’t end here. Verses 8 through 10:

Then [the king] he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.

Now this is something to be thankful about. This is great news and if the story ended here it would be good news indeed. This passage is primarily referring to the fact that even though many of the Jewish people, though not all, (Jesus’ disciples and their group were Christians) rebelled against God and His Son, God still invited even more people to the eternal celebration (as was always His intention, Genesis 12:3; cf. also Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 1:8, Romans 1:16).[7] God invited the whole world actually (cf. Luke 24:47, John 10:16, Romans 10:12-13, 1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 3:9-29, Ephesians 2:14-18, Philippians 3:2, Colossians 3:11). John 3:16 says that “God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son so that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life”, Matthew 22:8 here records that in the process of inviting everyone, the good and the bad, that, of course, He even invited some people who were unworthy (TSA doc.6). Verse 10: “So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests.” This is something to be thankful about on this Thanksgiving Day, right?

The story doesn’t end here though. Verses 11-14:

“But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

What does this mean? This is important. It means that some people who celebrated at the ecclesiastical and/or eschatological banquet, some people who celebrated at the feast with Christ will be removed. Verse 13: Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Some people who aren’t thankful to our Lord for His offer of eternal life will be removed from the banquet not unlike those who refused to come in the first place (cf. TSA doc. 9).

This is not just some poor soul who is dragged into a building in his jeans and then tossed out because he doesn’t happen to be wearing the right clothes. This isn’t someone who loses his right to celebrate the banquet by accident. There is no reasonably conceivable way that a person could not know and would not obtain at the arrival to the wedding what was acceptable to wear to a king’s feast. They just refused to change.[8] As was often the custom, the king could probably even supply their clothes himself (cf. Genesis 45:22, Esther 6:8-9, cf. also Ezekiel 16:10-13).[9] Showing up in the wrong clothes would be an act of rebellion.[10] It would be like if you or I received an invitation to go to dinner with the Queen and we showed up in a tank top and torn pants. It would be like if we men showed up at a formal dinner for Her Majesty without a jacket and tie and a doorman offered to rent one to us or to lend a jacket and tie to us and we say, ‘forget that. If she wants me, she’s going to have to take me just the way I am’. How is that going to go over? Are we going to be allowed to stay at the dinner for the Queen? No, nor should we!

It is the same with the Lord and us. God has called all of us. Jesus died so that whosoever believes in him need not perish but can have everlasting life (John 3:16, TSA doc. 6). Jesus died so that we can all live and this is exciting and this is something we all should be thankful for and this is something we all should celebrate on this Thanksgiving Day. Jesus died so that we don’t have to perish and Jesus rose again so that we can do the same: be resurrected with Him for eternity. There are no tricks to this. It is really quite simple. God the King sent the prophets and the disciples and the missionaries all pointing to His Son, Jesus Christ. And as long as we are thankful and accept His invitation, as long as we accept His Lordship, as long as repent and we don’t reject Him, as long as we don’t rebel against Him, this great feast of everlasting life is here just waiting for us to partake of it and enjoy it with Him forever.

If there is anyone here today who has never repented and said ‘Yes Lord, I accept your invitation’, if there is anyone here today who has not been clothed with the assurance of salvation, if there is anyone here who is not currently celebrating with our Lord, I urge us not to wait another moment before we mail off our eternal RSVP, I urge us not to wait another moment before we clothe yourselves in His righteousness (cf. Luke 15:22; Romans 3:21-31, 4:22-25, 13:12-14; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 6:11; Colossians 3:12; Revelation 3:4, 6:11, 19:8) and I urge us not to wait another moment before we sit down in thanksgiving with our Lord and Saviour both for now and forever more.

Let us pray.

---

[1] Cf. M. Eugene Boring, Matthew (NIB 8: Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1995), 417

[2] Cf. Benedict Thomas Viviano ‘God in the Gospel According to Matthew’ Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 64 no. 4 (October 2010): 341-354

[3] Cf. D. A. Carson The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Pradis CD-ROM:Matthew/Exposition of Matthew/VI. Opposition and Eschatology: The Triumph of Grace (19:3-26:5)/A. Narrative (19:3-23:39)/8. Opening events of Passion Week (21:1-23:39)/d. Controversies in the temple court (21:23-22:46)/(4) The parable of the wedding banquet (22:1-14), Book Version: 4.0.2

[4] Cf. R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1985 (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 1), S. 315

[5] Cf. Douglas R.A. Hare, Matthew (Interpretation: Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1993), 251. But cf. R. T. France,: Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1985 (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 1), S. 316

[6] Cf. Captain Michael Ramsay, The Ethics of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel as reflected in parables spoken en route to Jerusalem, Presented to WCBC (Fall, 2006), on-line at http://www.sheepspeak.com/NT_Michael_Ramsay.htm#Ethics of Jesus in Luke’s Gospel  

[7] Cf. Captain Michael Ramsay, Praise The Lord For Covenants: Old Testament wisdom for our world today, Vancouver, BC: Credo Press, 2010. (c) The Salvation Army. Available on-line: http://www.sheepspeak.com./ptl4covenants.htm

[8] Carter Lester, ‘Matthew 22:1-14’ Interpretation: a Journal of Bible and Theology 62 no. 3 (July 2008): 308-310

[9] Michael J. Wilkins, ‘Matthew’ in ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, Illinois : Crossway Bibles, 2002), note on Matthew 22:11, p. 1868.

[10] R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1985 (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 1), S. 316: cf. the interestingly similar but later parable of Johanan ben Zakkai in Shabbath 153a (see Jeremias, PJ, p. 188).