« May 2010 | Main | July 2010 »
June 27, 2010
“A Feast of Judgment”
Daniel 5: 1 - 6 & 25 - 28/Matthew 22: 1 - 14
Sunday, June 27, 2010
I hope you noticed that our two Scripture Readings are about feasts or banquets. The first is the ill-fated feast Belshazzar gave for 1000 of his nobles. The second is a fictional wedding feast that is described in a parable that Jesus told.
These two passages have something else in common besides being about feasts. The theme of judgment by God is also predominant in both passages.
The judgment is perhaps more obvious in the passage from Daniel. In that passage, Belshazzar, whom Daniel describes as the last king of Babylon, had a great feast for 1,000 of his nobles. At the feast, they drank a lot and decided to drink from the silver and gold cups, pitchers, and bowls that the Babylonian army had taken from the temple in Jerusalem when they destroyed it. These vessels had been dedicated to be used in Worship at the Temple. Belshazzar desecrated them by drinking from them and giving them to his nobles and wives and concubines so they could drink from them. They also used the sacred vessels as they offered toasts to their Gods, whom they believed had given them victory over the God of Israel.
At that point a human-like hand appeared in the hall and wrote on the wall. All present were stunned and afraid. This was a pretty spooky thing, something out of “Ghostbusters”. The hand wrote Babylonian words equivalent to our words Counted, Final Count, Weighed, and Divided.
The Wisemen were sent for so they could make some sense of this and explain it to the king. They eventually called in the evidently retired chief Wiseman Daniel, who had been one of the Jewish captives years before.
He told the King that the hand and the words on the wall were portents that God’s judgments on Babylon were about to be executed. The king and his kingdom were found in the negative balance in God’s ledger and God was about to remove the king and make the Babylonians subjects of the Medo-Persians.
King Belshazzar’s feast had become a feast of judgment for God.
It is not difficult to determine why this story is still a part of Jewish Literature. It fits in with the general theme of the deliverance stories in the OT. As one of the Jewish-American comedians used to say “All the Jewish holidays have the same theme ‘They tried to kill us, we won, let’s celebrate!’”. It is often pleasant to recognize God’s judgments of someone else. It is not so pleasant to be visited by God’s judgments against ourselves.
That is part of the reason why Jesus told parables. Some of the parables describe God’s coming judgments against the Pharisees and the residents of Judea. These judgments were spoken of in parables so some of the people might let their guard down and not reject the judgments out of hand. I had a professor in Seminary who said that some of Jesus’ parables are like a little, unthreatening dog who approaches with a wagging tale, likes you to pet him on the head, then goes around behind you and bites you. The parable of the Wedding Banquet was one of those parables.
The opening theme of the parable was familiar to the Jews of Jesus’ day. They all expected that when the Messiah came and started his Kingdom, there would be a great banquet, a wedding banquet where the Messiah would become the husband of Israel. At this expected banquet the Jews would be seated with their Messiah, and the Gentiles and unreligious Jews would be excluded.
So when Jesus started a story about a king who gave a wedding banquet for his son, they understood he would be talking about God and his people, the Jews. But the story took a weird turn really fast.
It was the custom in those days to set a date for a feast or a banquet without a time specified. Early on that day, messengers were sent to those who had already agreed to come reminding them that this was the day. When all was ready, messengers were sent again to tell them that it was now time to come.
In our parable, the first invitation had been given days before and the intended guests had consented to attend the banquet on the stated day. But now the day had come and as the King sent the messengers out with the second notice, that today was the day, the intended guests evidently let it be known that they would not be coming.
This was unheard of, and the host would not know how to respond, so the third invitation was sent telling them that the time had come for them to go to the palace. They still did not come. Some went to their farms, others to their businesses, while others showed their open contempt for the king by mistreating some of his messengers, even going so far as to kill some of them.
The king then responded in two ways. First, he sent troops to kill those who had killed his messengers and to burn their city.
But the wedding feast was still prepared and the hall was empty. So the second response of the king was to invite others, people they came across in the streets and in general “everyone”.
So those who hated the king were destroyed, others who were invited but did not come were excluded, and the hall was filled with guests for the wedding.
Some of the people who heard this parable that day may have understood what Jesus was predicting. He was the Son of the great King, Almighty God. The Jewish people had been invited to come into his eternal kingdom, into the palace of God. But for one reason or another many of them refused to heed the call to be with Jesus.
The messengers who were first sent on the day of the banquet probably represent John the Baptist, the 12, and the 70 who were sent out by Jesus while he was alive. The time when the banquet was ready probably represents the time after the resurrection of Jesus when the plan of salvation was accomplished. The messengers sent out after that probably represent the Apostles, the first Missionaries and the first Christians. Some of them were killed, the first two martyrs were James the brother of John and Stephen the Deacon.
This parable and the one very much like it in the gospel of Luke became very important to the early Christians, especially Gentile Christians. It was a reminder to them that they were not the first ones invited to join God’s Kingdom. The Jews had been invited first, and many of them had refused to come into the Kingdom through Jesus.
But as I said earlier, it is a human trait to revel in righteous judgments against others, so some Christians have found satisfaction in God’s justice in the rejection of the Jews and even in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD that was predicted in this parable.
But we need to be careful. It seems as if the Lord was aware of our perversities as we regard the justice meted our to others, because the parable continues.
The king came into the banquet hall and saw that there was a person there who was not wearing proper wedding guest attire. The king asked him how he got in without the proper attire. It seems possible that wedding garments were provided at the door for all those last minute guests. There is a historic precedent of a middle eastern king who provided wedding robes for his guests at his Son’s wedding.
Now remember, the people who were attending the wedding just happened to be on the streets when the messengers came to invite them. These were ordinary people, among them were probably some homeless folks. They did not need to be any thing special to get in. But once they were in they were expected to wear the proper garments.
You do not have to be anyone special or behave in any special way to come into Christ’s kingdom, but there are things that God expects of you once you do come into the Kingdom, once you do accept Jesus as your savior. Since God is Truth you are expected to be truthful. Since God is loving you are expected to love others. God loves us and accepted us into his kingdom as we were when we came to Christ. But he loves us too much to let us stay that way. He wants to make us more like Him. IF you claim to be a Christian and are not becoming more Christ-like, something is wrong.
The guest without the wedding robe was judged harshly. He was thrown out into the darkness where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth. It does not sound like a place where any of us want to be. So we had better be tending to our wedding robes, we had better be making our lives more like Christ’s so when Christ returns we will be ready for his great banquet and His great kingdom.
Pastor David Horner
Faith Presbyterian Church
West Lafayette, IN 47906
Posted by faithpres at 04:13 PM | Comments (0)
June 20, 2010
“The Father of Two Lost Sons”
Luke 15: 11 - 32
Sunday, June 20, 2010
As you can tell from the banners that hang in our sanctuary today, Vacation Bible School will start tomorrow. This year we will be teaching the children some of the Parables of Jesus. In honor of that I am preaching on a parable today and another one next Sunday. Today is also Father’s day, so today I am preaching about the Parable of the Father with two sons, or as it is often called, the parable of the prodigal son, found in the 15th chapter of Luke.
The 15th chapter of Luke could be called the chapter of the lost. It contains 3 parables that tell about items that are lost. The first parable is about a man who had 100 sheep and lost one. The second parable is about a woman who had ten coins and lost one. The third parable is about a man who had two sons and lost one. You may have noticed that there is a sort of reverse progression in these parables. The lost sheep is 1 of 100, the lost coin is one of 10 and the lost son is one of 2.
All of these parables share the same outline, to a point. In each the lost item is searched for and when found or returned there is a party to celebrate the lost being found. That is where the first two parables end, but there is a second part to the third parable, the one about the father of the two sons.
In the first 3 verses, Luke reveals why Jesus told these parables. Jesus had been receiving some criticism from the scribes and Pharisees about his welcoming of and eating with tax collectors and sinners. The Pharisees and Scribes believed that sinfulness was contagious and that those who attempted to be holy and pleasing to God should not have contact with sinners. Since all contact with sinners and tax collectors could not be avoided, they were to wash after being with them, and they were never to eat with sinners, tax collectors, or gentiles.
We know from the gospels that Jesus did not live that way. He proclaimed to be holy and to be able to show others the way to holiness, but he did welcome all who would come to him, regardless of who they were or what they had done.
In order to justify his behavior in this matter, He told these 3 parables. In these parables, he tried to get his critics to see those they considered sinners from a slightly different angle. Sinners and tax collectors did not have to be permanently cut off from God. They might someday be found and restored to God. And when that would happen, God would celebrate and have a party to rejoice over their return to Him.
Jesus also wanted them to consider that the sinners who were now associating with Jesus may have already returned to God by coming to Jesus. If that was the case, they should not be criticizing him, but they should be rejoicing in the return of these sinners to God.
Jesus made this point particularly noticeable in the third parable, the one about the man with two sons. We of course know this parable as the parable of the prodigal son. I prefer to think of it as the parable of the father of two sons.
This parable is one of the most detailed and fully developed of all of Jesus’ parables. But many of the details are missed by those of us who have never lived in the middle east. So this morning, having studied some writings of those who have a much better understanding of Middle-Eastern culture than I, I will attempt to shine a little light on this wonderful story.
There was a man who had two sons. They were obviously Palestinian Jews. The father was also evidently well to do. He had possessions and fields and day laborers and servants. He would therefore have been a well respected man in his neighborhood.
But his youngest son wanted his share of the estate before his father died. Under the Old Testament statutes governing estates, the share of the youngest son was already set. Under Jewish Law, the estate would be divided into one share for each son and an extra share for the firstborn son. So in this instance, the estate would be divided into thirds and the youngest son would receive one third of the wealth and property of the father. Except that in this case the father was not dead. There was no provision for estates to be divided before the death of the father. It was occasionally done at the request of the Father, but for a son to make this request would have been a tremendous insult in a culture where insults to one’s parents could be punished by death.
Nevertheless, the youngest son was bold enough to make the request. This was tantamount to saying “All I want from you is my share of your estate.” I don’t care if you live or die.”
The Father granted the son’s request and divided his estate between his two sons. The older son was also given his double share but the father was still allowed to live in the house and run the older son’s share of the estate. All of the neighborhood would have known that the estate was being divided and why. They would lose respect for the father who could not better control his sons.
The youngest son went away. He did not want to be in the vicinity of his father or brother. He went to a foreign land and wasted all his money in what the bible tactfully refers to as Dissolute living.
It seems that the young son had the same goals as the late relief pitcher for the Phillies, Tug Mcgraw. Tug was asked what he would do with his millions and supposedly responded, “I’ll spend most of it on women and whiskey, the rest I’ll probably waste.”
The young son’s money ran out and a famine came and he found himself working for a Gentile tending his pigs and he was not allowed to eat any of the pigs food. So the swine were better off than he was.
For a Jewish man, this was as low as he could go. So, as Jesus said, “He came to himself” The Greek word Luke uses here is a medical term denoting one waking up after passing out. The young man came to his senses and realized that his father’s day-laborers were treated better than he so he decided to go back and work as a day-laborer for his father.
He even rehearsed a speech to give to his father acknowledging the error of his ways and asking to be a day laborer. But he never got to make the speech.
The father saw him coming and ran to him. You have probably never seen an older middle-eastern man run. The reason is they don’t. They wear robes and it is not dignified to run in a robe. Dignity is of the utmost importance to a middle eastern man. But this man surrendered his dignity to run to his son. It may be that the neighbors might insult the ingrate son who now tried to return to the Father. So the father ran to his side to welcome him and walk him the rest of the way home.
And he threw a party. At the party, the meat that was served came from a grain fed calf, one that had been raised and fed for a previously unspecified special occasion.
The son was given a ring and sandals, those were signs of a free man and a son.
But not all were happy. The older brother was out in his fields working. When he got near the house he heard the party. He asked one of his servants what was going on. When informed of His brother’s return and the celebration in his honor, he was furious. He refused to go in to his own house as long as there was a party there for his brother.
The father went out and begged him to come in. The son complained that he had never been treated so lavishly and yet he had never left.
Did you notice that this parable has no proper ending? It closes without telling us whether the older son went into the party and greeted his brother or whether he continued in his anger and threw both the brother and their father out of his house.
That is because on the day that Jesus delivered the parable, the ending had not yet been revealed. Remember, this parable was told because people had criticized Jesus for welcoming and eating with sinners.
On that day, the younger brother who was lost and then found represented the tax collectors and sinners who were coming to Jesus. Notice that in the way Jesus addresses the insulting behavior and debauchery of the younger brother he does not try to apologize for it or explain it away. The younger son had insulted the father and wasted his inheritance on a sinful lifestyle. The tax collectors and sinners had also insulted God by not obeying Him and had wasted their spiritual heritage as Jews by living sinful lifestyles and betraying their nation.
In coming to Jesus and in being welcomed by him, they were on their way back to God, or had already come back. Through Jesus, God was extending his forgiveness to them.
The older brother represented the Pharisees and Scribes and others who did not want Jesus to associate with sinners. They thought that whatever value the sinners had had at one time had been forever destroyed by their sinfulness and rebellion against God. Jesus informed them that God still loved the Sinners and that God rejoiced when one of them repented of their sins and returned to God.
I think the man in the parable had two lost sons. One was openly rebellious and sinful. The other was just as lost to the father but his lost-ness was less obvious because he stayed home and did not openly rebel against the father. But he did not really love the father. He served the father as if he were a slave. He served and honored the father without Joy and without displaying the forgiveness that was characteristic of the father.
Most of us have at some time been one and then the other of these sons. We have insulted God and wasted or used for evil what he has given us. And most of us have been resentful at the forgiveness God extends to those who have angered and hurt us. And most of us have been angry and resentful of God at one time or another.
We have all been lost to God at one time or another and perhaps some of us still are. We need to thank God for his forgiveness of ourselves and others and welcome others as brothers and sisters in Christ once they have returned to God through Jesus.
And on this father’s day we need to understand that in this parable, God is setting an example for earthly fathers. All fathers and mothers need to put aside our own pride and the need to justify our opinions and forgive our children when they insult and harm us and themselves. We need to be forgiving and waiting for their return. And we all need to pray for earthly fathers and mothers that they will follow God’s examples of forgiveness as they raise their children.
Pastor David Horner
Faith Presbyterian Church
West Lafayette, IN 47906
Posted by faithpres at 01:29 PM | Comments (0)
June 06, 2010
“It Is Enough”
I Kings 17: 1-16
Sunday, June 6th, 2010
Elijah was one of the greatest if not the greatest of the Jewish Prophets. For some reason, his prophecies were not written down in a book with his name on it. The exploits and prophecies of Elijah are recorded in 6 chapters of I and II Kings.
It might appear odd at first that Elijah was sent to minister to a kingdom that was and would continue to be lost to God. His prophecies started with the one we just read about. At that time, the 10 Northern tribes of Israel had already broken off from the Southern Tribes. This Northern Kingdom of Israel established its own form of worshipping God and often also worshipped False Gods. It would eventually be conquered by Assyria in 722 BC. But that would be about 150 to 120 years after Elijah
So Elijah was sent to a nation that would never completely return to God and would ultimately be destroyed.
But it is even worse than that. Elijah was sent to this apostate nation during the reign of the worst King of Israel. His name was Ahab. Personally he seems to have been mostly weak and willing to rule as others wished him to. The thing that made him so bad was his choice of a queen. He was married to Jezebel. As we can all tell from your response, her name is still infamous because of her behavior. She was a Sidonian Princess and a devout follower of the false god Baal. She tried to make Baal the official God of Israel and she imported or ordained in Israel 450 Prophets to Baal.
It was to this nation of Israel under the reign of Ahab and Jezebel, that God sent Elijah.
And this first prophecy of Elijah was one seemingly formulated to bring hardship and persecution onto Elijah. God directed him to tell the king that it would not rain for 3 years unless Elijah said so.
After Elijah delivered his message, God told him to get out of town; to go hide. God directed him to hide first of all to the East of Israel in the valley of a wadi that flowed into the Jordan River. (A wadi is a ravine or gulch that fills with water during the wet season and dries our during the dry season.) There would be water there for a while and God directed Ravens to bring him bread and meat in the morning and evening each day.
After a while, the brook dried up as the drought became more severe. Then God did another strange thing. He sent Elijah to the Northwest to the Sidonian village of Zarepath on the Meditaranean coast. Now Sidon was where Jezebel had come from, and the official god of all of Sidon, including Zarepath was Baal. So God sent Elijah to hide out among Jezebel’s people in the midst of Baal Worshippers.
And the woman he was to seek lodging with was on the edge of starvation. When Elijah arrived, she had only a handful of ground corn or grain and a little bit of oil to cook it with. Her plan was to prepare it for her son and herself and then slowly starve to death.
But Elijah promised her that if she prepared a little of the meal for him first, she would not run out of meal or oil for the duration of the drought. God gave just a little more each day in those jars for the provisions for that day.
Throughout the bible, God exhorts his people to depend on Him for their needs, and not to hoard food and wealth for the future. But most of us have been influenced by our wealthy, overabundance-hoarding culture to depend on our abundance, not on God.
We need to remember that in the Prayer of our Lord, he said, “Give us this day our daily bread”
We are called to depend on God in every area of our lives. We are not to sit back and let God do everything, we are to seek jobs, repair our homes, etc, but we are not to depend on ourselves.
And maybe that is why God has led us to receive communion as we do. It has puzzled some folks that we refer to this sacrament as the Lord’s supper and a holy meal, then in many churches offer only a small cube of bread and a very small cup of wine or juice.
It is true that early on in the Christian era, Christians had carry-in meals in connection with the sacrament of the Lord’s supper. There were problems that developed with that practice, so it seems to have been decided that for sacramental purposes, the re-enactments of the Lord’s supper only needed to offer a little bread and wine to be a reminder of that last great Passover meal.
But what about the grace of God that we are told comes to us as we partake of this meal. Is it smaller or greater depending on the size of the piece of bread or the cup of wine? No, the grace of God that comes to us as we partake of this sacrament is given as we have need and willingness to receive it. It is like the flour and the oil that the widow of Zarepath shared with her son and the prophet Elijah. It miraculously grew to accommodate their need for food each day.
The grace of God that is for you here in this sacrament is just enough for you. And there is enough to share with others by stretching your patience and your generosity and your compassion and your time for others. But you can only increase this grace of God for you by being willing to receive and use more of it.
Pastor David Horner
Faith Presbyterian Church
West Lafayette, IN 47906
Posted by faithpres at 06:27 PM | Comments (0)