New Thoughts (03/25/08-03/31/08)
As always, when I see these confrontations with the Pharisees and the scribes, I recognize a need to bring the issue forward to our own day. It is wholly insufficient to stop with a critique of those foolish Pharisees, for those foolish Pharisees are us in so many ways. They are called out here, as the Bible says, for our edification, that we might learn (1Co 10:11). And, note the admonishment that follows upon that thought: “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1Co 10:12). Keep that thought foremost in your mind, then, as we explore this passage.
Keep it in mind, for that matter, when looking at events in the world around you. As I gathered my thoughts for this study, it occurred to me that we are seeing something rather parallel to this episode playing out upon the public stage even today. We have witnessed, in this election cycle, so much in the way of religiosity, and of attacks upon the purported religiosity of various candidates. I think in particular of the phenomena that has been the Obama campaign. So many in the media have raised his candidacy to some sort of cult status, and references to him as some sort of Messiah are entirely too frequent.
Come to these recent weeks, and what has transpired? Why, his compatriots have been observed, scrutinized, and they have been found wanting. News of the preaching he has been sitting under for the last few decades has come out, and what has been heard of that preaching has made people far more leery of his claimed power to unify the nation. How can it be? Your mentor here is delivering a message that is so terribly hateful and divisive, and we find no record of you ever confronting him. How can it be that you, who claim to labor so hard for peace between ideological extremes have exposed not only yourself, but your family as well, to such a non-stop barrage of anger, and to messages that are so hate-fueled as to become utterly delusional? In a nutshell, the call comes down from those who take upon themselves to vet this wonder man to either denounce the preacher or be shown a fraud.
Needless to say, at that point any comparison between the true Messiah and this man break down. He has managed, it seems, to both denounce his mentor and be shown a fraud. But, he did attempt to confront those who challenged his credentials. Jesus, I would note, does a much better job. Of course, the charges against him were on a much shakier foundation.
Even this, though, is insufficient, in terms of adjusting our focus. We have come forward in time, it is true, but we are still looking everywhere else but where we should. Let me turn the lens a bit closer to home. In the Obama case, much is made of the fact that he has sat under this man’s teaching for twenty years. Therefore, the pundits would have us assume, he clearly must agree with what is being preached.
As I think about that, I realize that I have been a member of my own church for somewhat more than half as long. I too, have allowed my child and my wife to sit under the teaching of this particular church. Does this mean I agree with everything that is heard from the pulpit? No. There are some points where I understand things quite differently than my pastor. I would say, though, that these are matters on a far different level. Have there been occasions where I felt it necessary to confront him with the error of his ways? Not really. We have had occasion to meet and recognize our theological differences of opinion, yes. There have been a few – a very few – occasions where I have heard positions preached that stood directly opposite my own belief on some point. They have been declared with a vehemence which, if it reflected a full understanding of both viewpoints, would have led me to depart for another ministry. Why? Because if our beliefs were that diametrically opposed and held that strongly, we had no business laboring together. We would be at odds too often.
I have, for instance, taught under the auspices of this church at times. How could I, in good conscience, teach under the authority of a man whose belief system I rejected? Should I then teach the party line, though I didn’t believe it? Should I refrain from teaching what I believe to be the Truth because it doesn’t match? Neither solution can possibly satisfy a man who is in pursuit of God! No, the issues needed to be addressed. Now, these are not, let it be understood, matters upon which salvation depends. They are points that men of good conscience and a heart after God can disagree and still know themselves brothers. But there are bounds to the degree of that disagreement beyond which the bond of brotherhood cannot hold. So, these issues were addressed. We came together to discuss our differences and to recognize our unity of core belief. The matters at hand are such as centuries of theological masters have not been able to settle once and for all. Men of deep faith and understanding have come out on both sides of these issues and have done so without compromising their integrity and without dishonoring God.
I don’t suppose either one of us has changed our stance for all our conversation, but the beginnings of any breach between us was healed. You see, we recognize in one another such a commonality of belief that these differences, while important, are not such as would cause us to call one another’s faith into question. Not at all. He is comfortable to have me teaching amongst his flock and to counsel among his coworkers, and I am comfortable knowing that this is a man of God, a man who is attuned to the Holy Spirit and responsive to the correcting hand of the Teacher. We can disagree on these matters in peace, because we have come to know and understand one another. Neither has cause to denounce the other. Neither finds cause to consider the other a fraud.
This is where the Church sometimes gets lost on matters of unity. We mistake unison for unity. We feel that somehow, if we are not all saying the exact same words, singing the exact same notes, pursuing the exact same ministry, then we are at cross purposes. We miss the whole flow of Paul’s analogy of the body. Some are called as evangelists. Not all, some. Some speak in tongues. Not all, some. Some are sent out as missionaries. Not all, some. How often has the Church split itself over matters of unison? Look. In many ways I find it commendable that there were men and women who were so committed to pursuing the Truth of God that they felt it necessary to part company with those who pursued what they saw to be a different truth. We should all be so committed to God’s Truth as to shun anything that deviates from it! The failure comes in thinking we’ve got the lock on His Truth. The failure comes in holding such a vain and prideful view of our own understanding that we refuse to even listen to anybody else.
When it comes to the thorniest questions of theology, the truth of the matter is that men can come to radically differing positions and arrive there on the basis of their best understanding of Scripture. The truth of the matter is that, as fully as God has disclosed Himself to man in His Word and in His Son, we remain imperfect. We continue to see dimly, as through an ancient windowpane. We know in part. His ways remain far and away above our own, and His thoughts remain far and away beyond our capacity to think. He is not unknowable, as some of concluded, but we are not of a nature to know Him so completely that we can brush aside every other opinion. We can, if we will but recognize our own limitations, accept the earnest faith of those who may have reached another perspective.
There are, to be sure, matters about which disagreement cannot be accepted in the house of faith. There are matters of import to salvation, matters which to understand differently is to worship idols, to worship a manufactured caricature of the True God, and therefore to truly stand outside the faith. But, so much of what divides the house of God today is less a matter of eternal import, and more a matter of traditional understanding.
I want to offer another thought that might help to keep our view of this passage more in the present day. As I was reviewing the parallel passages that are offered for this section of the text, I was caught by the number of places where those who were opposing Jesus were indicated as the Jews coming from Jerusalem. It’s not all the scribes, or all the Pharisees. They are constantly noted as those who were coming out from Jerusalem. I dare say there is a reason that this distinction is made. It is not that those Pharisees who lived elsewhere were in tune with what Jesus was saying. It is that these were the representatives of the official religious order. They were the appointed overseers, the keepers of theological propriety, if you will.
They were, for their time and place, the teachers of the nation, the shapers of moral and ethical thought. They were to Israel what the philosophers were to Greece. They were to Israel what the ‘intellectual elites’ are to our day. I would say the seminarians, but really, the seminarians of our age are more a symptom of the larger influence of these intellectual elites. They are the self-appointed arbiters of what the common people ought to believe and how they ought to behave. That their basis for this arbitration of belief is founded on nothing more than personal opinion doesn’t phase them. They are so convinced of their correctness that they can brook no questioning of it. They have been so fully indoctrinated in these particular viewpoints that they don’t even know how they came to believe what they do. Oh, they can pull out references, give you lists of other important elites who have elucidated the same viewpoint, but they cannot reach a foundation for that viewpoint. There is a very simple reason for that. There is no foundation.
This is what Jesus was facing from these accusers. They had long since ceased from checking their opinions against the foundation of God’s Law. They stopped with the teachers of a generation or two past. Why, if Rabbi so and so taught this, it must be true. We have no need of further witnesses. We have no need to go back to the sources. He said so. It is enough.
I tell you with great sadness that this is the state of much of Christianity today. So many among us have not ever checked to see if our beliefs align with what the Bible really teaches. Some of us have settled for whatever sounds good to us. Some have simply accepted what their parents believed and supposed they must have done the legwork. Some will cling to the official position of their particular denomination without ever checking it out for themselves. Everywhere you look, you will find a people who are more concerned with traditions, with doctrines of men, than with the Truth of God.
I have been there. No doubt, there are aspects of my faith where I still am. But, I have committed myself to come to the Bible with an open mind as well as with open eyes. I have seen my convictions changed by what I have found in its pages. I have discovered doctrinal stances that I had to set aside because a clear reading of the text would not allow me to hold with what I thought I knew.
Indeed, this whole habit of study came about on the basis of a question. I was raised in the belief in a triune God, but there were folks I was coming in contact with who held it to be otherwise, and held this viewpoint so vehemently as to consider a belief in the Trinity to be a belief in idols and demons. Well, looking at this in honest appraisal, what foundation did I have for my viewpoint? It was what I was raised to believe. It was what I had always been told. Did that make it right? I could only conclude that no, that was not a sufficient foundation for an understanding of God such as this. So, I undertook to either find a proper foundation to set this belief upon, or to tear it down in favor of the proper foundation. I will say that my conviction as to the triune nature of God is now firm, that I find sufficient evidence for its validity to hold it as True. I would not say that I am fit to explain to you how it can be, nor even that I could convince you how it could not be otherwise. But, for my own part, I am convinced by the arguments I have pursued. That is, at essence, the core of faith: to be convinced by the arguments and the evidence presented.
There have been other occasions in these years of study that have caused changed rather than reinforcing what I thought I knew. I have committed myself, on such occasions, to considering the best arguments I can find on each side of the issue. That is, I think, the best use of commentaries. They cannot work well if we only consult those commentaries that happen to reflect our own denominational perspective. We do ourselves a disservice if our study of Scripture is but an echo chamber of what we already think and believe. No, we must learn to open ourselves to disagreement. But, we must be wise in the doing. There are those whose differing perspective comes from an equally honest and earnest pursuit of knowing God. Then, there are those who simply seek to promote their own heretical imaginations. The distinction must be observed. But, where we have the former – a godly arrival at a different understanding – it deserves, if not demands, an honest and open-minded appraisal.
And through it all, we must strive for a humility of faith. We are seeking to know the all-knowing God. We are seeking to comprehend the infinite in our own finitude. If we allow ourselves to reach a point of such certainty that no further disagreement can be tolerated we have but allowed pride and vanity to rise up once more within us. We have put ourselves on the path of the Pharisee, and have placed ourselves in danger of elevating our traditions and opinions above the true worship of God. Never, never should we come to the pages of Scripture with beliefs so set in concrete that we cannot hear the correcting voice of the Spirit! Far be it from us! No, until we stand perfected in His presence, we must realize our imperfect knowledge, and allow His appointed Teacher to bring us into Truth. We are each and every one of us capable of error. In truth, we are incapable of avoiding error. As such, we must be willing that He should correct us, and set our feet back on the path of Truth. Let us never be found so foolishly confident as to be counted amongst those coming from Jerusalem and among those who reject the Truth in support of our own vain imaginations.
In this instance, Jesus makes no appeal to the imagination at all. His argument goes straight to the mind. Indeed, I think his approach in dealing with the scribes and Pharisees here would do the Greek rhetorical tradition proud. The fact of the matter is that this approach is not all that different from His use of the Rabbinical tradition of teaching by parable. In both cases, He carefully guides the mind of His listeners down a path that reaches what has become an inescapable conclusion. Here, however, there are none of the trappings of parable. It is a clear and succinct presentation of the argument and its proofs.
He opens by leveling the same charges against His accusers as they have leveled against Him, except amplified. While they have complained of His breaking with tradition, His counter-charge is a breach of actual Law. While they come in the authority of previous generations, He comes with the authority of God. This is particularly stinging given that these who have come to confront Him are the official representatives of religious orthodoxy. They are the ones who proclaim themselves experts both in understanding and in practice. Their opening accusation has laid bare for all to see that they have consciously raised their educational traditions to a level higher than the ancient faith they claim to teach and uphold. If this situation is not clear to all at the beginning of the exchange, it certainly will have become so by the end.
Elsewhere, I have briefly noted that it seems likely to me that He was interrupted at this point by the indignant outburst of His accusers upon hearing this. These men came, no doubt, with a great deal of skepticism about Jesus. They may well have concluded a priori that He was a fraud, and had come more to expose Him before the people than to consider whether He was a true teacher. Had they thought Him acceptable, there would have been little reason for them to make the trip. They would have waited for Him to come to them. After all, they were the experts, and if this young man wished to be a teacher, it is only to be expected that he would come to them for his training. That he had not done so already may have planted the seed of suspicion in them.
So, here they are; the experts come to put this unauthorized itinerant in his place. To hear, then, such accusations as He has just made was sure to bring a reaction from them. These are not a people to take such things quietly. There would be loud and angry denouncements. How dare he! What possible basis could this untrained and uncouth young man have for accusing them of breaking the Law of Moses? This man, product of a region notorious for its Gentile influences, would dare to rebuke the cream of Jerusalem? This uneducated hick would dare to set himself against the best-trained experts in Torah and its interpretation? Oh, be sure of it! They raised all these points and they raised them loudly.
Jesus, I am sure, knew this would be the reaction. Any man leveling such accusations at them would have known as much. He, however, allows room for their outburst before driving home his point. In doing so, He turns immediately to one of the most basic commandments. This is not some portion of the Law that might be deemed subject to interpretation. It is a fundamental of the faith. Honor your parents. It is direct from the tablets that Moses brought down from Sinai. I would note, also, that in declaring how it is they have broken this law, His case requires no greater understanding of the implications of that Law than the most basic. Even taken at face value with no consideration, what He sets forth clearly runs counter to it.
There are other themes one might pick up from the illustrating example He chooses. Why, for instance, would these self-proclaimed guardians of righteousness be more concerned with the wealth dedicated to God and therefore placed under the guardianship of the Temple than with the efforts of the people to live in righteousness? Weren’t they the ones that were so concerned about being righteous? Wasn’t that the whole point of these traditions they are so worked up about? And yet, here is this tradition, the declaring of corban, that runs directly counter to true righteousness. So highly do they honor this corban, this gift, that they not only free the giver of certain Mosaic responsibilities, they forbid that he heed the Law if in doing so, he would have to renege on the gift.
He is laying out a very simple and straightforward case here. I expect the matter of corban was a matter familiar to all who were listening. There would be no room for denying that this practice was indeed a part of their teaching. It could be argued that they had simply not considered the implications of that teaching as it came into conflict with the Law itself. But, then, Jesus includes that point: You forbid that one from using the gift to honor his parents by supporting them. If they had not fully considered the implications in laying down this tradition in the first place, the need to answer those who experienced the conflict had forced them to face the issue. Their answer makes it all the more clear that they truly rank their own traditions, the legacy of honored rabbis, higher than the Law they claim to uphold. It makes clear that the testimony Jesus declares against them is entirely valid: You teach the doctrines of men as more binding than the commandment of God.
Finally, Jesus has brought the very testimony of Scripture to bear against these guardians of Scriptural integrity. Thereby He sets aside any attempt to write this off as one man’s opinion. No. Isaiah had already spoken to just such thinking and had made God’s opinion of it clear.
Again, the whole course of this presentation is aimed not so much at the spirit, and certainly not at the emotions. It is a direct appeal to the mind. One need only follow the argument. One need but think about what He has said, and the Truth of it is clear.
This is much different than what we have seen in His teaching. That whole speech that came on the heals of the feeding of the five thousand required great effort to come to grips with. So much of it was spoken in figurative terms, and the Truths He was teaching were shockingly different than what was normally taught. They were intended to be. They required a deep engagement on the part of the disciple, and they required a committed effort to comprehend. This, on the other hand, is direct and to the point. It is free of any figurative imagery. He is battling for the mind in this case, rather than the soul, and I think we must say He won.
Now, by winning, I clearly cannot mean that He has won over those Pharisees and scribes to His side. It would be more reasonable to say that He has just declared war on them. That much, they no doubt understood. It would also be reasonable to say that the example He has just laid out before them was undeniable. Whether they would change their ways accordingly or not, they could not avoid the accuracy of what He said.
Why do I labor this point? I do so because in so many fellowships, every appeal for the Gospel now goes for emotion. The congregation is invariably a mixed crowd. Those who hear the message are at widely varying stages of development in their sanctification. There are those who are spiritually mature and those who are freshly come to belief, and everything in between. All of these deserve to be ministered to. The range of development in terms of capacity for thought and reason is just as great, and here, too, all deserve to be ministered to.
In an ideal world, all would be ministered to at their own level. To the babes, we would minister the milk of the word, and to the mature we would minister the meat. To the fresh-minted believer, we would teach the fundamentals of faith, and to the veteran, we would explore more challenging matters of belief and practice. However, we are not dwelling in an ideal world. We dwell in a time and society where all of these different needs must be addressed at once.
It’s funny in a sad way. A generation or more ago, our educational systems were like this. Children of all ages and stages would be gathered into that old, one-room schoolhouse. They would be taught together. Eventually, it seems we determined that this was not the most effective way to teach things like language and mathematics and history. Yet, in the critical matter of spiritual education, we remain at the equivalent of the one-room schoolhouse.
Oh, we may have separated things out by physical age to some degree. We have our Sunday school classes for the kids, and our youth groups and the like. But, come to the main ministry of the Word, and it’s one message must fit all. The seemingly necessary side-effect of this approach is that this main ministry winds up targeted at the lowest common denominator. We are convinced that we must keep the message simple so that the newly saved can understand it. As for the more mature, well, they’ll just have to fend for themselves if this isn’t filling enough.
But, on what basis do we settle for this approach? On what basis do we even think it valid? The more I look into the preaching of Jesus, the more I see that He does not aim for the lowest common denominator in formatting His message, other than to raise the level of that common denominator. He is constantly delivering the news of the kingdom in a fashion that will require more than passive acquiescence. He teaches in a way that requires active engagement with His lessons. He requires His students to stretch their capabilities, to think harder, to really gnaw on what He is teaching and come to grips with it.
You know, even in the one-room schoolhouse, it would be a poor teacher who taught only the first-grade curriculum to one and all. If that had been the method, there would have been no reason for second-year students, let alone eighth year! If all that was ever taught was that first year’s lessons, why, they’d be done with it and working to help support the family. Nobody would waste time reviewing these basics over and over again. No, of course the teacher in that schoolhouse had more advanced lessons to teach the more advanced students. In fact, I expect that hearing what the older students were learning aroused a degree of curiosity in the younger ones. It enticed them to put in some effort to get to where those older ones already were. It also prepared them. For, even if they didn’t fully grasp what they were hearing, they were hearing it. They would almost inevitably think about it. Then, when they returned to face that subject matter in earnest, it was not totally alien to them. They had heard it before. Now, however, the teaching could really sink in. This is something we may well have lost in our modern approach to schooling.
In the church, though, it seems that many bodies are afraid to address the older believers. There are so many that feel we must stop and bring the message back down to the level of the beginners so they won’t get lost in the deeper matters. To the extent that we shed some of our jargon in favor of plain speaking, that’s probably a good thing. But, to the extent that we simply never get around to considering the deep things at all, it’s a very bad thing.
It may seem that there’s simply not enough time to address all levels. It would be impossible to live in this day and age and not feel the pressure on our time, after all. But, I think the issue is that we are convinced that whatever levels we are going to address need to be addressed every time. If we try to do that, then of course we will find we do not have sufficient time to accomplish our end. But, this is no reason to neglect the elder in favor of the younger, the advanced in favor of the neophyte. Again, I would say that it is just as likely that by regularly addressing the advanced topics fit for the mature one will capture the interest of the newest members and give them incentive to advance themselves. If all is stagnation, the same fundamentals over and over again, then eventually coming to listen loses its point. Eventually, the battle for the mind and soul is lost.
The issue that Jesus lays out before the Pharisees is one we must keep checking for in our own pursuit of holiness. It’s a matter of recognizing whether we are really following the authoritative ruling of the Bible or whether we are caught up in chasing what are no more than oral traditions. Recognize that this is not to say that knowledge which was passed down through earliest generations by oral transmission is made invalid by the mode of its preservation. Nor is the written form of a code of conduct proof of its divinity. The issue is not with the format or the means. The issue is with the authorship and authority. We who hold that the Bible is truly of divine authorship, although the writers whose writings comprise its content were quite human and remain visibly distinct in their writings, must necessarily hold that all other claimants to being God’s word are doctrines composed of the precepts of men. That is the best assessment we may allow them. More honestly, we ought likely to call them out as the doctrines of demons. They present a god who is a lie, and lead millions away from the True God of heaven and earth and all creation. What else should we consider them?
This is not, of course, the only form of writing that falls into the category of manmade rules. God has so arranged it that this week Table Talk has been turning to the subject of worldviews. It is good to have these exposed to our sight, because we are so saturated in worldview that we really don’t notice what we’ve been picking up! We may have some limited sense of what it means to be a modernist, or a post-modernist. We have a sense of what pragmatism is, and we understand the dangers of relativism. But, do we recognize the symptoms? Can we see in ourselves whether we have begun to worship these idols?
I was shocked this morning; a mild shock, admittedly, but shocked none the less. As much as I understand that relativism is a system utterly incompatible with a belief in Truth, I was forced to see signs of myself having submitted to its influence. Honestly, I had never seen it as so completely connected to the pragmatic viewpoint. In fact, raised in this nation of ours, it is difficult to think of a pragmatic viewpoint as being a bad thing. But, what really drove home the danger for me was to confront the symptom of pragmatic relativism which is echoed in the phrase, “works for me.” How often do I use this very phrase? Perhaps it is in jest as often as not, but the fact is, that this really is how I view things as often as not.
How can this be? Though I am committed to pursuing the Truth of God to the best of my ability, how to I respond to those who see it differently? Do I confront them with this Truth I seek to know? Do I point out their folly? No. I leave them in whatever it is that is working for them. This is but one of the more obvious ways in which the relativist view has invaded. It is just as evident in the lawlessness of life. I may consider myself a fine, law-abiding citizen, but that really depends which laws we’re discussing, doesn’t it? Matters of speed limits? Well, those aren’t for me. They only apply during inclement weather. Worse yet, the authorities tasked with upholding the law are no more inclined to heed that law then I. Like sin, the sense that we can get away with it unpunished just leaves us pursuing that sin all the more. And like sin, when the law catches up with us, it just seems so unjust. We are quick to pull out the ‘everybody else is doing it’ defense. It won’t work with the traffic court judge, and it sure won’t work with the Judge of the whole earth!
Traditions! These are symptoms of the same issue in us, in me. The question becomes, then, how have these things infected my faith and my worship? Again, the question is not have they? I can be certain that they have. You can be certain that they have, as well. There may be, somewhere on the face of this earth, a church whose doctrine and practice remain utterly devoid of any influence of man-made worldviews and man-made traditions, but I rather doubt it. Look for the leaven, and I suspect we are sure to find it.
In that search, though, let there be this thought to balance us: not every tradition is evil. Not every bit of thought adopted by an invalid worldview is invalid by association. The key lies in what Jesus lays out here: when we find those traditions and worldviews operating in such ways as require us to run counter to the will and command of God, when we are forced to choose between God and man, God must win in our thinking and in our practice. Every tradition must bow to the clear and pure commandment of God. Every mode of thinking, and of interacting with the world around us must bend to the shaping of God’s viewpoint. It is when these bounds are exceeded that we have fallen into idolatry once again.
As I try and draw closer to my own life, my own faith and my own pursuit of God, I find that I keep shying away. Have I, for instance, fallen prey to the exact same distortion that Jesus here condemns? There is the matter of that vow which I made to provide a specific amount toward the facilities of the church I attend. At the time it seemed eminently doable, but situations change, and the strain of that commitment was felt. Other avenues arose by which to satisfy the degree of that funding if not the original timetable. Honestly, there was a point prior to turning to those alternative avenues when I was really looking to bargain my way out of that promise. Surely, God, I have satisfied the intent, if not the letter? Indeed, it seemed quite clear at the time that He was expecting me to maintain my promise. Honestly, I do not feel that He has changed that answer.
Thinking on this matter a little further, there is this distinction: the concern God has is not with me being His provision. His concern is that I represent the God of Truth truthfully by being true to my own word. That said, there is clearly a point at which the vows we make really ought not to be honored. They ought not to have been made in the first place, but God is hardly one to require us to compound the damage by holding to our foolishly declared vow. There is the obvious example of that man of Israel who wound up slaying his own daughter as the promised sacrifice for his victory in battle. He was true to his word, we’ll give him that. But, do you suppose God was pleased that he held to his word to the point of violating the commandment against taking human life by sacrificing his own daughter?
This is not that far removed from the issue with the Pharisees. Yes, the fact that you have made a vow to give this fiduciary gift to the Church ought to be taken seriously. Any word you speak ought to be taken seriously. The matter that we tend to neglect teaching is that it ought to be taken seriously before it is spoken. Jesus instructed those who would commit themselves to His teaching to first count the cost. Really think through what it’s going to mean to say, “yes, Lord,” and don’t say it if you can’t follow through on it. For, to break with such a commitment would be to sign your own death warrant. But, the expectation is that we would consider all our commitments with the same seriousness of heart and thought.
If I promise this support to the Church, it is support I cannot give to those in my charge. Now, He is not calling us to consider this in the pragmatic, American way. He is, I think, calling us to weigh it in the balance of righteousness. If I make this pledge, if I commit myself to do this or that, is it going to place me in direct violation of any prior vow, contract or covenant? Most critically, will it put me into the position of having to violate my covenant with God in one way or another?
This was the dilemma of corban. Understand that the gift that Jesus is talking about here is a gift that remains pledged, not yet given. In other words, it is still in the giver’s power to change course. So, with parents healthy and life going well, this one has pledged to give some future gift to the Church. Perhaps it is the proceeds of some current project. Perhaps the barely hidden hope is that the pledge will contribute God’s attention to the success of that project. By that pledge, the giver has put himself under the Law, and obliges himself to act in accordance. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Your word is to be trustworthy.
But, situations change. Life does not continue on its rosy course. Parents age, and the time has come when we, as children who honor their parents in accord with God’s command, ought to be contributing to their support. They can no longer earn as they once did, but the bills aren’t going away. Well, here are the proceeds of that project of ours, still accruing interest, for the time has not yet come to fulfill our vow to the Church. Yes, it would suffice to cover our parents’ need and then some, but, it is promised to another. Now, we are faced with the insoluble dilemma that whatever choice we make, we must violate the terms of covenant. What to do?
I need look no further than Jesus to find my answer. His condemnation of the Pharisaic way makes it clear. While the vow involved in corban was indeed a matter of concern, the corban was nothing God had instituted. Whereas, the maintaining of one’s parents and seeing to the human need was also a concern, and it involved matters instituted by God Himself. He had commanded that parents be honored by their children, and supporting them is a matter of honoring them. If a choice must be made, then that which supported life is the more important.
There is a guiding principle for us: if we have allowed ourselves to come into such a dilemma where we cannot act without violating some point of Law, our choice should always be to pursue the path most conducive to supporting life. This is where that man who offered up the life of his daughter to maintain the integrity of his word failed most miserably. Life should have won. This is why Rahab is not condemned for lying to those who came asking after Israel’s spies. Better to be honest or to protect life? She opted to protect life, and the testimony of Scripture is that she made the right choice.
It is worth noting that the accusations Jesus has made are no isolated complaint. If we look backward in time from His day, it is there. Ezekiel will serve as but one example. “They come to you. They sit and listen to you. And, they call themselves My people. Yet, they don’t do as you teach them to. They just keep running after their own lusts and desires. Their heart is not seeking God, it’s seeking gain!” (Eze 33:31). This was spoken to Israel long ages ago, and yet it is so terribly relevant to the church today. Why else do we have an entire movement centered about the concept that God wants you rich? Why else do we find televangelists held in such low esteem, not only outside the church, but inside a good portion of the church?
The reason is that they are seeking gain not God. They are looking to enrich their coffers, and have little or no concern for what becomes of you along the way. If they have led you away from the ways of righteousness, what is that to them? They’re living comfortably.
This is an easy target, is it not? But, I have this question that keeps nagging at me. You see, when I hear Jesus saying, “You allow your traditions to violate God’s word in many ways,” I hear Him saying that to me. A large part of me wants to rise up like the Pharisees and shout Him down. Nonsense! Me? How can you say that? But, the honest part of me, the part that believes what the Bible says about me, is certain He is quite right. I doubtless do this while blinding myself to what I am doing. So, my thoughts are, “How, Lord? Show me where I’m doing as You say, and how I ought to be doing instead.” Reveal and correct!
The poison I see pointed out immediately is not the matter of raising some tradition of my own to the rank of Law. But, when I read, “Their heart goes after gain instead of God,” it strikes a fearful chord. If this is not the measure of me today, at this particular moment, it is painfully clear to me that it often is. Having lived in the society of instant gratification, I know that I am often a supplicant at that idolatrous temple. No, I don’t really tend to think of it as offering worship to foreign gods, but isn’t that the reality?
When my entire motivation consists in making a good living and remaining in a position where I can procure for myself whatever may suit my whims, that idol is before me. Oh, I can shape those desires to remain within my means, or at least within shouting distance. I can convince myself that this is proof that I am not serving mammon. But, eventually, it must be recognized. I live within my means solely because I do everything I can to ensure that my means keep up with my tastes. And, oh, what misery to be around me when this fails! How tightly I will control the spending of those others in my household when things are not so flush, but for myself? Well, there are things that just can’t be helped.
This is the sort of mental dishonesty that we are ever so adept at! We will do just about anything to avoid seeing our own sin. This is, as Jesus says, but one example. But, as Paul reminds us, “You boast of the Law and yet you break it constantly” (Ro 2:23). Yes, I am aware that this is directed at those who reject the Christ. But, I tell you it is just as true of believers! Just as true. And, if we pretend it isn’t, then John is swift to remind us that we are making God a liar to protect our own self-image (1Jn 1:8-10). See, we will raise up our own standards of righteousness and declare ourselves good, completely ignoring what God has been saying all along: There is none who is righteous, no, not one. We refuse to believe that of ourselves. But, if we pursue God’s commands, we are forced to. So, we don’t. We come up with our own version and follow that instead. We are just as bad as the Pharisees in this.
Jesus has spoken of the issue of vows versus love, and made clear that love should have won out, where there was conflict between the two. Love or honor? Which of these is greater? Well, we know from Paul that Love should be. We know from John that Love is the defining feature of the true Christian. Yet, how much of our behavior is ruled by honor even to the detriment of love? That’s what the Pharisees had come to! Their honor, their reputation, was worth more to them than love. So long as people held them in high regard, then the welfare of the people be damned!
For many of us, this describes our own experience of faith. So long as we’re saved, and folks at church think well of me, then who cares about the lost? Oh, we would never say such a thing, because we know it’s not right. We would never say that, because then folks at church might not think so well of us. But, really, we don’t care that much. Hey! I’ve got my ticket. You’re on your own.
How can I say this? Quite easily. I need but ask one question and the truth of our belief system is revealed. The question is this: Do you preach the gospel in your workplace? For the most part, the answer is going to be ‘of course not’. Well, why not? It can’t be because we know everybody there is saved, because we know full well that’s not the case. Truly, you and I both know why not. It’s dangerous! There’s rules at work that say I can’t, and I must abide by those rules. Whoa! Have we read the book of Acts? There were rules in Jerusalem that said the apostles couldn’t speak of Jesus any more, and what was their response? “Is it better that we should obey you, or that we should obey God?”
Now, I might grant them the slight advantage of dealing with a people that still acknowledged God, and acknowledged that His reign is supreme over all. But, that reality hasn’t changed for us. People may no longer accept the truth of it, but it’s still True. He does reign supreme over all. His commandment is still the final authority. But, we have taken to looking at the question the apostles asked and answering it incorrectly. Given the decision to obey God or obey man, our inclination is to obey man. Why? Because if we disobey man, our wealth is threatened. We are after gain, not God.
We may try and slip in a mention of our church activity here and there in the conversation. But, we will not broach the subject of salvation. We will not declare Truth. That might get us fired. That might require a bit of personal risk on our part and we’re really rather risk averse. We have grown comfortable in this world as much as we proclaim that we are no part of it. Really? Well, look around you.
No, you may not drive the latest car. There may be bigger houses than yours, neater yards. Yes, you put on airs of disregard for the finer things, but the truth is, that you would not settle for much less than you have, would you? No vow of poverty for you, thank God. But, what is the thinking behind this? You are as conspicuous in limiting your consumption as are those whom you would accuse of flaunting their wealth. You are so proud of how you control yourself, and you don’t even notice that you’re not in control. You are serving mammon and you haven’t even noticed. Mammon doesn’t get offended if you continue to pay lip service to God. That’s fine. Just so you don’t live it. Mammon will even give you something to offer as a gift to the Church. No problem. After all, the Church is learning to serve mammon, too.
Lord, this is a fearful recognition to come to. I see myself so clearly in what has just been laid out, yet I feel so powerless to change. I can begin, to be sure, by asking Your forgiveness, but I fear that to ask that when real repentance feels so far from me would be rank insult. I must begin a step further back, I think, and seek that You would so work upon my soul that repentance is more than just the sorrow of guilt. I seek that You would so work upon my soul that there is a very real, very tangible turning from the things I have pursued toward a more committed pursuit of Your ways. Then I can seek forgiveness with certain hope that You are faithful. But, the truth remains, my God, that I am so far from righteous. So far. Oh, I try to do so much for Your house, and I shall continue to do what I can for Your house. I will try to make that doing for Your glory. Yet, I know that even such effort as has been mine this week is but a poor offering, and must feel Your purifying touch before ever it could be acceptable service in Your sight. And all the while, I have that question: where is the Love?
If there is one thing I would cry out for even today, Lord, it is that You would work with me, work in me, that Love might be raised up in my perspective and in my behavior. Oh, God! Let Your love so conquer me today that I cannot but pour out my love for those around me. Nay, not my love, but Yours. Fill me, oh Lord, with such a sense of Your love for me as touched John’s heart and mind. Let that transform my dealings with those whom You put before me today; and not just today, but onward until You call me home. If You would have a gift of me committed to Your temple, let this be it!
The key understanding that should be drawn out of this passage is that when we start treating our own notions as doctrine, our worship becomes a vain farce. That is the force of Mark 7:7. It becomes particularly evident in the paraphrasing of the NLT and TLB. “Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.” “They claim that God commands the people to obey their petty rules.” The charge which Jesus brings against such practitioners builds upon this. For, the sin that finds its start in claiming God’s authority backs our petty nonsense builds upon that basis. Hear the result. “You have stopped following the commands of God. You follow only human teachings” [NCV].
This is, as it were, the inevitable result. The worst part is that we find it so hard to recognize back at the starting point. We feel so certain that we are hearing from the Spirit on one matter or another. We are so caught up in playing our prophetic role, so we simply declare, “Thus says the Lord”. What we have learned, perhaps subconsciously, is that using this statement shuts down all debate on the matter. People might argue with your opinion, but now God has been declared as the backer of your opinion. What argument can there be, other than to retort like Jeremiah, “No, the Lord says this.” Of course, if you have any respect for God, you will not pull such a defense unless you can be certain that your claim is true. You’ve seen what happens when prophets collide. You’ve also seen what happens to those who fail God’s test of the true prophet. You may not need to fear stoning for your crimes these days, but I’m sure another, equivalent punishment will be provided. But, we don’t see it happening, so our willingness to play free and loose with claiming God’s backing grows and grows, and pretty soon we’re guilty as charged: completely ignoring the written document which God provides as the exposition of His commands in favor of whatever latest fad of righteousness is sweeping the prophetic community.
That danger is particularly grave in charismatic circles, but it certainly is not exclusive to us. We develop this habit of looking at the forms of worship that other churches insist upon clinging to, and we think them hide-bound. We may even claim that they are a dead church. Why? Because they don’t move in the ‘freedom’ that we have. Well, do we ever stop to ask whether it is freedom we are functioning in or whether it’s just taking liberties? We get all sorts of excited over this prophetic utterance or the revelatory nature of that message. Shouldn’t we be more excited when we hear the clear exposition of God’s Word? Shouldn’t we be more excited when we have it clearly demonstrated that the means of our worship is as true as the Object of our worship?
We have our traditions. In some cases, they aren’t even traditions, they are merely response to technology. Now, technology is neither good nor evil in itself. But, if we allow our utilization of technology to breach the Law of God, we have made it an evil in our hands. What do I mean? Well, the first Law of God is, as Jesus expounded, to love Him above all else, with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. The second, He continued, is like the first. I would say it also flows from the first. Love your neighbor as yourself. Treat every man as you would be treated. Give place to the needs of the other.
Well, then. If that other needs to arise in mid service and make his way to the facilities, it may not look good on camera. It may seem disruptive to watch his progress toward the exit on screen. But, is it an expression of the Law of God’s Love to insist that he ought rather to climb over those others beside him in the pew to reach the side aisle? Whose need are we considering most highly in this case? Is this an expression of our love for God? In what way? He can see clearly enough. Is it concern for the ministering of His Word? Well, faith comes by hearing, not by visual antics. If the preaching is clear, the picture is just a bonus. Besides, a bit of editing can remove that distraction and leave the message intact, can it not? So, who was served? The man’s neighbors in the pew? Clearly not. They are more distracted than anybody watching the camera was likely to be. For, they must now set aside their Bible and their notes to arise and let the man pass. Then, they must await his return, knowing that they shall need to let him return. And, clearly, this is no expression of love for the man himself, who is now inconvenienced and perhaps embarrassed by a function he can scarcely hope to control. So, who was loved in all this?
“Praiseworthy indeed!” He adds. “You set at naught God’s Commandment in order to observe your own traditions!” That’s the Weymouth translation of Mk 7:9. Perhaps for our day, the Message is even more telling. “Well, good for you. You get rid of God’s command so you won’t be inconvenienced in following the religious fashions!” That is precisely where the church in America finds itself today, following religious fashions. What’s this month’s method? What’s hot? What are they doing in the mega-churches now? We should try it. Maybe attendance will go up. What’s the report from the latest revival hot-spot? We must have that here, too. I mean, we want revival, too! If gold dust is the thing, then let’s have at it! If we need folks howling like wolves to bring on revival, then let’s get some volunteers.
What has any of this to do with anything even vaguely Biblical? Nothing! So, why do we even give it consideration? Why do we even pay attention to it? Numbers? Show me one instance of God being impressed by the numbers. No, He’s forever thinning down the numbers so we won’t get it in our head that we did things in our own power. Manufactured hype? I don’t see Him going in for that sort of thing. I grant you, He’s put on some pretty impressive displays Himself, but never of a manufactured sort. He doesn’t seem to be all that big on reruns. Think about what we just witnessed from Jesus. He had fed the thousands yesterday, and it was a mighty impressive act. Everybody’s talking about it. Indeed, they came to Him the next day asking Him to do it again. But, He wouldn’t. The act had been done for a purpose, not in order to set a new norm. The purpose had been served, and there was no call for repeating the act. Of course we know there came a time when He would again feed the crowds on near to nothing. We will consider the reason for that in its place. For now, let me simply state with assurance that there was a reason.
God does not act on whimsy. He does not change course with every passing wind. He is a God of clear purpose, and being all-wise and all-powerful, His pursuit of His purpose is straight on. He knows the best means to achieving His desired ends, and He is able to make certain that those means are followed. This is the nature of the God Who has told us how we ought to live, how we ought to serve in His body. If our doctrine is not founded on His ways, not firmly rooted, contained and maintained by His revealed rule of life, we are shown to be vain fools, every bit as hypocritical as the Pharisees whom we deride.
One other aspect of this episode deserves some attention. This concerns the original complaint put forward by the Pharisees. They are offended that the disciples did not wash their hands before eating. Well, isn’t this something we parents are constantly trying to drill into our children? And when Mark enumerates these other cases of cleanliness, is this really anything much more than we would observe ourselves? I, for one, am not inclined to take my meal on dishes that have gone unwashed since who knows when. Nor would I be impressed by the restaurant which failed to wipe the table clean between patrons. The point is, what they point out is nothing that extreme in itself. These are just habits of good hygiene. If they had been left at that, there would have been no issue.
What has happened is that they have taken these good practices and elevated them to the place of religion. Having done so, they observe their practices for the wrong reasons, serving their habits rather than God. They could doubtless find Scriptural support for their requirements. I suspect we would find, though, that they had either generalized the requirements from out of a specific application, such as cleansing leprosies, or else taken something a bit too literally. So, they took good practice and made of it a god. Oh, that god must be subservient to God, but they would serve both. God says that such dual allegiances won’t serve, though. At some point, you will come to despise either one or the other.
Frankly, since the god of good practice is something we have pretty well set up for ourselves, it will always prove a far sight easier to pursue than the path God sets. The appearance of righteousness is a much easier mission than the reality of righteousness. When we come to the crisis of choosing between our way or God’s, we are more than likely to choose poorly unless He intervenes on our behalf. We fall back on what seems good to us, because it’s a lot easier than striving after what God requires of us. Indeed, as Paul reminds us, if righteousness were possible through observing the Law, Christ’s death would be proved a needless waste (Gal 2:21).
Paul, in teaching on this and related matters, enters into dangerous territory. It is dangerous because too many of his readers will take what he says as permission to do as they please. Here lies the root of the so-called Christian hedonist’s belief system. See, they have heard Paul say that nothing is unclean in itself. They may even read the rest of the verse and note that when one considers it unclean, it is unclean to that one (Ro 14:14). So, they are determined to consider nothing unclean. Why, if they refuse to consider it sinful, then it isn’t, right?
On the other side of the balance, there are all those restrictions that we like to place on one another. Oh, movies are evil. Don’t eat there, they serve false gods. Sure, Jesus made wine, but don’t you be drinking it! We’ve all manner of rules and regulations we place on ourselves and on others. They may even have some good purpose in view. But, the fact of the matter is that none of these things have much to do with true righteousness. Again, let me turn to Paul’s message. “All of this is concerned with things that will be gone with the using – temporal things of little concern. They are just the teachings of men, and they cannot be construed as binding upon your conscience. You have died to such matters with Christ, so why get caught up in it?” (Col 2:20-22).
Well, says the hedonist, if this is the case, why not just enjoy? If these issues are non-issues, and everything’s clean, then I’m off to the party. But, Paul counters this view. “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might abound? May it never be! If we have died to sin, how can we continue living in it?” (Ro 6:1-2).
So where is the balance point? I think we must find it in hearing God’s guidance for us. We have been given the blessing of a Shepherd whose concern is always for our security. He calls out instruction to us, gives us ample warning that we are wandering. If we will but listen to His voice and heed those warnings, we will do well. Our righteousness, it is true, is found entirely in Him. Our capacity for love is found entirely in Him. Our propensity for holiness is rooted in Him.
On the one hand, it ought to be clear to us that if all we need do to avoid sinning is to cease considering anything sinful, then we have again made God a liar, Who says that all men are sinners. Thereby do we seal ourselves as sinful. On the other hand, all these things that we insist must be done if we are holy and which we insist others must do if they would be thought holy are but constructs of our own invention, with no more power to achieve holiness than brushing your teeth.
We may, and we doubtless should, encourage good habits and beneficial behavior in those we have influence over. We most certainly ought to begin with ourselves. But, in encouraging these things we ought never to raise them to the level of requirement or law. It is in our nature to set up these rules that we can live by and with. It is in our nature to insist that everybody else should be on the same page as we are, observing the same set of constraints that we have placed on ourselves. It is in God’s nature to look to the heart, to in some way personalize His presence to the individual need.
Here, then, is something of a summary. We are, if we are believers in accord with God’s Word, servants of the Most High God, bondslaves of Christ every bit as much as the apostles claimed to be. As such, we are bound to answer to the command of Christ; to go where we are sent by Him, to do as we are told by Him. On the other hand, as His servants, we are not bound to answer any other command. Indeed, as His servants, we are pretty much required to answer no other call but His, to serve no other purpose but His. In the end, as His servants, we answer to Him for our obedience or our disobedience. It is His place to judge our efforts on His behalf – His and no other’s. It is well and good that we should share with our fellow servants what we have learned of our Master – His likes and dislikes. But, to bind them upon another as requirements is assuredly to act above our station.
There is so much more that can be said on this subject, so much that goes into setting one’s heart and mind in proper perspective when it comes to the boundaries of liberty in Christ. But, these are topics I have pursued before. At present, I will simply give thanks to God whose name is Wonderful that He has chosen to call me as one of His sheep, one of His servants.
Lord, may You find me a good and faithful servant. May I find myself always trusting Your lead, always certain of Your oversight. You, Who have promised never to leave or forsake, are ever with me, ever guarding the entrance of this fold. Indeed, You lead me in marvelous pastures, stilling those waters that run beside. Blessed are You, my God, my King. Now, Father, I would that You would look with favor upon this family You have entrusted to my care. I know You are fully aware of the trials each one is going through, and I know You are willing and able to address those trials. Oh, but Lord, I would that You would be swift to supply their need. Yes, and let Your name be praised! Amen.
