New Thoughts (10/10/09-10/12/09)
This is one of those passages that I read and find myself wondering how these events came to pass. It is simply shocking to me that one might find this apparent stranger, and sick at that, attending dinner in anybody’s house uninvited, let alone a Pharisee. For all that, it’s rather curious to find Jesus there. It’s not that I think He would be disinclined to accept an invitation from such a man, but that it seems odd that the invitation was given. The underlying question for me, then, is what motivated the one who set up this dinner?
It becomes clear from verse 1 that this motivation is not benign. “They were watching Him closely.” This was not a gathering of ‘those Pharisees who were with Him’ as we saw in John 9:40. These are men who are carefully scrutinizing everything about this ‘guest’ to see if they can catch Him acting at odds with their laws and traditions. They seek grounds for accusation, although it is not said in so many words. This word that we have translated as ‘watching closely’, also has another meaning: ‘to neglect no least matter of religious observance’, as Thayer’s puts it. The more mundane meaning is to be watching for the chance to do evil to. In this case, it being a roomful of religious lawyers, the two meanings are being combined. They are watching to see if Jesus will fail of any ‘least matter of religious observance.’
Nor is He unaware of this. We can be certain that He knew what He was getting into when He accepted the invitation to dine with this Pharisee. It’s not like He thought He was going to a friendly gathering. He went in as a warrior going into combat, even if the setting seems so un-warlike. This is, after all, hardly the first time Jesus has dined with His enemies. And, doesn’t that turn one’s mind to Psalm 23? “Thou dost prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies” (Ps 23:5). Indeed, in the very home of His enemies, and from their larder! Yet, we need have no doubt that He was no more shown the proper respect on this occasion as He was on that other, when another unusual guest performed her anointing act upon Him. Jesus, however, accepted the invitation. He was there dining with these vipers in peace, not seeking to offend.
Now, it may be that this Pharisee was doing no more than what he felt honor required. Maybe it was something of a traditional thing for a guest teacher at the synagogue to be invited to a meal at some prominent member’s table. Perhaps, then, in order to maintain his perceived prominence, he felt it necessary to invite Jesus whether he liked the man or not. His own reputation required it of him, and these Pharisees were somewhat slaves to reputation. Under such circumstances, I could accept that we would still see the kind of behavior demonstrated by his other guests. What I cannot explain by this is the presence of this man Jesus would heal.
Before I turn to that, though, there is one other aspect of Jesus’ presence here that deserves a bit of attention. Having asked why this Pharisee was inviting Jesus to dinner, it’s only fair to consider as well why Jesus accepted the invitation. After all, from the time of John’s baptism this point has been made clear: “The Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose in their lives” (Lk 7:30). This conclusion was delivered on the occasion of Jesus having spoken with John’s messenger and sent him back to John. He had then addressed those around Him, explaining the significance of John’s ministry and his baptism, concluding that to date, there had been none greater than John, so far as God’s kingdom was concerned (Lk 7:24-28). At this conclusion, ‘all the people and the tax-gatherers acknowledged God’s justice’, but the so-called experts in righteousness and religion ‘rejected God’s purpose for themselves’. As the baptism, so the understanding. For, that baptism John had required of the people was a baptism of repentance apart from which the forgiveness found in Jesus could hardly be found.
Jesus, then, must surely have been aware that this was a dinner gathering of those who had rejected God’s purpose. Of course He knew it! He had just finished calling out one of their number for the hypocrite he was, and prior to that had seen the official response to the healing of a blind man. They were not ignorant of the signs. They were willfully determined to reject those signs, however conclusive they might be. Their hearts were hardened every bit as much as Pharaoh’s heart had been hardened when Moses confronted him. There was not the least possibility that these men were going to suddenly come to their senses and become disciples. Yet, He went into their house, into the very den of His enemies, to partake of their food and hospitality, such as it was. Why? Let me respectfully submit that it was for the precise reason of confronting these men with the accomplished healing of that one who had no business being present in the first place, the one I suspect they had brought to the meal for the express purpose of catching Jesus out with something worthy of accusation in their sight.
Jesus, though wholly Man, and though He had shed Himself of the prerogatives rightly His as being wholly God, was yet a Man wholly in communion with God. The God of all Providence was hardly unaware of what lay ahead for His Son at this dinner, nor do I suppose that He left His Son uninformed as to what would be happening. Jesus had come to dinner as a Man fully prepared, a Warrior completely informed as to the deployment of His enemies, and ready to vanquish them utterly. They being lawyers, it is only fitting that their defeat should come in the form of legal argument.
So, now, let us ask again what this sick man was doing at a Pharisee’s dinner. If Jesus sent him away once he had been healed, it would seem unlikely that he was a guest. However, as there is nothing said of his having crashed the party, it would seem he was there with the Pharisee’s knowledge. In other words, he was there to provide the means to catch Jesus out. They were watching Him closely because they were quite aware of how He would likely respond to a sick person, regardless of the day. They would witness what they deemed a sacrilegious act on His part, and they would broadcast what they had seen Him do, in order to discredit His ministry.
This interpretation of events fits with what we see of these men in the record of the Gospels. Early on in Mark’s account we read about how they were watching Him to see if He would heal on the Sabbath, and why? In order to have something on Him, something they could accuse Him of (Mk 3:2). Later in Luke’s Gospel, we find a similar pattern of behavior. They had gone so far as to send spies out to try and catch Him in some error (Lk 20:20). So, to suppose that they might have invited Him to this dinner, alongside the sick man, in hopes of setting Him up for something they could use against Him is fully in keeping with their ways.
Of course, they were not prepared to defend themselves in this situation. It is telling of our Savior that He does not even bother completing their repudiation before He heals the man they have brought to dinner. He asks them what they think about the legality of healing on the Sabbath and then, by His actions, makes clear what His own views on the subject are. Asking them for their considered opinions, these legal experts sensed the risk in any answer they might give, so they kept silent. He did no such thing, but acted as conscience dictated.
This is not the first time the subject has come up, nor the first time He has answered in such fashion. In Matthew 12:10, we find another instance of the same debate, except this time it is the lawyers asking His opinion. His answer is delivered in like fashion, though, by healing first, then addressing the legal question. This should give us pause when we are inclined towards deep theological debates as well, especially when faced with a real life application. These guys were all but paralyzed by a moral dilemma that ought not to have even been a dilemma for them. Jesus, by His actions, points to the obviously right course, and by His subsequent remarks makes clear just how absurd it is that they are having this inner debate as to which way is right.
Look at that argument. It is simple enough, and thoroughly undeniable as to the accuracy of what is said. “If a child fell down a well, which of you would hesitate to rescue that child, especially were it your own? Would you really call a council to debate the legality of such an act on the Sabbath, or would you just do it?” No honest parent could reach but one answer to that. Of course you would rescue your child. To do otherwise would be inhuman!
Next, Jesus takes the argument back one remove: OK, what if it were your ox that had fallen in? You’d still see to it that your ox was rescued. It’s not even a question of humanity now, but only profit and loss. If you want the broader application, you would not suffer loss of property, say to fire or what have you, that was within your power to avoid, on the basis of it being the Sabbath. You would not hesitate to act. This demonstrates the true esteem in which you hold the sanctity of the day, and it demonstrates that your true esteem, even if moved for the wrong reasons in many cases, is closer to the proper esteem than what you profess and what you complain of in Me.
The obvious point is that if you would ‘violate the Sabbath’ to save your child, or to protect your property, what reason do you have to complain of another being healed on that day? Why waste time quibbling over such things when a life is at stake? Just because it’s not your own? Just because it doesn’t involve your property or your relations, you would allow the Sabbath to take precedence over the well-being of a fellow child of God? What’s wrong with you? You are so careful of your theology, and yet you cannot apply it.
What should amaze us in this passage is that Jesus does not lash out at them for their callous appraisal. He simply seeks to teach, to bring change. He is still after repentance in these folks, even though they seem to be clearly beyond hope of repentance. He chooses compassion, just as He chooses compassion in healing the man they have planted before Him.
There is an aspect of this lesson that seems almost to be a point of doctrine. Yet, it is not so fully developed that I would care to declare it so. The thought that seems to be demonstrated by Jesus, both here and elsewhere, is that what is permissible of necessity is permissible when opportunity presents. Look at that other case, when His disciples are caught out gathering grain for themselves on the Sabbath. The defense Jesus sets forth on that occasion is that time when David took the showbread to feed his troops. That occasion had been a matter of necessity. They needed food, and there was no other source available. Yet, God was not offended by their act. Likewise with His disciples. They had not offended God by seeing to their need. The Sabbath was made for man, not the other way round. The things God sets forth as law are for the good of man, not a means to aggravate and oppress. When, therefore, the earthly representatives of religion make of religion an oppressive mantle, an impediment to well-being, they do not represent truly.
In this case, Jesus has laid out the case of necessity. Life is truly threatened. To wait for the sunset would spell the end of that life. In that case, there is not one who would disagree with Him that to act is righteous and to wring one’s hands waiting anxiously for sunset is not. The man He has healed, as with that woman in the previous passage, and as with pretty much everybody else He healed on the Sabbath, would have lived to see the next day. Things were not at such a critical stage that they could not have waited one more day. But, Jesus, by His actions, argues that there is no good reason why they should wait. Opportunity is present, why waste it just because it’s the Sabbath? If you want the broader application: how dare we suppose that it is unrighteous to do good on the Sabbath?
I would not wish to stretch this point too far, though, which is why I hesitate to declare it something doctrinal. After all, we can argue that in certain cases, lying is wholly acceptable in God’s sight. For instance, one can take the example of that woman in Jericho who refused to tell the guards where the Jewish spies were, though she knew full well. Far from being condemned for lying, she was honored with the privilege of being named in the lineage of the Christ Himself! This was clearly a case of necessity, as opposed to opportunity. I would certainly not wish to argue that because lying in God’s cause was accepted in this necessary case, it is therefore acceptable to lie whenever the opportunity presents itself.
If one wishes to try and approach a doctrinal statement in this regard, I think it would be this: The good that it is permissible to do because of necessity, in spite of an apparent conflict with other aspects of righteousness, is permissible to do whenever opportunity presents itself. To do good, in other words, is always acceptable. To refrain from doing good, however we may try and dress it up in the garb of righteousness, is never acceptable.
As for the legality of the act, It’s actually a much simpler case than these lawyers would have us believe. If I turn my eyes to the Law itself, the statement of right action is plain. “If you see somebody whose animal has fallen by the roadside, you must stop and help them raise that animal back up” (Dt 22:4). No qualification is placed on that command. There is no, “unless it’s the Sabbath.” There is no unless anything. You must stop and help. If it lays within your power to assist another in need, righteousness demands that you do so. There are places in our own country where this is applied as a matter of civil law because the environment is so hazardous.
As a child of God left to sojourn in this world, we would do well to consider the environment as being so hazardous no matter where we find ourselves. The world is hazardous to righteousness. If, then, we come across another in need, the Law of compassion, which is the Law of God, requires that we give aid. As ambassadors of Christ, it is only fitting that we do so, for compassion reflects God most fully. He is the One who causes His rain to fall on both good and evil, and causes His sun to shine without prejudice. He is the One who looked upon mankind and, seeing that mankind could never attain to righteousness in his own power, provided the Answer. His Compassion is of such great magnitude that we have been saved even while we were active enemies of heaven! How necessary is it, then, that we avail ourselves of every opportunity to demonstrate that compassion which has been shown to us? How much greater is that demonstration of grace than a lifetime of pronouncements on technical matters of the law?
This is the lesson I need to take away: Compassion must reign in me, else Christ does not reign in me. If I am not moved by the plight of another, and moved to help alleviate that plight, then I have yet to really begin to follow this Lord of mine. It’s as simple as that car stalled by the roadside. Will I stop to help, or just drive by? I’m afraid I don’t like the answer I see in my usual actions. I’m too busy. Let somebody else do it. Yet, I can always find time for a good doctrinal debate.
Lord, forgive me. Change me. Make me truly after Your will, for something’s clearly wrong with where I’m at right now.
