Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Wedding Garment and the Exposure of False Profession (Matthew 22:11–14)

Transcript

The Wedding Garment and the Exposure of False Profession (Matthew 22:11–14) · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Imagine stepping off the street into the most extravagant royal
• 0:03
  wedding you can picture, right? You bypass the security, you
• 0:07
  skip the dress code, you walk past the attendants holding
• 0:10
  these pristine garments for the guests, and you stride right
• 0:14
  into the throne room wearing the muddy, stained clothes you had
• 0:18
  on all day. You assume the host is just
• 0:20
  happy you showed up, right? You assume the invitation means
• 0:24
  all the standards have been drawn.
• 0:25
  That is the assumption, yeah. But then the king walks in.
• 0:27
  He locks eyes with you, the music completely stops and
• 0:30
  instead of a warm embrace, you are bound, dragged out of the
• 0:34
  hall and thrown into the pitch black night.
• 0:37
  It is a terrifying image. It really is welcome to Reformed
• 0:40
  thinking. Today, our mission is to conduct
• 0:43
  a deep dive into the source material of Matthew 22,
• 0:47
  specifically looking at verses 11 through 14.
• 0:50
  Yes, very necessary text. We are looking at a terrifying
• 0:53
  text about the parable of the wedding feast because, you know,
• 0:56
  we live in a cultural moment that constantly broadcasts this
• 0:59
  idea that you should come as you are and stay as you are.
• 1:01
  Absolutely. The modern assumption is that
• 1:04
  God is a passive host who just grades on a curve.
• 1:07
  But this passage shatters that illusion.
• 1:10
  It presents a holy king who actively inspects his guests.
• 1:14
  He really does. So we are talking directly to
• 1:16
  you, the listener right now and posing a critical question.
• 1:21
  Are you resting in your outward religious habits, or are you
• 1:25
  resting entirely in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ?
• 1:29
  Well, to rightly divide this text and answer that question,
• 1:32
  we have to ground our discussion in the historical context.
• 1:35
  Yeah, before we look at the specific verses.
• 1:36
  Right context is everything it is.
• 1:38
  We have to set the stage in 1st century Jerusalem.
• 1:41
  It is roughly AD 33. Jesus is standing in the temple
• 1:45
  precincts during the very final week of his earthly life.
• 1:48
  The tension must have been incredible.
• 1:50
  Oh, it was palpable. He is speaking to the hostile
• 1:52
  chief priests and the Pharisees. I mean, these are men who are
• 1:55
  actively plotting his murder. Yeah.
• 1:57
  We are witnessing A monumental shift in redemptive history
• 2:01
  here, moving from the Old Covenant administration to the
• 2:03
  new. OK, let's unpack this a bit.
• 2:06
  Because Jesus had just told a parable about a king throwing a
• 2:09
  wedding feast for his son, right?
• 2:11
  Yes, and the first people invited, which represents the
• 2:14
  religious establishment of Israel, they refuse to come.
• 2:19
  They don't just refuse, they actually kill the King's
• 2:21
  messenger. That's right.
• 2:22
  And in response, Jesus states the King will send his armies to
• 2:26
  destroy those murderers and burn their city.
• 2:29
  Which is a huge statement. Is a direct prophecy of the
• 2:31
  impending doom of Jerusalem, which as we know, falls to the
• 2:35
  Roman siege in 1870. So that establishes a very
• 2:38
  specific dispensational reality. Yeah, the first invited guests
• 2:41
  were the Jews, but upon their refusal, the invitation goes out
• 2:44
  to the highways and the hedges. Meaning the Gentiles and the
• 2:47
  formation of the Church. Precisely.
• 2:49
  The king dictates that the wedding hall will be filled,
• 2:52
  bringing in both the bad and the good.
• 2:54
  And that redemptive historical shift sets the stage for the
• 2:57
  terrifying moment when the king actually arrives to look at his
• 3:00
  guests. How does understanding the sheer
• 3:03
  hostility of 1st century Jerusalem change the way you
• 3:06
  read a seemingly simple parable about a banquet?
• 3:09
  Well, it changes everything. Because on the surface, modern
• 3:12
  readers look at this and see a story about a party.
• 3:16
  It sounds like a, you know, a community potluck.
• 3:19
  Yeah, casual gathering, but. If we understand the historical
• 3:23
  stakes that Jesus is looking right at the men who will
• 3:26
  crucify him and telling them their city is going to burn, the
• 3:29
  parable becomes a matter of life and death.
• 3:32
  The shift to the highways and hedges makes sense given the
• 3:35
  rejection by the religious elite, but this creates a
• 3:39
  massive question for me. What's that?
• 3:42
  If the invitation goes out to random people on the streets
• 3:44
  gathering anyone they can find, wouldn't it be normal that
• 3:48
  people show up looking like a complete mess?
• 3:50
  You would think so, yes. I mean, you are pulling people
• 3:53
  out of the ancient equivalent of alleyways.
• 3:55
  Well, that brings us to a crucial Old Testament parallel
• 3:59
  that the original Jewish audience would have recognized
• 4:01
  immediately. OK, look here.
• 4:03
  We have to look at the prophetic bridge in Zephaniah chapter 1,
• 4:06
  verses 7 and 8. Right, in that passage, the day
• 4:09
  of the Lord is described as a sacrificial feast, and God
• 4:13
  specifically states He will punish those arrayed in foreign
• 4:17
  attire. Oh wow, yeah, God has always
• 4:20
  demanded that those who approach him do so on his terms.
• 4:24
  The historical context of the Pharisees thinking their ethnic
• 4:27
  lineage secured their seat at the table is completely
• 4:30
  shattered here. So the King's grace is never a
• 4:33
  license for human presumption. That is the key point.
• 4:36
  When the invitation goes out to the highways and hedges,
• 4:39
  gathering everyone into the visible community, it does not
• 4:42
  mean the King has lowered his standards of holiness.
• 4:44
  The requirements for remaining at the feast are non negotiable.
• 4:47
  Spot on. And that sets us up perfectly
• 4:50
  for verse 11. Yeah, the story shifts
• 4:52
  dramatically from the broad invitation, strict inspection.
• 4:55
  He really does. The king who generously invites
• 4:57
  is the same king who meticulously scrutinizes.
• 5:00
  He walks into the room and he sees a man without a wedding
• 5:04
  garment. He spots him immediately.
• 5:06
  The distinction here between outward presence and inward
• 5:08
  fitness is chilling. I mean, this man is not standing
• 5:11
  out in the rain. No, he is inside the banquet
• 5:13
  hall. He is sitting at the table.
• 5:15
  He has covenant privilege. He has nearness to Kingdom
• 5:18
  blessings. He is likely looking around,
• 5:20
  eating the food, and assuming he is entirely safe because he made
• 5:24
  it into the room. Right.
• 5:25
  It forces you to realize that God sees truly, while human
• 5:29
  beings might look around a sanctuary on a Sunday morning
• 5:31
  and just see a respectable attendee.
• 5:34
  The King's inspection is so piercing, and the Greek text
• 5:37
  actually reveals A deliberate choice of words regarding this
• 5:41
  specific piece of clothing. Oh, let's look into that.
• 5:43
  What are the words? So the word used for the wedding
• 5:45
  garment is endema, which means a garment that is provided or put
• 5:49
  on over oneself. OK, Endema, Yeah.
• 5:53
  The text avoids the word Stola. Now Stola described the long
• 5:57
  flowing robes worn by the religious elite to signal their
• 6:01
  prestige and their self manufactured righteousness.
• 6:03
  So avoiding Stoli is a direct shot at the Pharisees.
• 6:06
  Exactly right, or rather absolutely correct.
• 6:09
  The choice of endema indicates this garment must be provided by
• 6:12
  the host. It's not something you bring
• 6:13
  with you. No, the man in the parable
• 6:16
  appears at the feast relying on his own merit, rejecting the
• 6:19
  covering provided by the sovereign.
• 6:21
  He has the form of religion without the substance.
• 6:24
  Yes, he sits in the visible sphere of covenant privilege,
• 6:28
  but he lacks the inward reality required to stand before a holy
• 6:32
  God. Wait, hold on, I need to push
• 6:34
  back on this just a bit. Sure, go ahead.
• 6:35
  Because to a modern ear, the King's reaction sounds
• 6:39
  completely unhinged. I can see how people might think
• 6:42
  that. Right.
• 6:42
  If I pull someone off the street for a formal event, I expect
• 6:45
  them to be wearing dirty jeans. Why is the king so incredibly
• 6:49
  offended that a man pulled off the highway is wearing his own
• 6:52
  clothes? It seems harsh.
• 6:54
  We see this man and think, give him a break, he just got here.
• 6:57
  Well, we have to view this through the customs of ancient
• 7:00
  Near Eastern royalty, not modern casual sensibilities.
• 7:04
  A royal wedding was the highest social event conceivable.
• 7:08
  It was standard practice for a monarch of this stature to
• 7:11
  provide the festival garments for his guests.
• 7:13
  So the clothes were waiting for him at the door.
• 7:16
  Yes, this ensured the dignity of the King's son was honored
• 7:19
  uniformly by everyone in attendance, regardless of what
• 7:23
  their social standing was before they entered.
• 7:25
  That makes a lot of sense. The.
• 7:26
  Provision of the garment was a massive display of the King's
• 7:28
  wealth and generosity. Therefore, to reject the
• 7:32
  provided garment and insist on wearing your own clothes was not
• 7:36
  a simple breach of etiquette. It was an act of high treason.
• 7:39
  Yes, it was a public, deliberate declaration that your own rags
• 7:44
  were superior to the King's royal wardrobe.
• 7:48
  The man was not impoverished. He was insolent.
• 7:51
  He wanted the joy of the banquet without submission to the honor
• 7:54
  of the king. He wanted the benefits of
• 7:56
  salvation without the reality of it.
• 7:59
  That reframes the entire situation.
• 8:00
  He didn't just forget a tie, he insulted the King's provision.
• 8:04
  He spat in the King's face, essentially.
• 8:06
  And that brings us to the confrontation in verse 12.
• 8:09
  The king addresses the man directly.
• 8:11
  He says friend, how camest thou and hit her not having a wedding
• 8:15
  garment. And the response.
• 8:16
  The text says the man is absolutely speechless.
• 8:18
  He has no response. We really need to analyze the
• 8:21
  specific word Jesus uses here for friend.
• 8:24
  Yeah, let's hear it. In the Greek, the word is
• 8:26
  hetair. A discourse analysis of
• 8:29
  Matthew's Gospel reveals A biting irony in this choice.
• 8:32
  How so? Matthew only uses this term
• 8:35
  three times in his entire Gospel, and he never uses it for
• 8:39
  a true disciple. Wait, really?
• 8:42
  Never for a disciple. Never.
• 8:44
  Most notably, Jesus uses this specific word to address Judas
• 8:49
  Iscariot in the Garden of Gethsemane when Judas approaches
• 8:52
  to betray him with a kiss. Wow, that changes the tone
• 8:56
  completely. It denotes a false associate as
• 8:59
  someone who assumes a relationship that does not exist
• 9:01
  in reality. The King's question is purely
• 9:04
  judicial. It exposes guilt rather than
• 9:06
  seeking an explanation. But this raises a massive
• 9:09
  psychological question for me. What is that?
• 9:11
  Whenever human beings get caught doing something wrong, our
• 9:14
  immediate instinct is to make an excuse.
• 9:16
  Always. We point to our background, our
• 9:18
  good deeds, our busy schedules, or our good intentions.
• 9:20
  We try to negotiate. We try to explain away our
• 9:22
  failure. It's human nature.
• 9:24
  So why doesn't this man then offer a single defense?
• 9:27
  Why does he just stand there staring at the floor?
• 9:29
  The theological weight of that silence is crushing.
• 9:33
  The Greek verb used for his speechlessness is effembuthi.
• 9:36
  Effemuthi. Yes, it literally translates to
• 9:39
  being muzzled or silenced by force.
• 9:41
  Silenced by force, right? This is a classic example of the
• 9:45
  divine passive in biblical literature.
• 9:48
  The man is not just trying to think of a good excuse.
• 9:51
  He is physically and spiritually gagged by the overwhelming
• 9:54
  weight of his own guilt before an omniscient judge.
• 9:57
  That is intense. We can connect this directly to
• 9:59
  the first use of the law as articulated in the Westminster
• 10:02
  Confession Chapter 19. Oh, absolutely.
• 10:04
  The moral law. Yeah, the law acts to expose sin
• 10:08
  and strip the Sinner of all self justification.
• 10:11
  As long as men compare themselves with other men, they
• 10:13
  can always find something to say in their own defense.
• 10:16
  They can always find someone worse.
• 10:17
  Exactly. Or rather, that is undeniably
• 10:20
  true. But when you stand before
• 10:22
  perfect, unfiltered holiness, every false refuge collapses
• 10:25
  immediately. The silence of this man is the
• 10:27
  definitive proof of his rebellion.
• 10:30
  It is his mouth is stopped, just as the Apostle Paul describes in
• 10:33
  Romans chapter 3, declaring that every mouth will be stopped and
• 10:37
  all the world will become guilty before God.
• 10:40
  And that silence leads to the swift and severe execution of
• 10:44
  justice in verse 13. The king does not hesitate.
• 10:47
  He does not offer a second chance or send the man back to
• 10:50
  the wardrobe room. He orders the servants to bind
• 10:53
  the man hand and foot and cast him into outer darkness, where
• 10:56
  there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• 10:58
  The imagery is terrifying. His hands are bound, so he
• 11:01
  cannot act. His feet are bound so he cannot
• 11:03
  flee. Right?
• 11:04
  Sin promises freedom, doesn't it?
• 11:06
  It promises the liberty to approach God on human terms, but
• 11:10
  the result is total absolute paralysis before divine justice.
• 11:14
  The Greek syntax here actually utilizes aorist imperatives
• 11:17
  which indicate swift, irreversible action.
• 11:20
  Irreversible. Yes, the command is to bind him
• 11:23
  and cast him out. Right now there is no
• 11:25
  negotiation. This completely refutes modern
• 11:27
  liberal theology and universalism, which attempt to
• 11:30
  mythologize as hell or explain away the wrath of God as an
• 11:33
  ancient metaphor. People love to do that today.
• 11:35
  They do, but the Greek text uses definite articles specifying the
• 11:39
  weeping and the gnashing, indicating a unique, conscious
• 11:43
  and literal eternal agony. So it's not just a state of
• 11:47
  mind. No, this is not a state of mind
• 11:49
  or a bad conscience. It is a literal, conscious
• 11:51
  exclusion from the presence of God.
• 11:54
  The guest who thought his outward nearness to the Kingdom
• 11:57
  secured his safety is permanently cast out.
• 12:00
  When you really digest this text, it forces you to look in
• 12:02
  the mirror. It should.
• 12:03
  It makes you wonder how much of modern church culture is just
• 12:07
  people showing up in their own comfortable rags, assuming God
• 12:10
  is fine with. It way too much of it, I fear.
• 12:12
  If you you are listening to this and think of God as a passive
• 12:15
  grandfather who tolerates anything as long as you mean
• 12:18
  well, this verse shatters that entirely.
• 12:21
  Sincerity in your own self righteousness is lethal.
• 12:24
  We see a terrifying contrast established here.
• 12:26
  Tell me about it. The wedding feast is a place of
• 12:29
  light, joy, fellowship and celebration centered entirely on
• 12:32
  the King's son. Yeah, the outer darkness
• 12:35
  translated from the Greek to Scotos to exotron is the
• 12:38
  superlative opposite. To Scotos.
• 12:40
  To Exotron. Yes, it signifies total
• 12:43
  banishment and exclusion from the blessed presence of God.
• 12:48
  The man is sent to the furthest possible point from the light.
• 12:51
  Because he never truly belonged there to begin with.
• 12:54
  Right, He is no longer among the guests because he never truly
• 12:57
  belonged among them. What human beings confuse in the
• 13:01
  visible community, the king distinguishes with perfect
• 13:04
  clarity. So from the individual narrative
• 13:07
  of the doomed guest, Jesus shifts to a sweeping theological
• 13:11
  axiom to explain the mechanics of the entire event.
• 13:14
  This is the anchor of the passage.
• 13:16
  In verse 14, Jesus concludes by saying for many are called, but
• 13:19
  few are chosen. This is the central idea of the
• 13:22
  text. Jesus is providing the
• 13:24
  theological principle that undergirds the entire warning.
• 13:26
  OK, let's break that down. We must distinguish between the
• 13:29
  Greek terms clay toy meaning the called, and eclectoy meaning the
• 13:33
  chosen. Clay toy and eclectoy.
• 13:35
  Yes, the outward call of the gospel is broad and universal.
• 13:39
  It goes out to the highways, in the hedges.
• 13:41
  Many hear the summons the Kingdom.
• 13:42
  Right. Many are gathered into the
• 13:44
  visible sphere of Gospel privilege.
• 13:46
  But the inward saving application of grace is a work
• 13:49
  of sovereign election. We ground this thoroughly in the
• 13:52
  Westminster Confession, chapter 3, which details God's eternal
• 13:56
  decree. I love chapter.
• 13:58
  Three, it's vital here. The chosen are those upon whom
• 14:01
  God has set his saving favor before the foundation of the
• 14:05
  world. Which contracts sharply with the
• 14:07
  Armenian error. Oh, dramatically.
• 14:09
  The Armenian error attempts to make the chosen status
• 14:12
  conditional upon human foresight or a cooperative free will.
• 14:17
  If the guest could provide his own garment, or if God simply
• 14:20
  reacted to the guests choice to dress appropriately, it would
• 14:24
  destroy the monarchistic glory of the Gospel.
• 14:27
  Salvation is of the Lord entirely and exclusively,
• 14:29
  without a doubt. I can hear the push back from
• 14:31
  listeners right now though. Oh, I'm sure.
• 14:33
  What are they saying? Well, if you are chosen and it
• 14:36
  all rests on sovereign election, is the invitation to the many
• 14:40
  still a genuine invitation? People struggle with this
• 14:43
  tension we do. They hear that God predestines
• 14:45
  the chosen, and they wonder if the call to the highways is
• 14:48
  authentic or just a theological charade.
• 14:51
  That's a fair question. The outward call is an
• 14:55
  absolutely sincere, free offer of the gospel to all who hear
• 14:58
  it. The invitation is real and the
• 15:01
  promise that whoever believes will be saved is completely
• 15:04
  true. So the offer is valid.
• 15:06
  It is, however, human depravity guarantees that no one will put
• 15:10
  on the garment unless God effectually calls them.
• 15:13
  Because by our fallen nature, we prefer our own filthy rags.
• 15:17
  Exactly. We hate the King's provision by
• 15:19
  nature. The outward call brings many
• 15:22
  into the visible Church. It brings them into contact with
• 15:25
  the preaching, the community of the Saints, and the sacraments.
• 15:29
  But only the elect received the inward effectual grace that
• 15:32
  saves. They're the ones whom God
• 15:34
  graciously makes fit for the feast.
• 15:36
  So this doctrine does not excuse unbelief.
• 15:38
  Not at all. Rather, it magnifies grace by
• 15:41
  showing that salvation rests on God's merciful purpose, not on
• 15:44
  human will or running. Knowing we need a garment is
• 15:47
  only half the equation, though. If we know we cannot wear our
• 15:50
  own rags, we need to understand what we're supposed to be
• 15:52
  wearing. The wedding argument is not an
• 15:54
  infused moral quality. No, it is not.
• 15:56
  It is not our own good behavior polished up for Sunday morning.
• 15:59
  It represents the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.
• 16:02
  We are talking about the Great Exchange.
• 16:05
  The theological framework here is stunning.
• 16:08
  We have to look at both the active obedience of Christ and
• 16:11
  His passive obedience. Let's define those for the
• 16:14
  listener. OK, Christ's active obedience
• 16:17
  refers to His perfect, sinless conformity to every requirement
• 16:22
  of the Law throughout his earthly life.
• 16:24
  Every thought, every deed, every word.
• 16:27
  Yes, all perfectly aligned with the Father's will.
• 16:30
  His act of obedience crafted the spotless fabric of the robe.
• 16:33
  I. Love that imagery.
• 16:34
  And his passive obedience refers to his voluntary submission to
• 16:37
  the wrath of God on the cross, where He bore the penalty for
• 16:40
  our sins. So his passive obedience
• 16:42
  purchased the robe for his people.
• 16:44
  That's it. Through the substitutionary
• 16:46
  work, the sinner's filthy rags are exchanged for the garments
• 16:49
  of salvation. This directly refutes the Roman
• 16:52
  Catholic position on justification, doesn't it?
• 16:54
  Cuts right through it. Because they view justification
• 16:57
  as an infused grace, something placed inside the believer that
• 17:02
  they must maintain through their own efforts, penance and
• 17:05
  sacraments, to stay in a state of grace.
• 17:08
  That is a critical polemical distinction.
• 17:11
  The Roman Catholic view confuses justification with
• 17:14
  sanctification. We maintain, in accordance with
• 17:17
  the Westminster Confession, Chapter 11, that justification
• 17:20
  is an act of God's free grace where He pardons all our sins
• 17:24
  and accepts us as righteous in His sight.
• 17:26
  And that is only for the righteousness of Christ imputed
• 17:29
  to us and received by faith alone.
• 17:31
  Yes, the righteousness is extra nose.
• 17:34
  It is entirely outside of ourselves.
• 17:36
  The man without the garment represents the individual who
• 17:39
  attempts to stand before God, clothed in his own works.
• 17:41
  Relying on his own infused moral efforts.
• 17:44
  Yeah, completely unaware that the King's standard is divine
• 17:47
  perfection. Well, we aren't telling you to
• 17:48
  go home and sew your own spiritual garments.
• 17:50
  We are telling you to put on the Lord Jesus Christ.
• 17:53
  No, man. But what does that actually look
• 17:56
  like for someone hearing this right now?
• 17:57
  We don't want to leave this in the realm of abstract,
• 17:59
  systematic theology. No, we don't.
• 18:01
  What does it mean for a person sitting in the their car or
• 18:05
  their living room right now, realizing they have been
• 18:07
  trusting in their own moral resume?
• 18:10
  This points us directly to Christ in his three offices.
• 18:13
  Prophet, priest and king. Yeah, as prophet, he issues this
• 18:18
  severe warning of judgement, exposing our natural unfitness,
• 18:21
  Right. As King, he establishes the holy
• 18:24
  terms of his Father's house, showing that no one enters on
• 18:27
  their own merit. And as priest.
• 18:29
  As priest, yeah, he provides the sacrifice that makes the garment
• 18:32
  possible. Putting on the Lord Jesus Christ
• 18:34
  means abandoning all reliance on your own morality, your church
• 18:38
  attendance, your charity work, and your doctrinal knowledge.
• 18:41
  It means resting your faith entirely on His finished.
• 18:44
  Work. It is an act of total surrender
• 18:46
  to His provision, assessing that you bring nothing to the table
• 18:49
  but the sin that made His sacrifice necessary.
• 18:51
  That takes this high theology and brings it right down to the
• 18:54
  immediate reality of modern church life.
• 18:56
  It definitely does. Because this text is a severe
• 18:59
  warning to the visible Church against nominalism, religious
• 19:02
  entitlement and the modern seeker sensitive movement.
• 19:05
  A massive warning. The visible church is a mixed
• 19:08
  multitude. We have the wheat and the tares
• 19:10
  growing together in the same pews and there is a real danger
• 19:14
  in pragmatic church growth strategies that try to or the
• 19:17
  King's standards just to fill the banquet hall with warm
• 19:21
  bodies. The visible church is filled
• 19:23
  with guests who have responded to the outward call but remain
• 19:27
  strangers to the inward grace of God.
• 19:30
  Pragmatism treats the king like a desperate host who just wants
• 19:33
  a full house, regardless of who's sitting at the tables or
• 19:36
  what they believe. But the King does not negotiate
• 19:39
  His Holiness for the sake of the guests comfort.
• 19:42
  No, never. We also have to address the
• 19:46
  specific Sacramento danger of baptismal presumption.
• 19:49
  Oh, that is a huge issue. There are many who pass through
• 19:52
  the waters of baptism and assume the water itself is the wedding
• 19:54
  garment. Right.
• 19:56
  But if you've been baptized without possessing the imputed
• 19:59
  righteousness of Christ through faith.
• 20:01
  You are simply a wet hypocrite. A wet hypocrite.
• 20:04
  That's a stark way to put it, but it's true.
• 20:06
  Your baptism is a beautiful sign for the true believer, but it
• 20:10
  stands as a condemnation for the imposter who relies on the
• 20:13
  physical sign rather than the Savior it points to.
• 20:16
  This brings up a very practical question for church governance
• 20:19
  then. OK, what is it?
• 20:20
  Should a pastor fence the Lord's Table based on this passage?
• 20:24
  Oh yes. If the visible church is a mixed
• 20:26
  multitude, how do local elders protect the corporate gathering
• 20:30
  on a Sunday morning? The Lorde table must absolutely
• 20:33
  be fenced with Apostolic fervor. The bread and the wine are signs
• 20:37
  of the body and blood that purchase the attire we need.
• 20:40
  So a pastor must warn the congregation not to touch the
• 20:43
  elements without first putting on Christ.
• 20:46
  Fencing the table protects the corporate gathering, ensuring it
• 20:49
  remains a meeting of the elect and not a social gathering of
• 20:53
  the condemned. It forces the individual to
• 20:55
  engage in rigorous self examination before partaking.
• 20:58
  It makes them ask themselves if they are resting in Christ or in
• 21:02
  their own religious presumption. To summarize our time today,
• 21:05
  Matthew 22 point almonds ran into 14 forces every single
• 21:09
  person to look away from their own filthy rags of self
• 21:12
  righteousness. It really does.
• 21:13
  It destroys any confidence we might have in our heritage, our
• 21:17
  works, or our outward religious associations.
• 21:20
  It demands that we gaze solely upon the Son, who alone provides
• 21:24
  the covering we desperately need to survive the scrutiny of a
• 21:27
  holy God. I want to leave you with one
• 21:29
  final awe inspiring connection. Please do.
• 21:32
  If we look forward to the Book of Revelation, we see the
• 21:36
  absolute fulfillment of this parable at the marriage Supper
• 21:39
  of the Lamb. Wow, that's beautiful.
• 21:41
  The apostle John notes in Revelation 19 that the bride's
• 21:44
  fine bright linen was granted to her.
• 21:47
  Granted. Yes, it was always a free gift
• 21:50
  of grace. It was never a wage earned by
• 21:52
  works. The righteousness of the Saints
• 21:54
  is a provided righteousness. So when the king returns to
• 21:58
  physically inspect his house, will you be found standing
• 22:01
  speechless in your own rags, or will you be found resting in the
• 22:05
  granted linen of the bridegroom? Your casual assumptions will not
• 22:08
  save you when the king walks into the room.
• 22:10
  Thank you for joining us for this deep dive into the source
• 22:12
  material on reformed thinking.