New Thoughts (06/30/11-07/03/11)
Before I begin looking at the main thrust of these verses as they apply to me today, there are a few brief distractions I should like to take note of. These are primarily no more than points of interest or curiosity encountered on the way through my preparations. The first concerns a quirk of translation encountered in the CJB. There, in rendering Mark 12:38 and Luke 20:46, the warning from Jesus is given as, “Watch out for the kind of Torah-teachers who…”. For my part, I can find absolutely nothing in the text to justify adding ‘the kind of’ to this warning. It’s far blunter than that: Beware the scribes!
Granted, this is a generalization. We have already met one scribe who appears to at least stand a chance of being true to his calling. Yet, we know from our own experience that however earnest we may be in our desire to follow faithfully after Jesus, yet we are prone to pride issues, prone to erroneous means, prone to sin, if we care to be plainspoken about it. In short, even if there were a scribe present who was not so wholly committed in his opposition to Jesus as to be beyond all hope, he could still stand to hear the warnings and accept them as something of a call for self-examination. For that matter, there was not one amongst His own disciples, not even those of His inner circle, who could honestly claim to be beyond that call to examine themselves.
Are these things in me? How shall I root them out? What is to be done? Really, this is about the only reasonable response one can have to these warnings. In so much as we allow ourselves to fall into thinking of this in terms of ‘those evil scribes’ or ‘those poor, misguided souls’, we are doing ourselves a disservice. For in showing us their failures, Jesus also shows us our own. These were not, after all, men of particularly well developed evil. They were, much like the apostles, just men such as ourselves. We do well to bear that always in mind.
This approaches much nearer the themes I need to explore here. I’ll just sum up my tangential point, then: If we must paraphrase His words, we can do far better than trying to limit the scope of Jesus’ warning to some subset of the class pointed to. Indeed, we are much better served to consider His message in terms of “Beware, lest you be found having these characteristics yourselves.” After all, what danger the man, however false, so long as we remain faithful to our Lord and Savior?
Second tangential thought: Thayer’s suggests that some who subscribed to this idea of wearing phylacteries on head or arm actually thought them to have some degree of magical or mystical power. They were thought to have power to ward off evils, to stave off demons. This doubtless seems rather silly to our modern mind. How foolish of those poor, uneducated people! Thank God we’re more advanced in our thinking. Oops! There goes that Pharisee alarm again.
Looking at the Scriptures upon which this practice was based, I confess it is somewhat difficult to decide whether Moses was speaking figuratively or literally about thus affixing Scriptures to oneself. There are three passages given as basis for the practice. The first comes from Exodus 13:9, and in that case, the reference point is instruction for observing the Passover. Specifically, Moses has just instructed them that they are to take the occasion to tell their children of what the Lord had done in bringing Israel out of Egypt. We then come to the verse in question, which opens, “It shall serve as a reminder on hand and forehead.” I paraphrase, of course. But, the it is the issue. What is it? The reference would appear to be back to that telling of the Exodus story. In relaying, there is reminder. It will be on your mind. It will be at hand.
Deuteronomy 11:18 likewise suggests a less than literal point being made. Before speaking of hands and forehead, the instruction starts with the command to “impress my words on your heart and soul”, which is quite clearly not an activity to be pursued literally. Why, then, would we expect that the command immediately following, that of binding them upon hand and head, is suddenly shifted to the literal?
The nearest we come to something that is to be taken literally is in Deuteronomy 6:8. This follows on that commandment which Jesus proclaims as of the first order: Love God with all your being (Dt 6:5). There follows several instructions for preserving one’s conscious pursuit of the rules of life laid out by God. The words shall be on your heart (Dt 6:6). You will teach them to your children and speak of them at every opportunity (Dt 6:7). Then, there is that bind them hand and head point, followed by the idea of writing them on doorpost and gate (Dt 6:9). The sum of this body of instruction is clearly that we are to do all we can to keep ourselves mindful of God’s word in every moment. Forgetful creatures that we are (and I certainly speak for myself here) we are ever in need of such reminders. How quickly, having turned from the mirror, do we forget what we saw in its reflection! So, too, and in much greater fashion, the mirror of God’s command. What does it show me of me? If I lose sight of that for even a moment, I shall lose sight of what needs to change.
However, there is little enough here to suggest that the concept of the phylactery was intended as a binding practice, a mark of covenant fealty. It depends upon how literally one wishes to take Moses’ instruction here. What there is clearly no case for is assigning any sort of power to such items. If taken literally, then the purpose behind them remains clearly a matter of being personal reminders. They are certainly not intended in any way to be means by which we can identify ourselves to others as believers in good standing, and most assuredly, there is nothing there to suggest that these things can ward off so much as a gnat.
But, such is our nature that we are forever taking things intended to keep us mindful and vesting them with rumored powers of one sort or another. We are by no means immune! Oh, we may not be quite so obviously superstitious in our stated beliefs, but we still play the game. We have those who think that our words are things of power, and that if we don’t carefully phrase our every comment in matters of perfect theological accuracy, we may be unleashing untold woes upon ourselves. Well, now! We certainly have every cause to guard our tongues, but that’s a much different matter than playing semantics games. As I noted in looking at the parable of the good Samaritan (Lk 10:25-37), I don’t find Jesus operating in this fashion. Therefore, I don’t find cause to suppose that I must. It’s OK to speak of something happening by chance, even if I do recognize that there’s no such thing as chance, only God’s Providence. It’s OK to talk about being unhappy with the particulars of today’s weather, even if I do recognize that the weather, being from God, is clearly good whatever I may think of it. It’s OK to be human! After all, this too is something I have received from God, and is therefore just as clearly good as the weather I may not fully appreciate.
For all that, we could ask why we have our magnetic fish carefully displayed on our cars? Why are we so fond of wearing necklaces from which the cross dangles? Why do we choose to display flags to make clear our Christian stance? All of these may certainly be done with pure motive. But, it ain’t necessarily so. To the degree that we use such things to convince others that we are other than we are, we are in the same place as the scribes Jesus is warning about in this passage. If that fish on our trunk is flying down the highway well above the speed limit, how is this reflective of Christian submission to authority? If the necklace surrounds a throat that remains far to comfortable with passing foul language in one direction, and passing intoxicants in the other, what has this to do with Christian confession? They are but gaudy decorations on the grave of a decadent.
Again, the tangential thought insists on pointing me back toward the main point. One last thought on this line, though: I have considered it before, and it remains a mild concern. What of the cross? Have we given this symbol more standing in our belief system than it ought to have? Has it become something of an idol to us? Why, we sing songs about the cross, as though it were this object of bloodied wood that achieved our salvation. But, it is not the tree that saved, only Him Who died upon it. There were, after all, many crosses raised in the Roman era, and others as well. There were many who died upon them. But, none of these others brought salvation to even one, let alone for all whom God had called. The cross, in the end, is nothing. It has value only insofar as it keeps us mindful of the Christ, of His atoning work on our behalf, and of the miracle of find ourselves declared children of the Most High God through His willing sacrifice on our behalf.
Beyond this, the cross itself has no more power than these phylacteries. Indeed, I would say that the cross as a symbol we display is in danger of being just as unspiritual a display as the phylacteries were to the scribes. One must ask why we have some who are borderline belligerent in making great display of the crosses they erect on their property. Is there a Godly call to such ‘in your face’ display? More importantly, were one to probe the life of those who make such display, would that probe reveal a practitioner of earnest faith in Christ, or a thin veneer of piety covering a heart of stone? I cannot say. I do, however, find it cause to consider. Primarily, I would look at it as a cause to consider my own habits, my own tendencies, my own displays of piety. Are they a projection of my reality, or a cover up? As I say, these tangents keep folding back to the main point.
This main point is most evident in the closing words of the passage from Matthew’s text: “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled. Whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.” The importance of this truth can be seen in the number of times the point is made. It’s there in the Proverbs. It’s repeated by the prophets. Jesus Himself makes the same basic observation on at least three occasions, and the message is further reinforced by several other aspects of His teaching. None of this was lost on the Apostles. One sees the same message being relayed in their own Spirit-inspired teaching.
Recognizing this point in what Jesus is saying helps us to understand the proper application of the several strictures He places upon His own here. One question I found myself asking in regard to these strictures concerns the degree to which they are to be applied. Is it simply a matter of not seeking to be called by such titles as Rabbi, Father, Teacher? Or is it a call to reject and refuse every attempt to set such a title upon me? With that question in mind, I took some time to consider the syntax of that which the NASB phrases as, “Do not be called”. This verb is given as an aorist subjunctive used as an imperative. This usage is apparently all but reserved for such negative commands as we have here, and not for positive commands. As the aorist tense tends to speak of completed actions with continuing effects, the idea seems to be that as we are commanded not to allow such things to continue in their effects, we are likewise commanded not to allow such things to begin. After all, if they are not begun they cannot be completed, and if not completed, their effects cannot continue.
So, for two of the three cases, we have this formulation that we are not to allow ourselves to be called by such a title, not to accept it even as passive recipients thereof. This is certainly no call to be rude towards those who would thus honor us, as they think. It is a call, however, to gently and lovingly explain the mistakenness of their efforts, and to direct their attention back to that One Who truly is possessor of such titles. So, we are not to allow ourselves to be given the titles of rabbi or teacher (or leader, as the NASB has it). Where is the issue? After all, we have the Scriptural avowal that some are indeed given as teachers, and we certainly have a basis for setting certain men as leaders over the local body. Indeed, a goodly amount of space is devoted to laying out the qualifications for such leaders. So, if we have the officers, what is with the dictate against using the titles of office?
Here, as I suggested a few paragraphs back, we must allow the thrust of Jesus’ teaching to temper our understanding of the commands therein. The issue is pride. Isn’t it always? The issue is pride, and the reason that leads up to these commands is found in the habit of the scribes. The love that respectful greeting of ‘Rabbi’ that is called out to them by one and all. Indeed, if we are to follow the lead of the KJV here, the idea is really, “Rabbi, Rabbi”, a repetition applied to accentuate the honor. It is with this hungering and thirsting after honors in mind that Jesus turns to His own and says, “Not you!” Don’t play that game. You shall teach, to be sure, but you’re not here on earth to establish a school of philosophy in your own name. Indeed, you’re not here to make a name for yourself whatsoever, but rather to make the Name of God glorious in its renown. Likewise, you are to lead, but you are to find no place for arrogance in leadership. Lead by serving, even as you see Me do. There, too, is a lesson that will be reinforced very soon, and in most memorable fashion.
For our own part (for few indeed are set as teachers and leaders, but all are set in their presence), we need to bear these dictates in mind from the other side. If it is unfitting that they should accept such honors, it is certainly unfitting that we should put them in a bind by attempting to confer such honors upon them. I am mindful of Paul and Barnabus at Lystra, when the people thought them gods. “We are men of the same nature as you” (Ac 14:15). This needs to be our attitude in these lesser capacities. It is also wise that we, in looking to our pastors, elders, teachers and so on, keep that point in mind. They are men of the same nature as we. They suffer the same weaknesses. They are prone to the same issues of pride. They are as easily puffed up with the ego strokes as are we. Knowing the power of that poison in our own lives, how can we accept injecting that poison into the lives of those who serve as our leaders? It ought to be unthinkable! Yet, something in us still supposes we are being kind by praising their efforts. Admittedly, everybody needs the encouragement of knowing their efforts are appreciated, but there’s a fine line between acknowledging effort and feeding the ego beast.
With these dictums in view, I have to ask as to the propriety of those who put such emphasis on raising up leaders in the congregation, holding leadership conferences, giving message after message encouraging one and all to be leaders, and so on. One might also fold in the insistence on having us see ourselves as kings under this same heading. All of this goes straight to the fertile soil of pride. Indeed, what else can one expect to see grow out of such a preening self-image as pronouncing oneself king? For shame! Which one of the apostles, or the fathers of the faith does one find playing these sorts of ego games? Not a one! As I say, the Scriptural record makes it clear that they got the point. Humble yourselves. No man shall ever have cause to boast. Lead by serving.
Even Paul, who struggled more than the others to establish his credentials, was disinclined to make much of himself as an apostle, except as necessary to validate his message. He is far more comfortable presenting himself as a bondslave of the Christ. He got it! He heard it loud and clear! Though he had that personal appointment on the Damascus road and the unimaginable privilege of delivering the clearest revelation of the significance of the Gospel, he knew better than to set himself up as the final authority. There is One Who is the Authority! Indeed, we see in his letter to the Corinthians that he lives out the dictates of this lesson. In that church, there were apparently many who had not understood. They had their factions, their favorites in the apostolic ranks. They took pride in whose message had brought them round. But, Paul says “No!” and says so most emphatically. To him, and to Christ, this is every bit as wrongheaded as those earlier attempts to set him forth as some god come to earth. Paul is nothing! By his own confession, Paul is nothing. Neither is Apollos, nor any other (1Co 3:4-7). Stop playing this game!
Yet it continues, doesn’t it? To my tastes, even the theological habit of speaking of a Pauline doctrine, a Johannine doctrine, and a Petrine doctrine fall under this ban. There is one body of doctrine, just as there is one Gospel. These apostles may have chosen to emphasize certain aspects more so than others, even as I find certain themes resounding through my own writings. But, there is a fundamental harmony to their message, as there must be, for they all speak the same Gospel. I cannot help but think that these apostles would be appalled to hear their names thus associated as if they were anything! No, there is only the body of sound Christian doctrine. Any attempt to subdivide and categorize beyond this is a function of feeding pride, even though those whose pride we would thus feed are dead and gone as concerns this earthly life.
Does this, then, suggest we ought not to recognize those whom we would refer to as heroes of the faith? I think not. It is well to recall those who have stood tall in the service of our Lord and King. Yet, it is well that we ask ourselves and recall to mind just how it is that they stood tall. It is well that we consider not the man, but the reason the man is remembered. For, in so doing, we shall ever and always find ourselves back at Christ, at the power and the glory of God Himself. These men are pillars precisely because they abided by the dictates of this passage: making themselves servants not only of the Most High God, but of His children, their brothers. It is because of service that they are held in our esteem, not because of titles.
Even so, we must take care. I know from my own thought life that it is very easy to cross the line. My esteem for Paul, for Augustine, for Calvin and, yes, for R.C. Sproul as well, threatens to cross over into idolatry. May it never be! But, I will gladly tell you that Paul’s writings are my favorites amongst the apostolic record. I will gladly tell you how much Augustine played into bringing me into this habit of earnest study and reflection morning by morning. I would have to admit the powerful influence Calvin has had on my understanding, and assuredly, the course of the last ten years and more would have been far different were it not for those commute times spent listening to “Renewing Your Mind” broadcasts, let alone the benefits of Table Talk. These men loom large in my development as a Christian. Yet, they are not the final authority, nor would they accept the idea that they were. They loom large because they are men wholly submitted to the Authority of Christ and of His Word, and as such, they are men wholly committed to serving the family of God not solely in their own generation, but in the generations that succeed their own.
I cannot say whether any of these men thought they would have such an impact. I rather doubt that they spent any time considering it. If there was any thought of a legacy, it was for Christ, not for self. Paul, we know, devoted himself to establishing churches throughout the regions he could access. Yet, he did not seek to establish churches of Paul, nor did he set himself up over even one of these churches as leader. He established them, got them properly organized and moved on to the next assignment; ever and always as the Lord leads.
Did Augustine write with an eye towards the ages? I really can’t imagine he did. Rather, he saw issues that needed to be addressed. He hungered after a greater grasp on the truths of God and, in pursuit of that hunger, was inclined to sharpen his own thinking against others of like appetite. The means at hand required writing, as geographic distances and the necessities of life precluded any sort of communal scholastic pursuits. So, he wrote to clarify his own thinking and to relay that thinking to others for comment. He wrote, with passion, to counter the erroneous thoughts of others, particularly Pelagius, who were likewise seeking to understand the truth of God more fully. But, he wrote primarily for a present tense purpose, not so as to leave a legacy for his name.
Calvin? Some would like to tag him with a towering ego, and it is not unthinkable that he had an ego to contend with. Yet, it was not ego that drove him to write. It was need. I think particularly of his Institutes of Christian Religion, a text most needful in laying out the case for a revived Christianity. The opposition he and his contemporaries faced from the Roman institution was no small thing. It wasn’t that they feared being slandered in the papers or ridiculed on the web. They were men under the penalty of death for daring to oppose the accepted order. So high was Calvin’s regard for the Church that his opposition to its order required him to set forth his case as carefully and as eloquently as his abilities allowed. He was, after all, a lawyer by training, and the Institutes are, in their fashion his legal defense against the charges of heresy being levied against him.
As to the great body of writing that followed upon this work, I can feel a certain sympathy of nature. Why, after all, do I spend my morning hours in these studies? Is it to leave a legacy for myself? I should think not, although I’ll confess to wondering what my daughter might make of it when I have passed. As well, I wonder occasionally whether these years of posting my musings on the web are serving any purpose. But, I can honestly say I don’t push these things out there to get some sort of validation for myself. I do it because I felt prompted to do so many years ago, and I’ve never felt any prompting to cease and desist. It does, admittedly, cause me to evaluate how I am approaching my studies, whether I am shying away from applying what I learn to myself because of some perceived public exposure. There are times when I have felt that happening, and there are times when I have had to correct my habits accordingly. But, God is faithful.
More than anything, these studies have been a response to my own laziness of faith and to my own lack of understanding. Having found my ignorance of important matters of doctrine exposed, I find it behooves me to heed my Master’s command and study. I know, too, that these hours spent in contemplation, meditation if you will, prepare me for service in His employ. Yes, I teach on occasion, and I am ever clear on the fact that I am but a student such as those I teach when I do so. Yet, I am also keenly aware of being used of my Lord on those occasions. I am also, ever so slowly, learning to apply the things I gain in these times in my role as head of this household. This is, if anything, an even greater challenge than that of teaching! I mean, as teacher, I am keenly, painfully aware of the warning James gives: “Don’t too many of you look to become teachers, for as teachers, we incur a stricter judgment” (Jas 3:1). But, as head of household, shepherd over this tiny flock, shall I not likewise be subjected to a stricter judgment? I should think so! And yet, it is a matter I have allowed myself to ignore for so long.
I should recount, if only for my own benefit, the events of last Sunday at this point. Since I had spent a goodly portion of my study schedule to considering the Scriptural coverage of angels, I had felt a certain – a very certain – prompting that I needed to take my role as shepherd of this house seriously and bring a word of correction to my wife in this regard, as her training, such as it has been, had led her to pray rather often in a fashion that more or less demanded angelic assistance according to her dictates. That may be wording the case a tad strongly, but it is how things came across. I could find no basis for praying in this fashion, and a fairly convincing body of evidence suggesting that it was outright wrong to do so. I knew I was being instructed to speak, and yet I would not. I could come up with any number of excuses as to why I shouldn’t or why I didn’t. But, they are excuses only, and none of them of any more value than dirt.
At any rate, as I closed out my previous study last week, this was again put on my mind. It was a matter of obedience to my Lord in which I was clearly rejecting His command in not acting on it. For shame! And yet, procrastination continued to reign in me, alas. Well, Sunday was difficult for a number of reasons, I was really disoriented spiritually throughout the service. But, come to find out that Jan had heard a bit of a personal reprimand during Sunday School, not one that was necessarily intentionally directed her way, but one she heard as from the Lord nonetheless. She didn’t go into the specifics immediately, just registered the fact that this had been a powerful moment for her.
Later in the day, as we walked and talked together, I asked her what had transpired that so impacted her. Turns out, that this message, which I had been charged for weeks to deliver, had been delivered by a more willing servant. While relieved that I would not therefore be the one to say it, I was simultaneously chagrined, abashed at my failure. For, this sweetly sensitive woman had received the admonition with a humility to inspire my own. And, here I had feared to get into some long and heated argument should I seek to change her habits of praying! Who knows? Perhaps it would have fallen that way had I obeyed, but it seems most unlikely in retrospect. It was but this lying heart of mine keeping me from the pleasure of hearing my beloved accept God’s wisdom by my hand, the pleasure of for once obeying my Lord as I ought.
Oh, it’s not that I haven’t done so on other occasions. Nor did those other occasions involve any less trepidation on my part. One would think that experience would lead me to realize this woman’s regard for my leadership, her desire for it, and her abiding respect for what God is doing with me in these morning hours. Yet, there is that within me still which seeks to avoid any potential strife or wounding, either inflicted by me or inflicted upon me. God! Such weakness this flesh! But, my God is faithful. He has seen the message delivered and now, by my reticence, confirmed as by two or three faithful witnesses, and my beloved is the better for it.
Thank You, Lord, for Your mercy as well as Your determination! May I take this lesson to heart once for all, and be more willing to do as You ask next time. And forgive me, I beg You, for my failure to do so this time. Yes, and thank You for making my mess right in spite of me. Strengthen me, Lord, to do Thy will.
One other aspect of these events came to mind this morning as I was waking up. To whit, this whole matter rather demonstrates the sovereign will of God. It was His determination that His daughter should hear the loving word of correction. He had granted me the honor of taking responsibility for delivering this message. But, when His messenger balked, He found another. His will was that the message get through and He is sovereign. As I have often declared, His will will be done. It’s not a questionable matter. When we pray that it shall be so, it’s not really a request that He make it so, it’s an acknowledgement that this is how it is. It’s a confession. It’s also, at it’s best and most earnest, a determination that I, the prayer of this prayer, shall be one through whom His will is implemented.
This sovereignty of His will, I must stress, does not relieve me of responsibility for my failure to step up to the task assigned me. If anything, it shows my weakness, both in commitment and in execution. I have often enough prayed that very prayer, “Thy will be done”, and I have most often appended the thought, “in my own case”, or words to that effect. I understand this as committing myself to be an agent of His will, a faithful servant instant in acting upon His least indication of desire. Yet, I am clearly not this faithful servant. I hem and I haw and I put off for the ‘right time’, which is to say indefinitely.
As concerns the sovereignty of His will, I can only suppose that part of His will in this was to bring me to a clearer recognition of this shortcoming of mine. I have already sought His forgiveness for the matter, so that part is settled ground with me. But, there remains the need to change, the need to not merely perform the self-assessment but to also take action based on the results of that assessment. I need to step up my game, as it were, although I find it somewhat inappropriate to think of this in any game-like context. Quite simply, if I am going to proclaim myself a servant of the Most High God, I had best start acting like one. The words themselves are utterly empty and worthless if the actions don’t confirm.
I shall return now to the original thread of this study. One thing that seems only to have penetrated after thirty or so readings of this passage is that while we are commanded not to accept the titles of Rabbi or Leader, when it comes to this matter of the Father title, the direction reverses. Don’t call anyone on earth your father. It’s that same aorist subjunctive thing, but we’ve shifted from the passive voice of being called to the active voice of calling. And, once more I might be tempted to overplay this command. Shall I really cease to think of that man by whom I was begotten as my father? Is it OK to call him dad? Poppa? Is it the word that offends? Is it the very concept of there being a progenitor? What’s the issue?
Here, I think we must once again allow the thrust of Jesus’ argument to define the parameters of what is prohibited. After all, to deny my earthly parentage would seem to fly in the face of the commandment to honor my parents. How is dad honored if I deny he is my father? This alone should inform us that any attempt to apply what Jesus is saying at that level is incorrect. There is nothing in admitting my parentage that would lead to either myself or my parent being puffed up with pride. It is a simple biological fact. To be sure, there are bonds of filial love there, bonds that have been tested over the years, but have proven to hold. But, there is nothing of idolizing in the admission that indeed, my father is my father. This, quite simply, cannot be the point Jesus is making.
Consider this in the context of those two commands between which it is bracketed. We are not discussing biological roles here, we are discussing titles and honors. Rabbi is not a birthright, but a title given by some and presumably earned by others. Leader is likewise a matter of office granted and presumed skill to fulfill the demands thereof. Father, in the biological sense is odd man out. But, a bit of investigation uncovers the fact that this term was also applied to some in the way that Rabbi and Leader might have been. It was an honorary label applied to members of the Sanhedrin, expressing a recognition of their wisdom and experience, and implying that these things were used by them not to further their own fortunes, but to serve the interests of others. This doesn’t fit very well with the view of the Sanhedrin that Scripture affords, but it’s all about self-image, this business of titles.
And, that’s the point. All of these titles that men chase after are attempts to look good. Most often, they are attempts to look better than reality says we are. There’s a reason why it’s proverbial that men rise to their own level of incompetence. It amuses us to speak this way, particularly of those who have greater authority in our workplaces. But, there’s a certain truth to it, else it would not amuse. The title hides the inadequacy, and the holder of that title feels it quite probably more than those who would look at him as an example of that proverbial point.
I could consider my own performance as parent and head of household. I am the father of this family, for better or worse. I am not inclined to think I’ve done a particularly bang up job of it. Yet, others seem inclined to say I’ve done it well. Feh. What do they know? Yet, I can also say that if somebody comes insinuating that I’ve done a lousy job, I’ll feel it necessary to defend my record in whatever way I can. Silly, isn’t it? But, it’s human nature – not that that’s any excuse. Titles do that to a person. They not only hide the inadequacies but, in the best scenarios, they drive the holder of the title to live up to its demands.
We understand this, I think, of the role of president. It’s a role that really, no man should have to try and handle, this business of leading an entire nation. We understand at some level that any man who would willingly chase such a position is inherently unworthy of it, and ought to be considered suspect in sanity if not in motive. Yet, we must have such a man in charge, and we recognize that every one who has ever stepped into that position has done so in many ways utterly unprepared for the depth of the office’s obligations. Some grow into it, and we deem these to have been good and effective presidents. Others seemingly never grow at all, and these we deem to have demeaned the office and beclowned themselves.
The same is true, however, of every position of any responsibility. We come to it most often not by choice but of necessity, and we come to it utterly unfit and unprepared. But, by the grace of God we grow into it. We sense, eventually, the gravitas of what has been entrusted to our care, and we feel compelled to make ourselves worthy of that trust. We stumble. We err. We require constant course corrections. But, as we seek to be good servants to the Most High God, we also find Him faithful to inspire us towards a life of constant improvement and growth. He is faithful, and we shall, by His grace, attain to the mature image of our Brother and Christ, for by His own right arm, He will do it!
There is another aspect of this father term that may have been on Jesus’ mind, and that concerns the overwhelming concern that these scribes and Pharisees and such had with ancestry. This is a theme that we see arise repeatedly throughout the New Testament, that one aspect of Christian teaching was to cast off all of this tracing of genealogies as if eternal security was to be found in deriving from the right ancestor. Consider that moment when those stung by Jesus’ words declared, “Abraham is our father!” What are they saying? They are pointing to the beginning of the line, as it were, although Abraham is clearly not the beginning of the line. It would be reasonable to say that even Adam is not the beginning of the line, although he is the first of the species. And that is at least one sense to what Jesus says here: You have one Father, and He is in heaven. He alone is Creator. He alone is Originator. If there is a promise to which you have reason to hold, it is not because of Abraham or Adam or Noah or David. It is not because of any man, nor ever can be. It is by God alone. It is by God alone that you have come to be, whoever your parents may be and whatever the circumstance of your birth. It is by God alone that you have come to Christ. This is His own avowal. None can come to the Christ except the Father calls, and none can come to the Father except through the Christ.
In the Message, the author of that paraphrase offers up Matthew 23:9 with these words: “Don't set people up as experts over your life, letting them tell you what to do.” This seems to point more towards the idea of the title as applied to the Sanhedrin. It’s one thing to avail oneself of good counsel, and indeed we have the advice of Scripture to prompt us towards doing just that. It’s quite another to grant that counsel a weight equal to that of Scripture. This reflects the mindset of the Reformation, the determination that nothing has the power to bind conscience bar Scripture alone.
Whether or not this paraphrase provides an accurate sense of what Jesus meant is another question altogether. It is true, as I have noted, that the term was one used in titular fashion. Yet, if this was the sense Jesus was driving at, I should think it would have retained that passive voice: Don’t let yourself be called by such titles. That He has shifted to the active voice points me more in that ancestral, “Abraham is my father”, direction. Here, after all, was yet another point upon which spiritual pride was inclined to dwell and to swell. It was one more false premise upon which men proclaimed their righteousness. Of course I’m heaven bound, I’m a child of Abraham! It doesn’t matter what I do personally, I’ve got the genes of promise.
This is, of course, nothing but a repacking of that idolatry that Jeremiah decried. “Do not trust in deceptive words, saying, ‘This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord’” (Jer 7:4). What was the issue? People were assuming that the presence of the Lord’s house would protect them from paying the penalty for their depravities. Likewise, this business of genealogies. Likewise, too, the ‘social Catholics’ and their ilk in our own day, those who suppose that a baptism received in youth, or reciting that so-called prayer of faith sealed the deal, and they are thereby freed to go on with life unchanged. This is the grotesque fallacy of the ‘once saved, always saved’ perversion. Sadly, that twisted doctrine is often mistaken as representing the doctrine referred to as ‘perseverance of the saints’, but it is not the same thing. The latter turns our attention back upon the omnipotence and sovereignty of the God by Whom we were called. Yet, it leaves in place the full voice of Scripture, most critically, James’ point that a faith that cannot show works commiserate with that faith is a dead (and frankly false) thing (Jas 2:17). And to this we can add Paul’s condemnation of those who would claim they were secure to go on sinning given the reality of God’s grace (Ro 3:8, Ro 6:1-2, Ro 6:15).
This is the problem with all such things as tend towards the puffing up of our spiritual pride. Our spiritual pride is by its very nature unfounded and misleading. The whole of this teaching that Jesus is delivering is targeted at the bulls-eye of pride. All of these things Jesus speaks of are attempts to look good, attempts to pass off appearances as reality. The problem is that when we practice this sort of thing we arrive at the point of having fooled ourselves. We begin to believe our own hype. We begin to suppose that the appearance is the thing that matters, not the reality beneath and within. This happened with the temple. Trust was in the edifice, not the God Who sanctified the edifice. This happened with Abraham. Trust was in the genetics of the man, not the God Who sovereignly chose the man. This happens with baptism, when we suppose that the power to save was in the act and not in the One into Whom we were baptized. This happens when we suppose that our memorization of the Word, or even our knowledge of the Word has the power to preserve us, rather than He in Whom the Word was spoken.
Father, in the authority of Jesus I come praying that You would, through the advocacy of Your Holy Spirit, guard us from all such falsity, and shepherd us faithfully into an earnestness of real faith founded on You alone.
There is an intriguing pattern that emerges from these commands. It’s possible, I suppose, that this is an intentional bit of organizing on Matthew’s part. However, I am more inclined to assign that intention to Jesus Himself. What I am noticing particularly in the NASB translation, is that there are three Ones pointed out. We have One Who is our Teacher, One Father, Who is in heaven, One Leader in Christ. That last role is translated as ‘Master’ in the KJV. But, looking at that list, can you not see the Trinity emerging? Teacher, Father, Master: It’s not exactly the order we typically assign, but there it is: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
I said that I am more inclined to assign the intentional nature of this picture to Jesus than to Matthew, and this is primarily because as I understand it the efforts at defending a Trinitarian viewpoint as to the Godhead was a later development. As such, while it’s certainly reasonable, and even necessary, that we expect to find things in the Gospels that support this view, it would be less reasonable to expect some surreptitious arranging of the data so as to amplify the point. Jesus, on the other hand, as the Master Teacher, has good reason to set forth such a lesson. This is the more reasonable to expect given that He is Son to the omniscient and all-wise Father. Father would certainly know that His plan and purpose included the setting forth of the Gospel record. As the first among equals, if we can view Him in this fashion, He would be very much aware of what things He would assign the Spirit to have these Gospel writers include.
This is not God-dictation, but all Scripture is indeed God-breathed. The authors wrote in their own voices, to be sure, but they also wrote with the distinct guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is for this reason that we accept the writing as the Word of God, whereas later authors, even those most immediately following in the history of the Church, do not have their writings assigned such authoritative value. They are of value, but they are not inerrant. They are of value, but they cannot be binding upon the conscience. Is this to suggest that they were less godly men? No. Is it to suggest that their writings were not as directly Spirit led and Spirit filled? That is a more difficult question. At some level, I suppose the answer must be yes, or they would bear the same authority. Yet, in the more general sense, the answer is no. Indeed, in the more general sense, it would be my hope that these efforts of mine are equally Spirit led. There are times when I think this is more the case than others. But, it is always the hope, that I am not simply pushing my own thoughts and imaginations here, rather relaying what I find God most impressing upon my thoughts of a given morning.
So, allow me the assumption that this inclusion of a Trinitarian hint is indeed the intentional work of Christ, that He purposefully organized His triplet of commands in a fashion that would come to be recognized in that light. It could not be so at the time because the people to whom He was speaking had no basis for such an understanding. The Holy Spirit, in particular, had not been so fully revealed and understood. When God’s people spoke of the Spirit of the Living God in that time they did not consider Him as being an entity other than God or, if they did, they did not consider Him as being truly God. Perhaps they would view him as one of the angels, or some other being of lesser stature. How else to explain how this Spirit could rest upon a man? Of course, they would be inclined to hold that man in higher regard than was probably right, as well, in part to explain this same situation. One such as Elijah must have been particularly holy and pure for the Spirit of God to rest on him so.
We are to understand, however, cannot help but understand, that this Holy Spirit rests upon all whom the Father has called, and does so not because those so called are in any way holier or more pure of heart than others. Rather, it is an expression, a particularly incredible expression, of that sovereign grace of God at work in our salvation. That He, Who cannot abide the presence of sin is yet able to abide within us, within the chief of sinners, it boggles the mind! And yet, it is so.
Jesus, then, is relaying or at least hinting at a point that would not be understood until later, even as He sets forth commands that would be understood quite immediately. I find it telling, as well, that the order is so distinct from the standard Trinitarian formula. We naturally set the order as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and in doing so, we have assigned a certain primacy to the Father. We have set ranks upon the persons of the Trinity, acknowledging a seemingly necessary chain of command. They are equal and we would never say otherwise, yet we find it needful to have one who is first among equals. We find it necessary to resolve to one singular person at the top of the heavenly organizational chart.
Given a few millennia of thinking on this topic, I am willing to accept that this view of the Trinity is not just man imposing his sense of order on God, but rather an earnest representation of the heavenly economy. That being the case, the fact that the Second Person sets Himself last and sets the Third Person first is suggestive to me. It is suggestive of the very principals He has espoused not just here but also in any number of other teachings. I could think of “many who are first shall be last, and the last first” (Mt 19:30, Mt 20:16). I could think of the clear point of this present passage, that those who humble themselves are exalted by God. Now, that this should apply to the persons of the Godhead is rather nonsensical. However, to demonstrate the principal in how those persons are set out on this occasion is not necessarily so foolish a thought.
Consider: Jesus throughout His earthly ministry demonstrates a distinct humility, a distinct subservience of role to the Father. They are equal in the most absolute sense, yet as Paul would write, Jesus had chosen to willingly set aside the rights of equality, considering that birthright not a thing to be grasped at. He emptied Himself of these prerogatives and submitted Himself wholly to the plan and purpose set forth by the Father. And, in His pursuit of those purposes, He repeatedly, consistently, pointed to the Father as in every way His own Superior, even though they be One. Similarly, the Holy Spirit had to that point gone about His ministry to the children of God with such a high degree of humility as to be almost wholly unnoticed by them. They might recognize a certain holy influence upon their lives, but they never thought to attribute it to the literal presence of God within them, indeed would find the thought unthinkable! And, God the Holy Spirit never saw fit to disabuse them of this mindset. He sought no recognition for Himself, but solely for the Father, and for the Christ appointed by the Father. He was wholly content to work in this behind the scenes fashion.
Here, however, Jesus has given this most humble Person of the Trinity the honorable place of first mention. To get a sense of the importance of this point, think how much is made of the order used in those places where the Apostles are listed out. There is a basic assumption that those toward the head of the list were those most viewed as leaders, as the ones speaking for the rest and by degree directing the rest. Jesus being as fully man as He is fully God would relate to this mindset, would recognize it, experience it, and in this case, utilize it for His own ends. He is, by this listing, making the point in the persons of the Trinity that He is making more broadly for His people. If it is so within the Godhead itself, surely it is that much more true for God’s children! Those who humble themselves, He will exalt. Those who play the game of self-exaltation, He will most assuredly humble.
Within the household of God, this humbling comes more in the form of abashing. It takes the form of correction, of admonition. It is done not to crush, but to train. It is done with a singular eye toward that reshaping, renewing work which is our constant experience in Christ. Outside of that household, the consequences are more dire. That humbling is more nearly humiliation as we tend to think of it. Indeed, it is beyond humiliation, and will eventually resolve to being an outright destruction. It sounds harsh because it is harsh. However, this is the clear indication of Scripture. One need look no farther than the demise of Herod as relayed by Luke (Ac 12:21-23). We can consider the demise of Jerusalem that followed swiftly upon the Ascension of Christ. This, too, was an infliction of the punishment for pride. In particular, it is that spiritual pride that God is most deeply offended by, for spiritual pride, in a most particular and expansive way, robs God of His rightful glory and honor.
Spiritual pride consciously or unconsciously removes a man from his dependence upon God. It is the most blasphemous of things, as it denies by its every act and thought the necessity of that sacrifice God made in the person of His Son. If ever there was an attitude that trampled under foot the sacrifice made once for all, it is this self-important mindset that supposes oneself sufficiently good to have earned one’s own way into heaven. Set aside the dishonor to Jesus. This is also, as John states plainly, to declare God Himself a liar (1Jn 1:10), for He has, as Paul reminds us, proclaimed quite bluntly that, “There is none righteous, not even one” (Ro 3:10 quoting Ps 14:1).
This is the deadly poison of hypocrisy. This is what Jesus is pointing out in this message. Look at the start of the passage from Matthew. “Everything they do is done to be noticed by men.” Or, take the close of the other two passages: “They offer long prayers to keep up appearances.” The business with the phylacteries with the tassels, it’s the same thing. It’s all a great shout saying, “Look how holy we are! See how much more godly we are than the rest.” But, there is nothing godly about it at all. The prayers are not prayers after God’s own heart, but a cover up. The phylacteries, meant (if meant at all as a physical practice) to keep one ever mindful of the law of God for one’s life, were become merely a display. The practices of these men, and the complaints that they repeatedly leveled against Jesus, demonstrate fully that the meaning of the Law was utterly lost on them. It was all about rituals and display and nothing of the heart. Yet, that same passage that suggested the phylacteries to their thoughts had demanded something much greater: that they inscribe the Law on their hearts. Well, they certainly had the stoniness of heart to take such inscription well, but that was not the idea, not at all. No, it takes hearts of flesh to truly accept the cutting edge of God’s Word, and this cannot be obtained except through Christ Himself.
The most condemning point of all, it would seem is that contrast Jesus draws between appearance and thought life. They are praying these long prayers, loud, proud and public, making sure everybody knows. Yet, all they while, they are considering their profits, considering how they might take advantage of the very ones that the Law of God demanded they most seek to aid and protect. This is the same sort of mindset the prophets had repeatedly decried amongst God’s people. Nor should we suppose the situation has changed. This side of the cross, there is not cause for us to suppose that God’s call to care for the orphan and the widow, to protect the ones least able to protect themselves, has changed one bit. God doesn’t change! He didn’t suddenly become a different God at the advent of the New Testament. He is still exactly Who He has always been and He ever shall be. How well we would do to remember this!
I would contrast the sort of prayer life that Jesus reveals amongst these hypocrites to that sort of prayer life He advises for His own. The contrast is most immediate and most stark. When His disciples had asked Him to teach them how they ought to pray, His first statement is, “Like this: ‘Our Father in heaven, Hallowed, revered and honored be Thy name” (Mt 6:9). Obviously, I am expanding the sense a bit, as the concept of hallowing is sadly foreign to our thinking any more. But, notice where the focus is immediately directed: God’s honor, God’s glory, God’s fame. And over against this we have the style of these scribes which is directed at their own reputation, their own fame, such as it is.
I would note, as well, that other instruction Jesus delivers, one I have sought to take to heart. Don’t pray these longwinded prayers that are largely empty repetitions of unfelt phrases. Pagans do this in the thought that maybe the volume of their words will somehow prompt their gods to act. He to Whom we pray is, however, neither stupid nor deaf. Nor are we to suppose that we in any way manipulate Him by our prayers. We cannot cajole God into acting, nor should the thought cross our mind. We pray, as much as anything, out of obedience to His command. And, we pray, one hopes, out of love’s desire for a greater intimacy with our Lord and Husband. Honestly, it strikes me that one of the greatest values we can have in prayer is to remind ourselves just how lowly and needy we truly are. Prayer rightly applied is a great antidote for that pride which so often besets us.
Pride is, after all, the clear target of this message. Pride, it has been said, lies at the base of most every sin. It is the most insidious thing, the most difficult to combat, because it is constantly changing its guise. Pride will pose as humility, corrupting even our best efforts to combat this great evil in ourselves. But, all of these things Jesus is pointing out, what are they? They are the foodstuff of pride. They are things that are not only the outworking of a baseless pride, but designed to feed that same baseless pride.
Today we don’t talk of pride. We talk of ego. Yet, it is the same evil even though we change the name, just as sin remains sin even if we choose to call it simply a mistake. We are not immune! Far from it. We must be ever mindful that we are practitioners by nature of every egregious error we see revealed in the person of the Pharisees, the scribes, the Sadducees. Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall (1Co 10:12)! That is such a dangerous thought, and yet we relish those times when we can think it, or suppose that we can. We love to feel like we’re making progress, doing well, better than others. It is so much easier on the psyche if we compare ourselves to mere mortals than if we insist on measuring ourselves against the perfection God really requires. It feels so much better to consider ourselves self-sufficient than to recognize our utter, total helplessness. But, what does God say? “Humble yourself.”
Listen! I can’t stress this enough for my own part. There’s an implication here that I would not want to miss. In commanding that we humble ourselves, there is a corollary point to take: Don’t wait for God to do it. Truly, it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:31). The presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and the reality of Christ’s blood shed on our behalf have indeed gained us access to the throne of God, given us a means to stand before Him, as it were in spite of our condition. But, it is not wholly so. No! If we avail ourselves of this access with a prideful air, with that demanding attitude of presumption, as if we have earned a right to come in, we are in deadliest danger! Humble yourself. Don’t dare to come before Him with a prideful sense of belonging there. Oh! Far be it from me! No, as much as I rejoice to know the privilege of coming into His presence, of entering not only His throne room, but also His den, I dare not lose sight of how thoroughly unworthy I am to be there.
I must, we all must, take this message to heart. We must all be mindful of rejecting everything that seeks to puff up our pride, and we must likewise be mindful of one another, that we not present any such pride-inducing temptation to our brothers in Christ. This is a difficult balance to maintain, how we might properly honor those who serve to their best ability in presenting the Truth of Christ and those who give so much to the effort of aiding us in our own process of sanctification without leading them into any temptation toward pride. We do them no favors whose egos we stroke.
As to practice, take to heart the situation Jesus is indicating. Whatever it is we do as believers, we must seek to keep our motives pure. We must seek, really, that God would empower us to do so. This is certainly true of those things we do as part of our specifically Christian practices. I think in terms of our actions in service of worship or in public prayer or other activities of the church proper. But, the same ought to occupy our thoughts in those activities we think of as mundane. In the workplace, what is my motivation? Is it simply profit-driven? Is it a desire to impress my co-workers? Is it just to please the boss, or fool them into thinking I’m a better employee than is really the case? Or am I, per Scripture’s dictate, doing it as unto the Lord?
Asking such questions, it is obvious enough that I am not entirely, not even mostly motivated by such things as ought to be my motivation. I do not work with a mindset of doing my labors unto the Lord, not as often as I ought. That ought is, of course, at all times, and I am far from that goal. Am I profit driven? I suppose that, given my awareness of my own bottom line, that is part of it. I sincerely doubt I would continue at my employments on a volunteer basis! Am I desirous of the good opinion of my peers? Oh, yes. That deadly poison is well known to me. It is a battle I face on every front, a sense of inadequacy leading to an over-dependence on good opinion. Boss-pleasing? I can see that as well.
The sad part is that these things that infect my motivation in the workplace are the very same things that I can be sure infect my motivations in the house of God. Whatever appearances one seeks to throw up on Sunday, the reality is that we walk the halls of His house the same person we are when walking the aisles of work, when walking around the rooms of home. We don’t really change as we take upon ourselves these different roles in life. We but put on appearances. The reality, the inner life, remains the same in each and every situation.
This is both a blessing and a curse, I think. On the one hand, there is surely the danger that I have fooled myself even as the scribes and Pharisees, that I have made myself a righteousness that is as dead and worthless as the graven images of old. There is the distinct probability that I have despoiled much of what I do ‘for God’ with self-centered attitudes, with more of an eye on my own feelings and self-image than on worshiping the One True God in Spirit and in Truth. On the other hand, there is the fact, the blessed fact, that God is greater than all that I am. He is able, and it is quite frankly only because He is able that I have any hope at all in this life. He is renewing my mind. He is remodeling my being. He is maturing me into the complete image of His Son. He is doing so in part with my willing participation in the process. But, quite frankly, He is and always has been doing so just as faithfully and patiently when I have been a stubborn, resistant fool. I take no excuse from this glad truth, but I do take profound comfort in knowing that it is my God Who wills and works in me (Php 2:13).
For from You, and through You and to You are all things, my God, my Master, my Teacher! In You alone I have found cause for hope. In You alone I have my future secured. And, Lord, it is You alone I would see magnified. Oh, I know that my pride is even to this day a thing in constant need of crushing, and I hope and pray that I shall find it in myself to obey the command of this passage to humble myself. Yet, I know it is beyond me in my own strength, so I give thanks that You strengthen me, that You empower me to the obedience I do not find in myself.
Today, Lord; this morning, as I take up the task of teaching on Your behalf, please, I beg of You, keep me mindful of all that we have discussed this morning. Please, teach me, Lord, even as I teach. Please teach me how to serve in this role according to Your desire, and keep me from any pride of place.
