New Thoughts (04/14/11-04/20/11)
Perhaps it is no more than the definition of hypocrisy which puts me in this frame of mind, but I am inclined to organize my thoughts on this passage in a fashion reflective of the stage. We have, after all, a bunch of actors putting on their nefarious show and, in the unscripted response Jesus provides, we have something of a morality play. Let me start, then, with a brief consideration of the actors who have come together to put on this little production.
The Players (04/14/11-014/15/11)
We are given to understand that those who have come to Jesus in this bit of cat and mouse are a combined force of Pharisees and Herodians. There’s a reason why Matthew and Mark make note of this: it was almost inconceivable that members of these two movements would work together for anything, and the fact that they did just further emphasizes the depravity evident in these closing days of the Incarnation.
Start with the better known Pharisees, and think about this simple point: Perhaps the most defining characteristic of that movement’s philosophy was a staunch opposition to any sort of mingling of outside influences into Jewish culture. With the possible exception of the Essenes, they were the strongest opposition to such influences. The Maccabeans, if I’m not mistaken, arose from their ranks, who had most viscerally opposed the efforts of Antiochus Epiphanes to force Greek custom on the nation. Think, too, of the riots brought about by Roman troops bringing their standards into Jerusalem. Intolerable!
Now, consider this point made regarding the Herodians. Their name makes rather clear whom they supported. They may not have been so blind as to suppose the Herods perfect leaders, but even so, they would support them as locals over against the Romans. But, there’s this point to notice as well: The Herods were the chief proponents of Greek influence within Israel during this period. The very thing the Pharisees saw as anathema and utmost blasphemy, these Herodians gave implicit support. And yet, here they are together to face their common enemy: the Truth.
Fausset’s provides a very concise snapshot of the differing movements within Israel at this time. “The Essenes apparently recognized Providence as overruling everything. The Sadducees […] relied more on worldly prudence. The Pharisees more insisted on considerations of legal righteousness, leaving events to God.” Add the Herodians, who had little thought whatsoever for matters of religion, but a strong concern in matters of politics. Providence, pragmatism, legalism or amoralism; you had your choice. But none of them were the right choice.
As marvelous as God’s Providence is, (and as central to my own experience of Him), to raise that up too high leads to a disinterest in the course of worldly affairs that does not befit the man of God. In the Essenes, as with many movements since, this led to a monastic response. God could see to the world. For our part, best to withdraw, to stay apart from that world as best we may.
The Sadducees, for all their religious trappings, were pretty well convinced that this life was it for all intents and purposes, that nothing much lay beyond the grave. Pragmatism rather needs this mindset, because to suppose life more significant than its brief span suggests would require a much greater concern for morality, for true righteousness. But pragmatism is all about the immediate. It’s fundamentally a commitment to seeking the path of least resistance and greatest reward. If it’s easier to submit to Rome and thereby retain the reward of power, so be it. Had God made it a bit easier to follow Him, and had He given better assurances as to their power structures, they would have been just as happy to work with Him. And, their devotion would have been just as shallow. There’s a reason they didn’t last. They had no foundation, nothing firm at all to which they could cling, on which they might incline to take a stand.
The Herodians showed a bit more backbone in this regard, however misplaced. They shared a bit of that pragmatism, recognizing as they must that the Herods reigned solely by Rome’s acceptance. So, some grudging respect must be given the Romans, or, if not respect at least duty. It would seem that the Pharisees well understood how these reprehensible Herodians thought, and that this was precisely why they were sought out for this mission. Who better, amongst all the available mindsets, to run swiftly to the authorities if they succeeded in getting Jesus to denounce the poll-tax? It was too revolutionary, and the Herodians were not revolutionaries.
As to the Pharisees, for all that Jesus decried their hypocrisy, there is something we ought never to lose sight of: He by and large commended their precepts, at least in terms of original principles. It was not so much that their doctrine was off – at least not in every case – as that the practices they had developed from their doctrine were debased. Indeed, as He often noted, their practices weren’t really true to their doctrine except where people were watching. Private practice reflected far less of publicly espoused beliefs.
Certainly there were those places where tradition had overtaken and even opposed true Law. But, this was not the main issue, rather a side effect. The main issue was that there was this dichotomy between the public persona and the private. There was a shift of character. There was the ostentatious display of piety for public consumption, something not too far removed from the peacock’s fanning of its tail feathers. But, in private, there was a calculating tendency to consider how far one could go without being in clear violation.
We think of those certain ages in the development of the child when they are all about pushing the boundaries, testing the limits. Put more negatively (and more accurately) they are prodding to see just how much they can get away with. This is very like the private practice of these outwardly pious men, and it is that very thing that Jesus was most deeply angered by. Too much of what had begun as devotion to the covenant became a devotion to appearances.
Before moving on I would do well to take that statement and see what it reflects in my own case: Too much of what had begun as devotion to the covenant became a devotion to appearances. To what degree does this hold true in my life? In many ways, I think the truth is almost entirely the opposite, that what used to be but appearance has become the reality. This is nothing to be proud of, it is only the evidence of God at work, of that renewing process that He has instigated in me.
The point in that description of the Pharisees, however, looks at something a little different. It looks at the habits and, in looking at them, looks at the motivation. This is a much more difficult thing to assess. We are, after all, talking about good things being done. What must be asked, though, is if they are being done for good reasons. If I were to inventory the habitual activities that most describe my daily faith life right now, they would certainly include study at the top of that list, followed by service on the worship team, teaching and taking part in communal prayer times. I might add some acts of service within the course of pursuing these activities. Of late, I could expand the list a bit, and add a greater participation in spousal prayer, and other faith activities within the family structure. All of these are certainly fitting activities for a believer. But, why? Why do I participate in any of them, particularly the more public?
Why do I study? Is it more than just a habit I’ve established in my morning regimen? When I spend this time, am I thinking more about what God is looking to accomplish in me, or about what I can write that won’t be embarrassing if somebody stumbles upon it at my website? For that, how much of my thinking is turned towards what, in my writing, will make it easier to deal with when I put it on the website? It’s sort of a silly thing, but I find, for instance, a tendency to avoid full quotations because they require (a self-imposed requirement, but still) that I do some formatting on the text.
I would also have to confess that there are times I do not wish to record my thinking, times when I really don’t want to look at a question too closely, too personally, because of that possibility that somebody besides me and my Maker reading these pages. Admittedly, that seems pretty unlikely, but one never knows. In spite of that, I battle to keep myself open and earnest here. After all, unless these times of study are actually producing positive changes in my character, they are of less than no value. They are a dangerous ruse, trying to convince me that I am far more secure, far nearer the goal than I truly am.
This bit of inspection, then, is something of a test in that regard. I won’t say I’m passing it with flying colors, but I will say that I think my motivations remain satisfactory. It’s not just a habit, although it is so habitual at this point that it pains me to skip even one morning, even if it’s to free up time for some other, equally godly pursuit. I would also have to admit to wondering at the changes in tone and texture that I see in the course of this pursuit, but I think they’re OK still. I think I am still on course. Father, as I have said before, I repeat it now: If it’s not OK, bring the change, make me aware, and help me to return to my course. From my current perspective, I’d say it’s more a reflection of the impact of these years I’ve spent in this habit, than it is any sort of indication that what was once a passion has become merest habit.
What about worship? This will ever and always be a challenge to me, I think. I have had my season of setting that pursuit aside for the very reason that it seemed I had lost my proper motivation. It wasn’t worship anymore, but just performance. I have only recently felt I could step back into that particular form of service, and thus far, I think I am truly there to worship Him and not to show off my skills. I still hope to offer Him my best, and not be satisfied with just showing up and doing what I can. It feels to me, though, like this team and its approach to worship is well suited to keep my heart and spirit where they should be in this effort. That said, it bears watching. And, it surely bears praying.
What of public, congregational prayer? This is somewhat of a new thing for me. It’s not a position I’ve been particularly active in before, and to be honest, I’m not all that active now. I’m there. I’m praying, if not vocally. And, I find myself coming back week after week. Why? Well, in part, this is my wife’s passion. In this new setting it is certainly more comfortable for the men to be part of such group prayer than it was previously, which helps. But, it’s certainly not something I could say I’m comfortable with. If I pray aloud more than once in five times, that’s doing well for me. But, again: why? Why am I going back, week after week. Is it more than habit? Is it more than being seen? Is it more than just keeping the wife happy?
Well, I’ll tell you: the first time I went, I was rather hoping to go by myself, and hadn’t really even mentioned it to Jan. That day came around, and she indicated that she was planning to go already. So, we went together. Didn’t make any sense not to. This, I should note, is something she’s been looking for from me for years. That is not a reason for me to come pray, or at least not a sufficient reason. But, it’s nice to be able to satisfy that desire in her in pursuit of what I’m doing. Now, I find that there really is a certain satisfaction to be had in these weekly times of joint prayer. There is a very real love developing for those others who are regularly there. Does that suffice to make this a pursuit done from right motive? I’m not certain, honestly. But, the fruit is good. I think I shall continue.
Lord, as I have already said with regard to study, so I say to all these things. If they have become a pursuit of appearances, then please take them away. If, in any other sense, my motivation is making a good thing evil, I pray earnestly that You bring this to light with me, that You bring correction, so that I may be restored to the true Way that You have designed and decreed. I can think of little that would be worse, dear Lord, than to come before You with my life accomplishments all laid before You only to hear those dread words, “I never knew you.” It is not that I fear for my salvation, for You have worked long and hard to make me certain of that fact. But, I am still inclined towards concern for the quality of my life in You. I hear it from Paul, and I echo it in myself: I don’t want to discover at the end that I have run in vain. Lord, pare away all vanity in me. It’s a tall order, I know, but You are a tall God.
Let me come back to the players in this little drama once more. The Herodians are the other cast members we are told about here. Luke speaks of spies sent to watch Jesus. I think we can take that as indicating these Herodians more so than the Pharisees. Note what he says they were pretending to be: righteous. Now, that was sort of the natural state for the Pharisee, so there would be no need for further subterfuge on their part. But, the Herodians had little thought for such matters. Their concern was more to do with keeping the Herods in power, if only as a buffer against more direct rule by Rome. In fact, they were not even all that concerned about outside influences on Jewish culture. How could they be? The Herods were the chief proponents of Hellenization. They loved the cultural aspects of Greece and Rome, sought to enjoy every luxury of life provided by those cultures.
This mindset ought to have made the Herodians loathsome to the Pharisees, and doubtless did. The one thread of commonality they had to work with at this point was a mutual desire to avoid direct rule by Romans. Beyond that, though, their philosophies of life could hardly be expected to allow for each others’ views. In this case, there is before them what both groups perceive as a threat. There is Jesus. To the Herodians, the Herods were practically messiahs already, so the idea of this other Messiah being in town would certainly be problematic, particularly if He stirred up Israel’s innate revolutionary tendencies. If He were to instigate rebellion, Rome would come down like a ton of bricks, and the Herods would be in power no longer. For the Pharisees, it was prestige as well as the power prestige brought their way. They were the pinnacle of righteousness in their own minds, and in the minds of much of the public before He came along. Now, the commoners even dared question whether the way of the Pharisees was even a good thing or not. Intolerable! This man was a threat. And, in true Eastern fashion, their thinking ran to the lines of, “my enemy’s enemy is my friend.”
Now, I would suspect that it was more the Pharisees, or possibly even the Sadducees who thought to team these groups up together. The Herodians were otherwise a particularly odd group to bring in on a primarily religious matter. But, if Jesus were to answer as, quite frankly, they would answer – that the poll tax really ought to be rejected as an offense before God, who better than these Herodians to run to the courts of Herod with news of the rebel? Certainly, the Pharisees could carry word themselves, but they could hardly be expected to sully themselves with such direct contact with the unclean, could they?
As I’m pretty sure I’ve noted, the presence of the Herodians here, cheek by jowl with the Pharisees, was a thing unthinkable, and therefore of great note to the sources of Matthew’s and Mark’s account. They were, after all, local Jews who understood the dynamics of Jewish religious practice in their time. Luke, being a Greek, was less aware of these details, and so rather glosses over them. Spies are spies, and that will suffice to explain the situation to his readers. For our part, let’s bear the unlikely nature of this alliance in mind as we turn our attention to the play that these actors put on.
The Play (04/16/11-04/17/11)
Our actors come to Jesus with what would appear to be words of flattery. They are certainly not words which express their true opinion, although they are words of truth. Jesus is truthful and He most certainly does teach God’s ways truthfully. He as furthermore demonstrated on many occasions that He will not change or temper His message for any man. He does not reduce the impact of the kingdom on any man, nor does He make any allowance for the status accorded to any man. Their word are, in short, quite accurate, however falsely spoken.
I am not as certain, though, that this is outright flattery. I compare this opening comment with what Nicodemus said on his visit with Jesus. “Rabbi, we know You are a teacher from God, for nobody can do what You do unless God is with him” (Jn 3:2). We know. It’s a common point in the two comments, and it is the same underlying Greek word, eido. It is intuitively clear. I would not that they do not use the experiential term ginosko. I’m not sure I’d want to read too much into that, but it is interesting. We perceive from your actions and your demeanor, but we have yet to really experience or internalize this truth which we find in you. It’s tempting to try and add that sense of disclaimer into their message, but I’m thinking it’s really more just their normal way of expressing a degree of respect for him as a teacher, perhaps a fellow teacher. Were there not matters of faith involved, we might not find much more to this than, “we respect your abilities.”
What is distinct in the introductory comments of these charlatans is this matter of partiality. A more literal translation of that which is translated as partial would be ‘to see the appearance. This, too, is a very accurate assessment of the Man. You take no account of appearances. Just so. For, they are facing the One Who sees the heart. Appearances are of no value unless they give true expression to the heart beneath. Not to dwell no this too long, but isn’t it interesting how often those who are so vehemently opposed to Truth are nevertheless found speaking it? In this, these Pharisees and Herodians find themselves keeping company with Balaam, who suffered the same constraints on his words. Paid to curse the Jews, he could not do it. For, as he set himself to speak God’s words, God saw to it that he spoke accurately, like it or not. These men, it seems, are placed in the same situation. However deceitful their motives, God will have them give honor to the Son. Every tongue shall confess…
So, yes, Jesus is indeed impartial. He will proclaim Truth, and He will do so with regard only for the Father, for He can and will speak only as the Father gives Him utterance. He ever has and ever will do only as He sees His Father doing. What these men have utterly failed to take into account is that He also sees only as the Father sees, and that sight penetrates every veil of pretense. It is thus that as they present their entrapping question, He is not taken in. No, not in the least.
Before I turn to His immediate assessment of their character, though, let me briefly consider the conundrum they present. Caesar imposed a poll-tax upon all those in his realm. The rate of this taxation might vary from region to region, but it was imposed none the less. After all, the Roman empire required significant funding to maintain itself, particularly with its armies spread far and wide across a restless and rebellious collection of conquered territories. If there was one thing any Caesar would wish to ensure, it’s that his armies were kept paid, fed and otherwise supplied. After all, his reign depended on their might, and many a Caesar found his reign prematurely terminated by an army that no longer saw benefit in supporting him.
As to the Jews, there was a widespread loathing of this tax. I don’t suppose they were unique in that, but they had managed to place religious overtones on their opposition. Why, the very coinage of Rome was not worthy to be presented to the coffers of the temple! This was the whole point behind those money changers Jesus had so recently chased out of these courtyards. When it came to the temple tax, it was the Jewish shekel or nothing. Here, then, was the underlying context for their question. By rights, so they reasoned, God’s people ought only to be taxed by God’s people. To pay into the Roman system was to give tacit support to the pagan gods of that Roman system. How could it possibly be right for a righteous man to do such a thing? If Jesus was as impartial as they made certain to imply at the outset, surely He could not condone such practices. If He did, He was shown a charlatan, not so holy as He set Himself out to be. If He did not, then He was a revolutionary, a rebel against the Roman state. One way or the other, they were certain they could bring complaint of Him to those in authority, whether in the temple or in the palace. And, they had the right men on the scene to bear those complaints to whichever proved appropriate.
But, Jesus doesn’t play by their rules, for He is not bound by their limitations. He sees through the motivation behind their question. He also sees through them, knows them for the poseurs they are. In this case, it is more than just seeing through their attempted disguise. It’s that He knows, particularly in the case of the Pharisees, that their whole show of piety is largely sham and dissembling.
Only in Matthew’s account do we find Him directly calling them hypocrites. Mark settles for noting that He saw through their hypocrisy, and Luke speaks of it as trickery. That term, hypocrite, is of interest. It is foremost a term used to describe actors in a play. These actors, in their pursuits, of necessity seek to appear as somebody they are not, and to do so in so convincing a fashion as to be believable. In current parlance, we might think of those particular actors who are character actors. They seek to so immerse themselves in the persona of the character they are presenting on screen or stage that we who view the work would lose sight of the actor himself and see only the character. They seek to so internalize that character’s motivations and traits as to have them come naturally, to a degree that they, themselves, cease to see themselves in themselves while in the role. Were they not being paid, we might think them schizophrenic.
This is the origin of the term, but it is hardly the limit of its meaning. It swiftly became a term of derision, at least when used outside the realm of professional actors. To be a hypocrite is to put all one’s efforts into seeming to be somebody far different than one truly is, most typically, to appear to be a better man than truly applies. I would note, though, that particularly in youth, we may be consumed with the desire for exactly the opposite effect, to seem the bad boy, the dangerous man, when in reality a great deal of timidity is being masked.
Jesus, looking at these men, is not so much commenting on their current activity as their general demeanor. Yes, they are acting in their assignment as spies. But, the truth of the matter is that their whole life has been spent acting. The Herodians try to act like Greeks, try to look far more like their overlords than they ought. They ape the customs because society is telling them that this is what’s really civilized. They’re trying to work themselves in amongst the cool kids. The Pharisees are in the exact opposite position. They do everything they can to appear particularly pious. They make sure that they are seen as devout. Look at our clothing! Hear us pray! See how dangerously counter-cultural we are! See how fierce our devotion to God. But, the truth is that their devotion is wholly to self. Get them out from under the public eye, and much of their effort disappears. See them when there’s nobody around to impress and let us consider whether their piety remains.
One look at certain of their codes of conduct is enough to destroy the image, if we will but consider it honestly. Think, for example, of the rules covering a Sabbath journey. Very specific rules were laid down, demarking down to the foot just how far one could go without being in violation. And, what did the Pharisee spend his time doing? Finding ways to circumvent that rule without being in violation. In short, they spent all their spare time trying to figure out just how far they could push the rule without getting busted.
There’s been much talk in recent days about the corporate tax structures, and even the personal tax structures, of this nation. The same point is made. The code is so full of loopholes and exceptions that a great deal of energy and enterprise goes into figuring out what games one can play to lighten the tax load. And, of course, wherever there are such loopholes, there are those who will figure out how to game the system so as to avoid even more of the load than is right or reasonable. The Pharisaic system was (and is) much the same.
I know I have mentioned this particular story before, but it’s been a few years and it bears the repetition. There was a man I worked with at one time, a man from a particularly conservative branch of Judaism. He would come to work with his prayer shawl worn. True, it was generally beneath at least one layer of clothing, but never so much as to remain unseen. Nor would you find him at work on the Sabbath, even when the rest of the workforce was being pushed onto a 24 hour work cycle. I can’t complain much in this regard. You’d be hard pressed to find me at work on a Sunday, and for similar reasons.
What I found interesting was a discussion we had one day regarding the Sabbath rules. He made a point that even so much as switching on the lights on the Sabbath was construed as work, and therefore not to be done. So, one wondered, how did he arrange his life to accommodate this restriction? Perhaps one just knocked off for the day a bit earlier? Caught up on some sleep since it was dark anyway? Perhaps one just left the lights burning from the day before so as not to find it necessary to touch the light switch? But, no! The solution was to hire a Gentile to come do the job. I was amazed at this! Why, wasn’t it right there in the very Torah he supposed himself to uphold that, “neither you nor the alien in your midst” was to do work on the Sabbath? Well, yes, he admitted. But some allowances had to be made for modern life. Really? And yet, there were at least two obvious means of avoiding that need to make allowances which ought not to have inconvenienced the practitioner over much. Honestly, I think it clear that God would have been more honored by the man simply dealing with the light switch himself, and acknowledging that this hardly constituted work than by his requiring some other to do what he himself considered unrighteous.
The same point could be made of Christians, of course, and oft times is. Think of our own views on the Sabbath. In many, if not most branches of Christianity, there is still an acceding to the sense that the Sabbath is to be kept holy, even if we do so on Sunday rather than Saturday, and even if we’re not quite so careful about how that day is measured, whether sunset to sunset, midnight to midnight, or merely waking to sleeping. Yet, how many who hold these views think nothing of going out for dinner at the local restaurant? How many, if the necessity arises, would refuse to go to the grocery store? How many care enough about this Sabbath observation to ensure the gas tank is full Saturday to ensure they need not stop at the gas station to get to church on Sunday? I have to admit that I am guilty of all these things, have certainly done so and given it very little thought, to boot. Yes, I too, am deserving of the label of hypocrite.
Truth be told, we’re all deserving of the label. We all seek to put on an appearance of holiness that exceeds the true state of our souls. I would like to think there’s a difference in motivation, though; that we seek to put forth a character farther developed than reality in hopes that reality will catch up. In other words, we’re still practicing, because perfection is ever elusive, the goal towards which we strive ever found to be farther away from us than we thought. Does that void the charge of hypocrisy? I’m not certain. It certainly does nothing to void the appearance of hypocrisy. If there is any saving grace in all of this it is that the real character truly is found to eventually catch up with appearances. But, this is a distinction largely lost on an unbelieving public.
I will also confess that there are those who count themselves members of the church in good standing who are in truth not in good standing at all. I have known too many, far too many, who put on the holy face for church and revert to a form most vile almost as soon as their feet have cleared the doorstep on the way out. I’m not talking about the explosions of irritation that might burst forth of a sudden, the more or less normal, ‘iron sharpens iron’, characteristics that might arise. I’m talking backstabbing, gossiping, character assassination. I’m talking seeking of advantage and generally adversarial behaviors amongst the brethren. Let alone the wolves in sheep’s clothing, seeking only to make a profit from the faithful. Yes, it’s all there. And, I’m not even sure that those things we excuse as ‘iron sharpens iron’ are really any less vile in the sight of God. We are, after all, terribly clever at inventing excuses for our own particular shortcomings. We do well to remember the true words of these false Pharisees. “You care nothing for appearances.” Feigned character has no value in the sight of God. There is only true character. All else will, in the end, be burnt away as chaff, as dross is removed from the molten ore, it will be stripped from us to expose the true core of who we are. And, it is that true core which will either stand or fall.
Having identified the nature of His questioners, Jesus also clarifies the nature of their question. “Why are you testing Me?” Here, if I might turn to Zhodiates, there is a careful distinction being made. It is a distinction made by the choice of words. Jesus uses the word peirazete, which is quite reasonably translated as testing. We might also think of it as trying in a somewhat judicial sense: Why are you putting Me on trial with such questions? Another word might have been used, which we would likely find translated in much the same fashion. That word is dokimazo. We might recognize this as sharing its derivation with other terms we have seen in this study, and coming eventually to dokeo [1380]: with its idea of reaching an opinion. Both terms are used of testing the subject so as to form an accurate opinion, to come to a verdict. However, there is a critical point of distinction to be recognized. In the former case, the intention behind the testing is to prove the subject false, to force him to show his true colors, if you will. In the latter case, the intent is just the opposite: to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the subject.
That word peirazete, I would note, is also the term used by James when he explains that no man can accurately claim to be tempted by God, being as God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He (being Good) tempt anyone (Jas 1:13). This gets at the heart of the term. Testing, as we see it translated in the present passage, feels somewhat more neutral, but the underlying context remains. In temptation, we see the issue more clearly, though. What is temptation? It is setting before somebody a thing which is known to be illicit or immoral, and inviting them to partake of it. In the case of a righteous man, doing such a thing is clearly a case of trying to show that man not so righteous after all, or to expose his hypocrisy.
In the case of dokimazo, the intent is precisely the opposite, to demonstrate the reality of that righteous man. Now, this may very well be done by setting before that man the same sort of illicit or immoral opportunity. But, recognize the distinction. In this case, what is set before that man is what one is already pretty certain he will reject, thus showing his righteousness. That’s exactly the point Paul makes to the Corinthians. “God is faithful! He will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able to withstand. He will see to it that where there is temptation, there is also a clear way of escape, to make certain that you are able to endure it” (1Co 10:13).
There’s the distinction! God wants to show your true colors, knowing your true colors are much nearer the pure white of His robes then even you may think. Think about the introduction to Job, where God and Satan are chatting in heaven. “Just look at Job! There is a blameless and upright man” (Job 1:8). Satan, of course, is rather incredulous. A being of evil motivations, he cannot but assume equally evil motivations in this lesser being. So, he seeks for a testing permit. He intends to put this righteousness of Job to the test, because he’s quite certain it’s the righteousness of convenience, a righteousness that appears stolid only because it’s never really been tried. Since Job has never known hardship, Satan reasons, that apparent righteousness is likely to crumble fast if ever he does come to know hardship.
So, first we must note that Satan, to even undertake this effort at peirazete, requires a permit. Now, taking this together with what Paul has explained, we recognize that God only issues such permits, as regards His elect, when He is quite certain of their capacity to stand up to the trial. He may issue the permit, but it comes with riders attached. Thus far you may proceed in your efforts, Satan, but no farther. And Satan, for all that he is a liar and worse, cannot for all that is in him exceed that boundary. We do well to recognize this. We do well to understand that if we fail the test, we cannot really go blaming the devil. If God allowed it, it was because we were fully able to withstand it. If, then, we did not withstand, it is our own fault and nobody else’s. But again, God’s intention is dokimazo, to prove our righteousness.
The methods may be the same. The means may be the same. But, the authorizer and the implementer have wholly opposite intentions in their pursuit of the agenda. The one seeks to prove you false, the other to prove you true. And, though it be a case of purest justice, the test is frankly rigged in your favor. God wants to brag on you, after all. Really, what father doesn’t seek for opportunities to brag on his kids? Think of those occasions in the Gospels where we find Him looking in on Jesus and loudly saying, “That’s My Boy! You’re doing Me proud, Son!” But, it’s not just Jesus that He wants to shout about. It’s you, it’s me. He loves nothing more than seeing His kids acing these tests.
It’s almost as if He’s a very competitive sort, and He’s got this rivalry going with Satan. No, I don’t think that’s the real case, but it feels that way sometimes. I think God is sufficiently secure in Himself not to feel any real need to compete. After all, He knows perfectly well that He’ll win every time, so what would be the point? But, still, you can sort of imagine Him gloating in each victory, looking over at this long time rival of His and saying, “In your face, Satan! That’s My boy out there, rolling right on over your team.” God is glorified when we are victorious in these trials. That’s the only real reason He has for allowing them. He is glorified because we demonstrate His power in us as we overcome.
Now, perhaps we can find more strength to stand by thinking about this rivalry between heaven and hell. For, we can be certain that the father of lies is in that competition, laughing at our Father when we fail. “Yeah, that’s Your boy all right. Just look at him face down in the mud. Hah! Why, my kid wasn’t even breaking a sweat.”
Let me take that as a personal incentive to stand more steadfast. I want to do my Daddy proud.
Coming back to Jesus, I find the overall sense of His response rather amusing given the combined sense of this testing and His description of those who have come to test Him. “Why are you hypocrites trying to show Me to be a hypocrite?” I could almost imagine that He invested that question with a grain of amusement, Himself. After all, He was hardly in danger of failing such a test as they presented. And, indeed, by the time He was done with them, it would not be His hypocrisy that lay exposed, but their own. He does so with such artistry that they don’t even see it coming until it’s already shot right by them.
The Plot Twist (04/18/11-04/19/11)
Turning to the answer Jesus gives to their question, we find Him asking for a coin of the realm, exactly the sort of coinage that would not have been allowed in the temple coffers. There is much that can be made of this even before we get to what Jesus asks them concerning the coin. We might begin with the very fact that these men who were so thoroughly opposed to Roman rule over Israel were yet possessed of Roman coin. In short, they were already submitting themselves to that Roman rule, for all that they wished it known that they rejected that rule.
Another way to interpret this ready coin of theirs is that they were willing to accept the benefits of Rome, but would not accept the responsibilities which were joined to those benefits. This, we might say, also defined their relationship to God. They wanted His benefits, but they didn’t particularly want His rules. We will see that same perspective play out repeatedly as events of the final days unfold. They may hate Pilate, but it was fine with them to avail themselves of his power to deal with Jesus. However, I am more concerned with that issue of treating God in much the same fashion. For here we arrive at something we may more readily relate to. After all, since the days of Adam, this has been an issue hasn’t it? Adam also enjoyed the myriad benefits that were his in God. But, when the opportunity came to become the one calling the shots, well, why not? Maybe he could have it both ways, all the benefits of God’s oversight without the onus of God’s command.
We are perfectly comfortable even yet to live in this state of absurdity. It’s there in our insistence that we have a say in salvation, that we can rebuff what God is doing if we so choose. What is that but to demand that we are in control and not He? It’s there, as well, in our reticence to do those things which are so clearly commanded of us. What manner of slaves are we, who call ourselves His servants? What servant ever heard the master’s command and then debated with himself whether there was any real reason or incentive to obey? Go and make disciples? That’s somebody else’s job. Tell the world? Not me, brother! The world’s a scary place, and I just couldn’t deal with the rejection. We have a thousand and one excuses for disobedience, but we still want the power. We still want the blessings. We’re just not all that keen on the self-denial part. We enjoy the coin of the realm, but the king? We’ll pass. I note this primarily because it is critically important that we not miss our image when we see the Pharisees, that we avoid falling into thought patterns that suppose ourselves to be so much farther along than they, so superior.
I have already pointed out, here, that the Temple authorities would never accept Roman coinage as befitting for the temple tax. For that matter, they would accept no foreign coin, Roman or otherwise. This was precisely why Jesus had found the outer courts clogged with money changers the previous day. Somebody had to handle the exchange of foreign coin for shekels, and if they happened to turn a profit on the deal, it’s ok, we’re getting a cut. The point remains, though: If these devouts were so deeply concerned about what was befitting the man of God, and if they truly felt that this foreign money was in some way unholy, unfit for the house of God, why then were they in possession of it?
Recall how much of the Pharisaic lifestyle was caught up in distinguishing clean and unclean, in removing from oneself every hint of the unclean. So what was this unclean coin doing in their pockets? And yet, they thought nothing of it. I guess there was nothing in Mishna that addressed this directly and where tradition was silent, liberty was assumed. Once more, the underlying reason for the rule, for the Law even, was ignored where it became to much of an inconvenience. Indeed, it was not the intent of the Law that interested these men whatsoever, but only the rigidity of appearances.
Now, the NET offers an interesting point regarding this coin Jesus requests. When He asks whose likeness is on that coin, He speaks of the image stamped thereupon. “Whose image is this?” The statement is made that this is the very same word used in the Greek translation of Torah, when God declares man be made in His image (Ge 1:26). The term is eikoen, from which our English icon. The point which the NET draws from this is that He whose image is upon the item has a claim on that item. The coin, as bearing Caesar’s image, Caesar had legal right to claim. The man, as bearing God’s image, God has legal right to claim. This is the gist of Jesus’ conclusion. What Caesar has right to claim, pay him. What God has right to claim, pay Him.
Fausset’s Encyclopedia puts it just a bit more forcefully. “Man as made in the image of God owes himself to God. Because Judah had not given herself to God, she was now under Caesar.” Focus on that first sentence. We owe ourselves to God. We are infinitely indebted to Him for our very being! I would note that this holds true quite apart from any question of salvation. This is our natural state: infinitely indebted to our Creator. And yet, we find it in ourselves to question His right over us! And yet, we would accuse Him of error as to the specifics of our construction or the details of our circumstance. Amazing!
Paul was so convicted on this matter that he came to find it shocking, utterly shocking, that any man should complain of his condition before God. “Doesn’t the potter have a right to make what he will from a lump of clay? If he chooses to make from the self-same lump one vessel for special occasions and another for mundane uses, is he not well within his rights? What if God, while perfectly willing to demonstrate His wrath so as to make His power known, even yet endured with utmost patience the ways of those vessels of wrath He had prepared for destruction?” (Ro 9:21-22). In this, Paul is in sound company. Consider Isaiah’s words, which are perhaps the earliest to make this point. “You turn things around! Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, that what is made should say to its maker, ‘He did not make me’; or what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘He has no understanding’?” (Isa 29:16).
He is in the right, for it is He who stamps the image upon us, not we who carefully seek to etch ourselves with that image. We are, if you please, the coin of His realm. Of course, He has authority over us! This is the large point Jesus is making when He provides His final answer. “Give Caesar what he has right over, and give God what He has right over.” This point is extended to become a more general rule as Paul expounds upon the Way. “Render to all what is due them, whether tax or custom or reverence or honor” (Ro 13:7). Of course, this same attitude is implicit in the second table of the Law. It is the positive side of the ‘thou shalt not’ coin. Who does not murder must actively promote the life of his fellow. Who does not commit adultery must actively promote fidelity. Who does not steal must actively protect the property of his neighbor. Who does not bear false witness must defend his fellow’s true integrity. Who does not covet must once more protect and even celebrate the blessings of God upon his fellow image (Ex 20:13-17).
Remain on the larger point, though: We owe God our very selves. The tithe, the temple tax, the gifts and giving in whatever form, these are not the things God considers important. They are but means. To obey is better than sacrifice (1Sa 15:22). God, frankly, does not need our stuff, nor does He value it in any way. What He values is us. What He seeks is us. This is not to say that our handling of the stuff is of no importance. It is! But, it’s not of primary importance. As we come to recognize what God is doing, as we reach a degree of understanding as concerns His economy, we will realize that these matters of giving and sacrifice and effort are not means of obtaining His grace, or bribing Him into a felicitous attitude towards us. They are an expression of that felicitous attitude He has already made manifest towards us.
I come back to that most marvelous statement of Paul’s. “I have learned to be content in every and any circumstance. I can get along with little, and I can maintain my perspective with a lot. I have the secret of being filled and going hungry, of both having and needing” (Php 4:11-12). It’s not about the stuff. That’s half the secret right there! It’s about knowing God and trusting God and recognizing He’s got you covered. Not only does He have you covered, He’s got your best interests at heart. He gives good and perfect gifts. Need may not look like a good and perfect gift to you, but in the circumstance you are in, if this is what He is giving you, then it is indeed the most perfect supply for you in this moment. Times of greater abundance may come. They may just as likely go. It’s not about the stuff. It’s about God. It’s about knowing Him, loving Him, desiring to obey Him. That’s what it is to give Him His due.
Let’s consider one other aspect of this poll tax that had the Pharisees so heated. That tax did indeed have a purpose in Rome’s view above and beyond simply paying upkeep on the empire. It was intended to demonstrate the submission of those nations they had conquered, to establish Rome’s authority over those nations. The same might be said of the Temple tax. That tax, willingly paid by every adult male of Israel, was intended to demonstrate submission to the authority of God. Indeed, while we don’t really tend to see it in this light, we may as well include our own tax structures in this same light. They are intended to maintain the right of the government to stand as authority over our lives and to demonstrate our submission to the same.
Given that, what applied to the Jews here applies to us in our day. Money is fundamentally a government construct. God doesn’t need it. He’s rich beyond all imagining anyway, by whatever standard you choose. Gold standard, silver standard, platinum standard. It doesn’t matter. It’s all His anyway, whoever may currently be holding it for Him. And, frankly, He’s not interested. He’s interested in human capital. That’s the only thing that concerns Him. What’s the state of your soul? How’s your account with Him? That’s the question being forced on the consideration of these would-be spies. It’s the same question that ought to be at the forefront of our own thinking.
Before we try and answer that question, though, let’s consider one other aspect of the situation. The intent of these taxes is one thing. The reality is another. Taxes may be intended to demonstrate and enforce submission, but submission is found not in actions so much as in attitude. We arrive once more at motive, at intent. It is one thing to pay the tax because one is coerced into obedience. It is quite another to give willingly.
Much is being made, these days, of how the rich would gladly pay more in taxes if the government would only ask it of them. Okay, well that’s obvious hogwash on the face of it. The rich didn’t get there by being foolish. More to the point, there is nothing which prevents them from willingly giving excessively into the government’s coffers. They need no invitation to do so and they surely know it. These are, after all, the most well advised of men when it comes to tax law.
I bring this up mostly as a means to contrast with the modern-day equivalent of the temple tax. Perhaps you are of a sort familiar with tithing or perhaps you think only in terms of donation and contribution. It matters little to my point, although I might argue that it matters greatly in other regards. To the point, though, there is no enforcement mechanism put in place to ensure that you give your share. If you do not tithe, even in a congregation that takes tithing as a serious matter, a point of faith, you will not find yourself forced or required to do so. It is not a condition of membership. It is a free will offering, a giving done by personal choice. That choice may be grounded in all manner of different motivations, some good some not. The fact remains that it is a choice to give, not a demand. It is a willing submission as opposed to a coerced submission.
I ask you: how many would happily continue donating to the IRS if there were no issue of enforcement to consider? If one could simply opt out on their W-2 and be done with this nonsense, what percentage of people do you suppose would continue to give even 10% of their income to support the government, let alone the 30% or more they demand? It is not a free will matter, and we know it. If it were, then those wealthy hypocrites calling for higher taxes on their like would shut up and give to their heart’s content. Fact is, they’re already giving to their heart’s content, which is to say as little as they possibly can.
The point here is that submission is in the attitude, the motive, the intent. We may be forced to take certain actions by powers stronger than ourselves, but that is a different thing than submitting. Submission, to my way of thinking, indicates an acceding of the will. We saw that in the previous study, considering the terminology of slavery. The slave submitted his will to another’s. In many cases, it was a willing submission. The key factor, though was submitting the will. That suggests something beyond simply obeying the laws imposed, or obeying for no greater reason than to avoid the legal consequence of disobedience. It’s willing submission. This is, in the end, what God is looking for.
This is where things get so confusing in considering matters of free will, as Jan and I were discussing last night. At some level, yes, these matters are a mystery and likely to remain so. Yet, there is this clarity to the matter. While God has decreed the salvation of some and the damnation of others, even so, man is willing partner in the course of his life. I may be saved by decree. Yet, I am willingly submitted to that course, and I dare say happily so. I may (although I have no doubt that I am not) be damned by decree. Yet, were this so, I would be forced to admit that I am so by my own hapless choices. No man in truth comes to the end of his days saying, “If I had only known.” There is no plea of ignorance. Neither is their a plea one can make to the inevitableness of fate. Nope. However preordained your choices, yet you chose and you chose gladly. For better or for worse.
The ability of government taxation to indicate submissiveness lies with the one who pays the tax. It is not found in the simple act of obedience, but in the attitude behind that obedience. Just so with God – and this is the greater point in what Jesus says. Being a stickler for this rule or that does not define submission to God’s rule. It may define nothing more than coerced obedience, or that obedience that comes solely from fear of the consequences of disobedience. There’s benefit to obedience, yes, but it does not measure up to the greater benefit of submission. For, in the economy of heaven, intent is everything.
We ought to understand this even as applying to our giving to the Church. God is not interested in the money. Yet, it is by His own instruction that we give. There is a great deal that could be said on this topic of giving, and the motivation behind it from our perspective. But at this juncture, I’m more concerned with understanding it from God’s perspective. God does not need your money. He is not interested in your money. He is interested in you. It is you that bears His image, not your check or your bills. He is interested in having you give because this giving is of benefit to you. Do you get this? He’s not seeking the benefit of the Church. He’s not demanding His cut from you to support the physical plant of His monument. He’s not doing it, even, to provide the needs of His clergy. He’s doing it for you.
Consider that even from the outset of the nation He called His own, there was a call upon the people to support those who were devoted to His service. The Levites, in that time, were devoted to His service not so much by choice but by the simple fact of having been born into that particular tribe. The nation was set up such that this particular tribe had no specified territory. Instead, they had cities given to them from the domain of each other tribes’ territories. And the people of the territories contributed to the upkeep of the tribe of the Levites by way of the sacrificial system as well. But, all of this was not, contrary to what we might think, primarily about the Levites. God could have seen to their support by any number of means, either mundane or miraculous. He did not then, nor does He now, require our contributions to achieve His ends. But, He chooses to use our contributions to achieve His ends.
Those ends, my friend, include your best. It does something constructive for you when you give with sound motive. If you are giving with thought only for binding God to some demand for multifold return, then you are not giving, quite frankly. You are investing. And investing in this fashion is a particularly foolish investment, for God is in no way bound by your actions to answer according to your folly. He may. He may not. The point remains that such an attitude towards giving completely fails to grasp the point.
No, the giving is at once a confession of our submission to Him and a declaration of trust in Him. Listen! Ten percent is a pretty good chunk of change, regardless the size of the whole. If I looked solely to the bottom line of my budget, I could swiftly conclude that holding my giving back for my own use made perfect sense. But, to do so would also be to profess a distrust in God. You’re not providing according to my needs, as You said You would. I can’t trust You to meet my situation. Fact is, as many of us have learned to our own surprise, God does meet our needs. He may leave us short of our every desire and whim, but needs? No, He’s got that covered.
Even more amazing, and here I speak from personal experience, even when that tenth of our income seems shaped precisely to fill our budget shortfall, if we are faithful to God, if we can even then give from a desire to do what pleases our Father as opposed to investing in some sort of profiteering scheme, we discover He is faithful to keep our budget from falling short. This is a lesson I learned when I first moved from just giving what I figured I could spare, enough to avoid being embarrassed by my visible stinginess, but not so much as to visibly impact my budget. Indeed, my budget was a shambles. I was running deficits like a government, and when I sat down to figure the monthly income and outlay, why outlays were exceeding income by almost exactly that ten percent of income. Yet, my spirit within me knew the proper reaction to have to this bit of data. Start tithing! We did, much to my wife’s relief (for she was and is far ahead of me on so many matters of faith). We did, and we have never looked back. Oh, there are times when it’s tempting. Even in recent days I could confess to a temptation to hold back a few checks, just to get the accounts a bit more flush, then we’ll get back to it.
But, no! God is faithful. He knows where we’re at, and He knows how (and if) He shall choose to provide for us. I would say provide for our need, but really, is this so much a need as it seems to us, or is it merely want? If need it be, then I am assured that He will see us through, and provide the means. If it is but a want, well, it’s in His hands whether He chooses to supply or not.
This giving God instructs us in, it’s not about economics. It’s not, in the end, even about trust, although it is emblematic of our trust in Him. It’s about building character. It’s about training the flesh to deny itself. It’s about divorcing our hungers from the systems of the world we live in. It’s about becoming a people that transcend those world systems. God is interested in the man.
This is His focus, and this is why He does not call us off to a monastic separation from the world. He does not tell us to cast off the world system. That may shock, I suppose, but He doesn’t. Pay attention to what Jesus is teaching, here. He’s not calling His people to reject any and all participation in the world’s ways. He is not, most certainly, calling for open rebellion against those ways. In many ways, He’s calling His own to be model citizens of the world, with one very important caveat: In so far as one can be citizen of the world without directly violating the Law of Christ. Thus far and no farther.
This is the interesting thing: God calls us to something far more impressive than separation. He calls us to transcend the world system. What do I mean by that? Well, it begins with that call to be model citizens, acknowledging the government as having its authority from the very God we serve, as being, then, organs of His governance. Again, I assert the caveat: So long as they do not require us to act contrary to God’s Authority, for in that very moment, they cease to have authority whatsoever. But, our transcendence of the system does not culminate with this adherence to its rules. That is only the beginning.
If we take God’s call as a call to separation, whether in the form of Pharisaism, or the form of the Essenes, or of the monastic movements that continue into our own day, we fall short of His intent. We have not transcended the system, we have simply withdrawn from it as far as we may. As we read through the High Priestly prayer of Jesus that is recorded in John’s Gospel, we cannot but see that we are left in the world and yet we are not of the world. “I am no more in the world, yet they themselves are in the world” (Jn 17:11a). “The world has hated them because they are not of the world, any more than I am of the world” (Jn 17:14b). In, but not of. That was the status Jesus Himself held during His time of earthly ministry. Yes, He was wholly man, more wholly Man than any man before or since. But, in being so wholly a Man, He was not bound to the systems established in a world of fallen men. He dwelt among us. He experienced the full agony of life in this fallen realm, knowing its every temptation, feeling its every emotion. But, He transcended. The temptation did not lead to His fall. The Fall did not lead to His corruption. The joys and the sorrows of life did not pull His eyes away from heaven.
This same attitude is what He is seeking to develop in all Who belong to Him. Yes, we walk the earth. Yes, we earn our earthly pay by earthly labors. Yes, we continue to participate in this earthly economy. But, this earthly economy does not own us. It does not reign supreme over our thoughts, over our motivations. That old song of the Church, “Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus”, has that great point made, “and the things of the earth will grow strangely dim”. It’s not that we no longer see the world around us, not even that we cease to care about the world around us. If anything, our care and concern for that world increases, because we are so attuned to the desires of its Creator, and He cares most deeply. No, it’s not that we decry the physical, focus ourselves on becoming more spirit than human. It’s that we operate in a different economy, even as we participate in the world economy. We are citizens of heaven. We travel with passport from that glorious realm, and we hold our heads high as ambassadors at large for that most wondrous of homelands. It is our duty, as citizens and ambassadors sent from God’s courts, to abide by the law of whatever land we are in – once more with that caveat clearly in view.
This is the crux of what Jesus teaches in this brief exchange, nor is it an isolated teaching. The same message is repeated in other ways, in other settings, both from His lips and from those of His Apostles. This quote from Fausset’s really sums the point up quite nicely: “Christ’s reply unites rather than separates the Christian’s political and religious duties.” The point, you see, is that our civic duties, our political duties, are really just a subset of our religious duties. We have been trained, sadly, to compartmentalize, to see our religious duties as applying to those parts of the day or the week when we are particularly focused on God, whether in study, in prayer, in church. But, the rest of the day? Well, if we’re at work, we ought to be focused on work. If we’re shopping, we ought to be focused on budgetary matters, and sales and the like. But, the greater truth is that those times are to be every bit as much a part of our religious duties as the things we mark out more explicitly as ministry times. Transcend the system! See it as subjected to and subservient to the rule of Christ. This must surely lead to a transformation in the ways we participate in life, and that transformation must just as surely be for the better.
The Back Story (04/20/11)
Something that has been on my mind as I’ve considered this encounter is the thinking of those involved, apart from Jesus. For example, the Pharisees: they clearly had one or two specific answers in mind as the only possible response Jesus could give. They could see no possible way for Him to give answer that would fail to offend either the religious or the political leadership. Why was this? Well, in part because they could not possibly think beyond their own thoughts. What do I mean by that?
OK, there was a period in my life when I enjoyed role playing games. One’s character in such games was largely a matter of chance. Roll these dice and add them up to determine your relative strength, your relative wisdom, your relative intelligence. Consider: The dice may claim that you are bordering on genius, but if your true condition is one of limited intellect, on what basis shall you play this role of genius? You cannot. To accurately portray genius rather requires being one, unless you are simply reading from a script prepared for you by an actual genius. Likewise for strength. It is possible to imagine oneself as a stronger individual, mighty even. But, lacking the experience of might, it is unlikely that your imagined self will operate in ways that a truly mighty individual would. To borrow from the Who: You don’t know what it’s like.
This is the problem the Pharisees are dealing with. They don’t know what it’s like to be Jesus. They only know what it’s like to be themselves. So, as they fashion their clever little trap, they can only manage to project on Jesus the possibilities they can see in themselves. That’s just it: projection. Psychologists speak of this business of projection, a tendency to see in others the behaviors that are one’s own. In the realm of sin, we might think of it this way: Nothing so offends us in a brother as that sin we are battling (however feebly) in ourselves. The world might speak of it this way: There’s nothing more offensive than an ex-smoker, or an ex-drinker, or an ex-whatever your chosen vice. Nobody can be more vehemently opposed to that activity than the one who was in its snares and escaped. We certainly ought to have this reputation when it comes to sin, oughtn’t we? But, we don’t. We are accepting people. We recognize, if I may cast this in a positive light, our own remaining foibles and failures. Who are we to criticize? This is hardly the Biblical example, I think. But, it’s our nature. Somehow we come to think this is a righteous attitude.
Sorry, drifted a bit. Projection. The Pharisees assume that this religious man in their targets is going to respond to religious questions pretty much along the lines that they would. Again, they can’t think beyond their lights. Not that I would suppose any could think on the scope of Jesus. It’s not thinkable! But, the point remains. They project their own patterns upon Him and expect that He’ll respond according to pattern.
We have that same issue, and not just when dealing with other people. We, too, have our patterns of thought, particularly when it comes to matters of faith. Why, just raise the question of how predestination and free will apply to the life of the Christian, and watch the fireworks! Each of us comes at it with a set understanding. Perhaps it’s the opinions we were raised with, which we’ve never really questioned. Perhaps it’s a matter we’ve wrestled with. That wrestling, even with the Scriptures open and well worn with review, may leave us on either side of the question. To hold one view or the other does not, my friends, make us bad people or bad Christians. It does not render us anathema. But, it does become a preconception, a perspective outside of which we find it very hard to see. This may be particularly true of those who have found it necessary to change answers over the course of time. There is nothing worse than an ex-free-willer, or an ex-predestinarian. Nobody will be more vehement in the defense of their newly held position. After all, surely that painful changing of the mind is proof enough!
Remember, too, that the Pharisees are pretty sure that they host the sum of all religious wisdom. Nobody knows righteousness like they know righteousness. Unless, of course, they are looking at themselves. Then, suddenly, there’s this huge blind spot. They know righteousness, and yet, the heinous nature of their current endeavors utterly escapes notice. They know righteousness, and yet, their choosing to work together with the irreligious Herodians, and that by means of deception such as their own Scriptures decry as a great evil, doesn’t strike them as at odds with piety. It doesn’t strike them at all. They’re too busy thinking about their plans. And, besides, they’re Pharisees. By definition, their actions are pious.
I want to think, though, about those in the crowd as well. They, too, had their projections. They, too, had their preconceived ideas about who Jesus was, what Messiah meant. Being in the midst of Holy Week, both in study and in real time, this whole issue just feels that much more fresh. So, consider the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, and the response of the people that first day. As Pastor Ed was pointing out in his sermon last Sunday, Jesus had timed that entry to coincide with the bringing in of the paschal lambs in preparation for Passover. Those lambs, according to Torah, were to dwell at the family home for the days leading up to that feast, not out in the folds as usual. So, there was the Lamb of God amongst the myriad symbols of His purpose.
But, the people saw a king. They saw the revolutionary leader their hearts longed for. They saw the one they felt certain had come to overthrow Roman rule over their nation. Face it. Those who followed Jesus were a mixed crowd. Some, to be sure, were truly seeking God. Some were in utmost earnest as they sought to abide by and under His teaching. Others saw in Him a leader for the Zealots, perhaps even an assassin of sorts, a return of the Maccabees. Consider the responses the Apostles were hearing as to who folks thought He was. Maybe Elijah, maybe Moses or one of the other great prophets come back to life. That He was more than another human, another Jew, this much they grasped, but they wanted so much to have this conquering, heroic Messiah figure that they could only view Him through that lens. Sure, and this hero would be a man of God. What hero of Israel was not? But, He would be a warrior. He would surely put an end to this Roman domination just as the Maccabees had done the Greeks, just like all those heroes from the time of Judges. This Jesus may not look the part, but then, so many of those judges didn’t either. Yet, God had empowered them to defeat mighty foes. Surely, He would do so again.
Listen, even the Apostles themselves had these sorts of misconceptions as to the mission of Jesus. Think of James and John asking for positions of honor in the kingdom He was about to set up. Think about how they sought to know of Him if it was now that He was going to establish the kingdom. What was behind questions like this? It was the understanding that, for all His focus on righteousness, Jesus was really a military leader, a revolutionary, come to save the day. Not even these closest of companions to the Man really grasped Who He was or what He was doing.
All of this, I bring up for one reason. Those crowds, those many who misunderstood the ministry Jesus pursued, are all around, listening to His answer here. Now, His answer did not provide the Pharisees with the ammunition they sought, it’s true. But, I wonder if it didn’t serve their purpose in part anyway. Remember, a goodly portion of that crowd are looking at Him as a revolutionary leader. Well, I ask you, is His answer the answer of such a leader? Those who were looking for a revolution they could get behind would be mighty disappointed to hear their leader advising that everybody just go on submitting to the rule of Rome. That’s really not what they were expecting. In fact, it’s probably a bit disappointing, disillusioning. It’s nothing we can say conclusively, of course, but I do wonder if this answer didn’t play into the changing attitude of the crowds. How swiftly they moved from, “Hosanna! Hail to the King!” to, “crucify Him!” Can it be that this wise response had planted the seeds of that change?
It is, of course, as difficult for us to truly put ourselves into the mindset of those crowds as it was for the Pharisees to put themselves in the mindset of Jesus. But, it does strike me as quite possible that this sort of thinking was happening for many. It may even have been part of what was causing Judas to shift, although we are given to understand that he had never truly been of any other mind towards Jesus, just using Him as a means to make some money. Whatever the case, we can be certain of this: Jesus, in answering, was perfectly aware of the impact of His words. If they indeed played a role in shifting the hearts of this crowd, then we can be certain that He intended His words to have just that effect.
As much as it reads as if Jesus is just caught up in the tide of events, we do well to remain ever mindful that this is the same Jesus who calmed the storm with a word. He is not caught up in the tide of events. He is the tide of events. For from Him, and through Him and to Him are all things (Ro 11:36), even those things which culminated in His death. After all, He died on His own authority and no other. And, praise be to God through all eternity, He also has authority to take up life once more. Indeed, He has authority to administer Life to all whom God calls into His presence, and He never has, nor ever will, lose a one from that number!
