You Were There (07/05/11)
It seems to me that this is another occasion where I was too swift to note the similarities of message and assume therefore a commonality of setting. With such wisdom of age as I have gained since first setting out my outline, I would have to say that Luke is vindicated. He did not dislocate the events he describes from their proper setting, but rather it is I who have done so in relocating his account to this late point in Jesus’ ministry. I have attempted, in my paraphrase of these two disparate events, to harmonize them in a different sense, suggesting that Jesus was mindful of the earlier encounter as He delivered this far more hostile message to His interrogators at temple. That is quite obviously an absolute fiction of my own devising, yet it would not seem far fetched in the least to suppose that Jesus recalled the one event in the midst of the other.
In the later setting of Matthew’s account, the scene has been set by what has preceded. This is combat, if not of the gladiatorial sort. This is a combat of words, a rhetorical match, a debate of sorts, if not along traditional Greek or Roman lines. It is every bit a battle of wits, and Jesus is winning it hands down. He is also, as we transition into this series of woes pronounced, shifting firmly into prophetic mode. This is the voice of the prophets, the same voice that drove Isaiah and Jeremiah and all the others to speak. It is the same message delivered to largely the same people and for precisely the same reasons. You have thoroughly ignored the commandments. You have perverted the pure worship of God with your idolatries. You have gone after every manner of corrupt practice and yet have the audacity to come into God’s presence proclaiming your own holiness. You are so far removed from the Truth as to be an utter abomination. Yet, the message is not that destruction is inevitable. The message is that repentance is necessary if one is to avoid that destruction.
The message of the prophet is ever contained in the one word, “Repent!” The problem is set forth in stark relief, that its hearers may not miss the point. The consequences at stake are likewise laid bare that all may see the choice before them. In this case, there is no doubt at all what the outcome will be for those to whom Jesus directs His woes. They have already decided and the Truth long since set before their eyes. But, they have been stubborn and refused to see the obvious. They have been too busy at their games of piety to recognize their own piteous condition.
The more shocking situation, though, is that depicted by Luke. In Matthew, we are in this verbal combat, and it’s not surprising that the Prophet should pronounce as He does. But, in Luke’s account the Prophet is a guest. He has been invited to dinner, a matter at least outwardly gracious, although the inward intent might prove suspect. That Jesus had not availed Himself of the bowl on His way in could hardly go unnoticed. Honestly, if you saw your waiter, or worse yet the chef, emerging from the restroom without having washed his hands, you would assuredly feel a certain moral outrage, would you not? Were that the issue here, I wonder if Jesus would not have gladly gone back to wash up. Or is there a deeper significance to His not having done so, a proclamation of His assured purity and cleanliness by His very essence?
At any rate, this lapse could not but be noticed, and I really don’t think it required any deep insight on Jesus’ part to register the shocked reaction of His host. I really don’t suppose that reaction was at all hidden from sight, but was likely very much out in the open: The shocked intake of breath, the raised eyebrow, the whispered, “can you believe this?” to the next guest entering. Had Jesus in response made His opening point and then transitioned to a parable to demonstrate the deeper need for inner, spiritual cleansing, I should think it entirely in keeping with the behavior one might expect in a guest. But, He does not do this. He jumps to the accusative. “You are full of theft and wickedness.” Wow! “You are blind fools, utterly unaware of God.” I would also note that the passage immediately following has Jesus pronouncing woes upon the whole class of the Pharisees right there at their own table.
I ask you. Were you the host at this dinner, and such things said to your face, how would you respond? And we Westerners are of much milder passions generally than those of the Middle East. I am not seeking to stereotype here, simply stating well established fact. Passions run much hotter in that clime, and they continue to do so even when the citizenry of that region is relocated to our own shores. I am amazed, really, that we don’t read of this host rising up from table and throwing Jesus and His disciples bodily from his home. I can’t imagine the self-control it must have taken to sit there and take this abuse, truthful though it may have been. “You are like concealed tombs” (Lk 11:44). And He just doesn’t stop. It keeps going, taking in the other guests. I tell you, if you were there, whether host or just fellow guest, you would have left this table with Jesus your sworn enemy, and your determination to avenge yourself firmly established.
In that light, as I come back to the later events of Matthew’s account, I could easily suppose that Jesus is not the only one reminded of that earlier occasion. The words of His rebuke being so very much the same, that whole urge to vengeance would be stirred from the red hot state it was already in to such a white heat as denied all possibility of being denied its satisfaction. If there were any in their number who were not already determined as to Jesus’ destruction, rest assured they were committed to that purpose by the time He was done.
This is the problem with hearing from the prophets, and it is, I suppose, a part of why I don’t tend to accept those who call themselves prophets today. Their message seems to be constantly aimed at speaking out what great things we shall do in God’s name. The prophets I see, on the other hand, seem intent on pointing out what awful things we are constantly doing and how just God would surely be to simply wipe us from off the face of the earth. I am struck by a constant balance of message from the prophets: First an unflinching revealing of the true condition of their hearers and the enormity of their crimes against the Eternal and Almighty God; second, the absolute Justness and even necessity of God’s punishment of those crimes; but also, third, the unimaginable mercy and patience of God in even then holding out hope of a better outcome. That He still cries “Repent!” is the greatest and most magnificent display of His mercy. A lesser being would cry out, “Die, villain!”
New Thoughts (07/06/11-07/08/11)
I have already commented elsewhere on my choice in combining these two passages for consideration at one time. However, it might also seem odd to have them collected under the heading, ‘Jesus Teaches’, as my outline has done. In truth, Matthew’s account marks this clearly as belonging to the subsequent ‘Woe to the Pharisees’ heading, but following Luke’s account it is still prior to the first pronouncement of woe upon them. This being the case, I shall choose to look upon this as something of a transition point from the didactics of teaching to the proclamations of prophecy.
This sends me immediately into something of an unplanned aside. Jesus is, of course, Prophet, Priest and King. This is the unique privilege of Messiah, to satisfy simultaneously and eternally all three offices. In the events of this final week of ministry, we are seeing Jesus function in all three capacities. His entrance into Jerusalem was very specifically done to accent the Royal aspect of the King entering His freshly won capitol. In cleansing the Temple of the corruptions that filled its courts we see Him acting the Priest after a fashion, as He is more focused on service to God. We have also seen Him acting in the role of Teacher in His earlier interactions with these religious leaders. Now, however, He shifts very distinctly into the role of Prophet.
It is that distinct role which is tasked with delivering the hard word of the Lord unvarnished and unchanged. It is the constant message of the office of the prophet to call for repentance. From the earliest to the Last, every true prophet of God has relayed this call, and Jesus is surely no different. The call to repentance is necessarily of a bleak nature, for it is needful to lay out God’s case in clear and undeniable fashion if the prophet is to have any positive impact. The main thrust of this paragraph, I should note, comes as cross-pollination from my efforts with Jeremiah for our Sunday School class. That is a particularly hard book to be reading given the nature of our own day, but it must be read with the proper mindset. By this, I mean that the prophet of God never once set forth the clear danger of impending doom without simultaneously holding out the bright hope of a repentant future.
I was reminded of this even this morning, as Table Talk turns to Jeremiah 17:14 in pursuit of its own study of Ephesians. “Heal me, O Lord, and I will be healed. Save me and I will be saved, for Thou art my praise.” Thus Jeremiah cried even in the midst of his own weakness before the message he bore. That passage finds him at a distinct low point, discouraged and even fearful at the reaction he has witnessed, the threats to his own person because the word he brought was not one of hope and a future, at least not without the prerequisite repentance. The fact is, nobody particularly wants to hear about a need for change in themselves. They prefer words of affirmation, the hideous lie of “I’m OK, You’re OK”. We would like nothing better than to hear God telling us we can just continue on as we are and He’ll shower the blessings upon us anyway. It’s not going to happen, but even we who know and love God in earnest are inclined to wish it might. Change is hard. Changing in spite of our own proclivities is even harder. Faced with a choice of chocolate pudding or fresh radishes, just about anybody will choose the pudding, even if they are fully aware of it being the unwise choice, and potentially detrimental to their health.
So it is with the prophetic message, when that message is in truth. It is necessarily going to be unpleasant to hear because if it were not so, it would be unnecessary to say anything. If we were happily progressing just as we ought, we should need no immediate Word of God to warn us of the danger ahead. There would be no danger! It is only because we are forever going off course that we need that Word delivered, and delivered in no uncertain terms. If we are truly of the elect, rest assured that we will hear that Word and accept its implications, changing our ways. I don’t say it will happen immediately. No! There’s too much of the flesh still upon us, and we are as rankled by the call to repent as any other man. But, as the Spirit ministers this Truth to our spirit, we are brought face to face with our failures and inadequacies, and cannot but accept the need for change.
As Jesus pronounces this first woe upon the Pharisees, His message, too, is not without hope. He is not simply pronouncing irrevocable judgment, but offering the path to parole. If you would but deal with your inner self, all this outward stuff would no longer be of any concern to you. But, so long as you focus solely on the outward, solely on appearances, leaving the interior life to rot and fester, there can be no hope.
The parallels between what Jesus is pointing out in the Pharisees and what Jeremiah was pointing out to the leaders in his own time are clear. The details may have changed, but the underlying problem is the same. I’ll simply quote myself from elsewhere on this point. The charges are thus: “You have perverted the pure worship of God with your idolatries. You have gone after every manner of corrupt practice and yet have the audacity to come into God’s presence proclaiming your own holiness.” For Jeremiah, that idolatry was a very visible and visceral reality, and the audacity of those who practiced such things in coming to the altar of God was as well. With Jesus, the idolatries He combats in these Pharisees are not of the same nature. They have not carved images for themselves, but they have achieved the same end in their codified behaviors. This lies at the heart of His message to them: You have abandoned all that is truly holy to pursue your rituals, and all the heart is gone out of it. There is no value, then, in what you do, because what you do does not reflect who you are, but tries instead to hide that away!
God’s not interested in appearances. God’s interested in realities.
Indeed, these games of piety they have been playing have blinded them to their true and most piteous condition. And these are the self-proclaimed leaders of God’s people! They’re the experts, training the rest of the congregation as to how best to please God. Is it any wonder that God is so indignant? And yet, we see this magnificent display of God’s great mercy, in that He does not call down a fiery end upon them then and there, but continues to hold out hope in the call to repent. There can be little doubt that Jesus was as aware as was Jeremiah that the offered hope would not be taken. But, the offer is made nonetheless, and this redounds to God’s glory.
I must, however, point out that all these things that bore the Pharisees down toward their doom are issues that we ourselves must confront. We, too, have our substitutions. We are not inclined to face the impossible demands of righteousness. We may even allow the incredible gift of grace to serve as an idol for us. You will hear the phrase ‘cheap grace’ bandied about, that same idea that Paul so roundly condemned, that being as God has saved us, we may as well get on with life and not worry about it. This can be a particular danger for those of us who hold to Reformed thought on matters of election. If my terminus is guaranteed, why bother myself with the present? Why not just do as I please knowing God’s got my back? But, we dare not be so lax, dare not disdain the sacrifice made for our security by so lowly esteeming Him Who made that sacrifice! No, the thankful heart demands of us that we do our best to walk worthy of that election that has been handed to us.
Yet, I am sadly aware of my own failures. I am sadly aware of my own proclivity for appearances over realities. I would happily accept the appearance of a peaceful life however much strife and unhappiness was being carefully hidden from view to keep up those appearances. I would gladly have myself seen as far more advanced in the work of sanctification than I know myself to be. Transparency is hard. It’s even harder when one has the sense that one is the least of saints, lagging behind on the way, and surrounded by spiritual juggernauts. Of course, those juggernauts around us are quite likely feeling the exact same thing. But, we have been trained to look the part, and in doing so, we have made it that much harder for ourselves and our brethren to actually be the part. Blind fools! If our hearts are truly in it, then all this outward stuff would not require our focus. We wouldn’t have to worry about appearances because our true condition would be more than enough.
I notice that these studies of mine have become somewhat spiral like in their progress. I organize my thoughts, and I start down the path of the next point before my eyes. Yet, I find I have launched into subject matters that lay well ahead on that list, and must draw myself back to the point I thought to pursue. If that results in a somewhat rambling study, I shall apologize to any potential reader for that, but I must go where my God leads my thoughts. Perhaps I had the order of my points wrong and He is correcting. Perhaps some of these points are just too important to be left a single mention. Perhaps He simply wants to keep important matters to the fore when my proclivity is to chase after what are really little more than distracting technicalities.
Yet, I think I can afford some amount of such technical diversions. As I read through the sundry translations at my disposal, I find certain points where the translations seem to be all over the map. These things are like red flags waved before me, causing me to wonder at the variety. What is it about the passage that has led to such a confusion of interpretations? For instance, on this occasion there is the matter of how to understand the second half of Matthew 23:25. You will see this in the question I have asked in preparation, and in some of what I have been chasing down in the word studies. The text speaks of what they are inside. But, some few translations render this as what you are inside. So, I checked. They is correct, and the clear precedent of that pronoun is the cup and dish. You has been left to refer to the scribes and Pharisees. The accused are in the second person (Jesus being the first), and the illustrative objects are in the third.
The variation does not end with the question of second versus third person for that pronoun, though. When Jesus points out what these dishes are full of, there is seemingly no end to the terms chosen to translate His point. They are full of “violent behaviour and uncontrolled desire”, says the BBE. “The inside is full of what you have gotten by violence and selfishness”, says the GNT. And, perhaps reflecting more the changing nature of our own language than anything else, “They are full of rapine and incontinence”, offers the YLT. On that latter, my sense of the meaning for incontinence tends to jump straight to that physical malady common to old age. Yet, a quick check of Webster’s Dictionary indicates that this is not the primary meaning, but rather the term refers to unchastity, unrestrained sexual appetites.
I’m not sure which sense would prove the more shocking in this setting. The word itself, akrasias, seems more general in application, bespeaking a lack of self-control. Is robbery necessarily ‘violent behavior’ or ‘violence’? I suppose after a fashion it is, although we might not think of it in that sense in every application. Is there violence done if the thief has simply taken what was left unattended? I suppose so, but it’s not the way one tends to think of violent crime, is it? But, the point is clear regardless of the translational differences. Indeed, the particular bent given by the GNT is of benefit even if it does introduce a concept not clearly written into the original: “The inside is full of what you have gotten by…” It is clearly a matter of paraphrasing, of reading a point into the text at hand. But, the point seems quite accurate, does it not? If the inside of the dish is filled by such things, it is not by its own doing. Jesus is quite obviously speaking in a somewhat poetic fashion here. One cannot, after all, put theft in a bowl, or self-indulgence in a cup. They are immaterial in themselves. But, the spoils of such behavior are another thing altogether. So, yes, if cup and bowl are filthy in this fashion, it is not because they weren’t washed correctly. Nor is it something inherent to the foodstuffs put in there. We are not dealing with somebody having served non kosher food here. That’s no more to the point than is the ritual washing.
The point is how that food was obtained. The point is the inner lifestyle, the activities pursued when not under the public eye. What’s your private life look like? Because it is that private life that determines the value and validity of the public. And we have the Scriptural assurance that when the latter hides rather than reflects the former, we will be exposed. What was it Jesus was just telling His disciples? “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Mt 23:12). One of the key assets God has given us in this regard, perhaps the single most important means of confronting our own prideful delusions, is that of confessing one to another. Admit your weaknesses, get your sins out in the light of day. It’s going to happen anyway. But, as we can all learn by watching our politicians, it is far better that you do the exposing yourself, with an earnest and clear determination to change, than it is that you should find yourself exposed by others and left defending the indefensible.
What the Pharisees have done with these codified habits is to raise matters of mundane value to places of supposed spiritual import. In the specific case, the matter of hand washing was surely a necessity for good hygiene, as it continues to be considered today. If anything, it was more the case then, given the differences in dining methods. But, they had conflated this daily activity with the specific requirements placed upon the priests for their purity of service at temple. They had taken a dictum given to those serving in a specific and specifically holy office and presumed to apply that rule to a general activity of daily life.
It does not strike me as unthinkable that the mundane could be vested with a measure of holiness. However, it is not something to be accomplished by applying holy ritual to daily activity. It is something to be accomplished by approaching the daily with a firm eye toward the spiritual. It is going to be found in that which Scripture advises, that we do all things as unto the Lord. That’s something entirely different than doing daily activities with the same pomp and ceremony we might apply to specifically religious service. The outward forms are never of value in themselves, whether done in specifically religious service or in mundane pursuits. The inner life is ever and always the controlling factor, either investing the outward form with value or demarking the outward form as hypocrisy and deceit.
We are not immune to this issue by any stretch. The nearest example we might consider is that of foot washing. The image of Jesus stooped down and washing the feet of His disciples is both very familiar and very poignant. Such humility He showed! It only becomes more impressive as we come to understand the everyday nature of this action, and who would typically be doing it. Add to this that it is the King of all creation Who is thus bowed down in humble service, honoring His students in this fashion, and the picture is just that much more astounding.
So, what do we do with this amazing act? Well, there were those in the early church that took this to be a practice that ought to be institutionalized. Of course, having institutionalized and ritualized the practice, the real significance of it was soon lost. To quote a song from my youth, whose origins I have, I think, completely forgotten: “It is not enough. It is just a habit.” Gang of Four, if I recall correctly, whatever that bit of trivia may be worth. It speaks a truth, though. Ritual, habit, rote exercises; these things can impart no piety. Reciting the Lord’s Prayer, as common as that is in our churches, first and foremost would seem to utterly miss the point of Jesus having provided that as our example. Second, and to the greater danger for our souls, we swiftly forget what we are saying, simply reciting from memory, trying to keep time with everybody else, and fail to invest our words with any connection to heart or mind. Where is the value in that? Do we not put ourselves right back into the hypocrite’s seat?
For my own part, I find that a very difficult prayer to pray if I am praying it mindfully. Forgive me like I forgive? Would I really have it thus? Am I really so far along in my own sanctification that I would dare suggest such a thing to God Who answers? Thy will be done on earth (by me) as it is in heaven? Who am I kidding? I am far from that point of instant obedience, and in many cases, the thought of such unquestioning response to command is nearly anathema to me, let alone rather nerve-wracking in its implications. What if He asks this? Do I really want to commit myself to agree? Of course, an honest appraisal would lead me to recognize that my choices are more limited in that regard than I pretend. Yet, I also know from experience that He is willing to let me twist and resist if that’s my inclination. He’s going to win anyway. He can be patient. And, it’s helpful for my own growth to kick against those goads every now and then, if only to come to a deeper realization that all that kicking accomplishes less than nothing.
Set aside, then, matters of washing this or that appendage. We could look instead at our chosen method and timing of baptism. As to method, I think we must agree that the specifics of form have absolutely no meaning. I know those who, having taken a trip to Israel, felt it would be good to be baptized in the River Jordan. For my own part, I find that almost reprehensible. What, after all, is the point of baptism? It is the public acknowledgement of what has transpired inwardly. It is, per Paul’s description, a joining Christ in death and a rising into His resurrection. If, then, I have died once, can there really be any good cause for me to do so again? Are the waters of the Jordan somehow more powerful than, say, the waters of the Merrimack? Of course not! Neither has any power whatsoever. Either the inward reality is there, and the outward act is really but an obedience to instruction, or the outward act is devoid of value. That second baptism in the Jordan may have felt special, but it is of zero significance. It’s all feelings, in other words, and nothing of spirit.
Consider communion. This is probably the single most unifying constant of Christian faith in all its variety. Every denomination that counts itself Christian practices this rite in one form or another. Oh, we can certainly argue the details, and do with regularity. Indeed, it is in these details that we have defined certain of our denominational distinctions, although for most the specifics of the arguments have long since been lost in the dusts of time. But, whatever the form our communion takes, whether we drink wine or grape juice or cranberry, does drinking that cup have some magical power? Whether we break bits off of a common loaf of bread, opt for matzo, or have specially manufactured wafers, does chomping on that wheaten product impart some mystic benefit to ourselves? In a word, no! The power of communion is not in the components taken, but rather in the inward estate with which one comes to the process.
Considering the dire warnings the Apostles apply to those who come to this rite in an unworthy manner, one would think we might take greater care to ourselves! But, the reality is that those who see nothing more than a cup and a morsel in these things, those who, let us suppose, partake of the elements as atheists just seeking not to cause discomfort to those around them, I must suppose that neither positive nor negative effects accrue. Sometimes, the bread is just bread. The warning of the Apostle is intended for the believer, for the one who comes with inward knowledge of the inward significance of the act, and knowing, comes devoid of repentance, devoid of thought for what these things signify. To lay hold of this emblem of our Lord’s sacrifice for our sins while clinging tenaciously to those very sins as if they were our right: Therein lies the problem. Therein lies the curse. But, we do it.
In our own ways, with our own current practices, we are every bit as guilty as ever Israel was of doing just as we please, chasing after every false idol that presents itself to our consideration, and then coming into God’s house and professing fealty to Him alone. We are lying liars and we know it full well. Yet, we are so damnably delusional that we think we can fool God All-Knowing! How incredibly stupid can we be? We ought to be shocked by our own insolence. We ought to be brought entirely low by our inability to act with even that much thought toward self-preservation. We, who have the benefit of history, the benefit of having the record of Scripture written for our edification, the clear example of God’s finite patience with such garbage thrown in His face, should be of all people determined not to make the same mistakes. And, we ought to be of all people the most thoroughly despising of ourselves in the realization that we not only continue to make the same mistakes, but fail to even care about it.
We are still inclined to make our own little rituals. Never mind the real and established rites of the church. Even these, as I have noted, have no value apart from reflecting our inner estate. But, we all have our own personal body of pious prescriptions. We each have our own personal Mishna, perhaps not written down anywhere, but every bit as binding in our thinking, and every bit as stupid. I have referred to such things over the years as The Codex of Mediocrity, or The Codex of the Achievable. We have seen the Law as expounded by our Lord, and we have seen that it is unattainable, beyond our power to comply. So, what do we do? Do we allow ourselves to be driven to our knees, humbled by our weakness, and drawn more desperately towards our Savior? Or, do we instead come up with rules of our own, rules that look similar to that Law, but stay in the range of our capacity? Do we define down righteousness until it fits our filthy example? I suspect that, if any man is honest in his assessment, he will find that this is exactly what happens.
For all that we long to be like our Christ, we are so weak of flesh and so weak of mind that we have this felt need to succeed. We are a driven people, particularly we of the West. We are driven to succeed. Success, indeed, is our worst idolatry. And, that need to succeed is, of course, just pride in another guise. We compete in games. We compete in the workplace. And, when we come into the house of the Lord, is it any surprise to discover that we still compete? We compete for piety, as if there is any place for such things! We may not compete with others, but we most assuredly compete with our own self image. We want to be winners. We can wrap that up in terms of wanting to make Papa proud, but that changes nothing. How can Papa be proud when it remains irrefutable fact that all our righteousness is as filthy rags? And we want to hear His blessing on this? Madness!
We have got to take to heart what Jesus is saying to these Pharisees. We have to stop hearing it as a message for them and hear it as a message for us. We have got to get it through our thick skulls that we are the Pharisees. “First clean the inside.” All this outward stuff is worthless and worse than worthless in that it convinces us that the inside is in good shape. We have to focus in the inside, for only then will the outside ever reflect anything like the reality we want to believe in.
With that, I turn to the concluding point from Luke’s coverage of this message, for it puts a slightly different emphasis on the issue. In truth, that conclusion points to another bit of hypocrisy, quite apart from this washing stuff. Before I get there, though, I will just note that here, again, we run into some ambiguous translational issues. There is a minority of translations, particularly the KJV and NKJV that present this passage as, “give alms of such things as you have” [NKJV] or “that which remaineth” [D-R]. I cannot find grounds for such an understanding. There does not appear to be any debate as to the actual word Luke has written down here. It’s not a case, then, of conflicting manuscripts, so far as I can tell. Yet, the Greek term, esoothen, seems clear enough: That which is within.
The point of Jesus’ words here is that the act of giving, or the material given is of no more spiritual benefit than the washing of hands and dishes. It’s nice and all, certainly it helps the one who receives those goods, assuming they are actually goods and not just trash being disposed of. But, there is no pious value to the action unless the heart has motivated the action. If it’s done for appearance’ sake, then the thank you received from the recipient of your generosity is the sum total of your reward. Likewise the tithe: If it’s given as some means of boasting, or given as a matter of necessity or obligation, all the value has gone out of it. The physical plant of church operations will still benefit from your donation, to be sure, but nothing accrues to your own account thereby. God loves a cheerful giver (2Co 9:7). Why is that? It is because the giver cannot be cheerful except he is giving as his own heart, his own love and compassion, direct him.
Religion, in our day, has developed something of a bad name. Many churches decry the very concept of religion. Religion is seen as a dead thing, worse even than slavish adherence to Mosaic Law. But, to say this is to misspeak. Scripture, after all, promotes religion as a good thing, and we can hardly suppose ourselves to be doing well by opposing Scripture, can we? I would note that the actual term religion arises only five times in all of Scripture. They refer to the body of practices, whether of the Jewish faith, the Christian faith, or false faith, take your pick. But, James has the last word on the subject, and it is used to correct any misconceptions we might have on that body of practice. “This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (Jas 1:27).
Here again, the act is not the point, although the act reflects obedience to the Word and character of God. There is no place for heartless religion, not even here. That visiting is perhaps more personal than the rather anonymous act of giving alms, but the value is the same in either case. If the act is pursued as merely a matter of compliance, or merely a desire to be seen as doing pious deeds, then the act is just so much vanity and wind.
This is the point that Jesus is making regarding the Pharisaic approach to alms. It’s another aspect of that “Don’t you be like that” lesson He has been giving to His own simultaneous with delivering these woes to the Pharisees. The Pharisaic woes are a New Testament form of “Thou shalt not”. It’s not the act that is rejected, though, it’s the emptiness, the falsity, the lack of personal investment in the action. All of these outward signs are the same. Unless the sign truly reflects the inner reality, it is a lie. It’s like any of those cartoon villains, pointing the “This Way” sign in the wrong direction. It’s an attempt to deflect, to turn the attention elsewhere whilst we go on with our nefarious deeds.
First make the inside clean. First get in tune with the heart of Christ. Until and unless the inside is properly aligned, the outward acts are nothing. This is not to say that we ought not to act at all until our interior world is perfectly Christ-like. God forbid! We should never act at all if that were the case, nor would the Apostles have done a thing. The Church would never have been established were this the mindset. No, we continue to act and to do, and to the best of our abilities, we seek to do so from as pure motives as such as we can manage. But, we act, if we be true to the Gospels, without any sense of earning the least bit of standing by thus acting. We act with a clear sense of our inadequacy to the task, of our utter unworthiness to be used in even so small a fashion. Yet, we act because we see the need, because we appreciate that which has been done for us, and our hearts break for those who have not received the blessings that we have received. We try, as best we may, to allow our hearts to break over those things that break the heart of God, and thus broken, we find ourselves moved to help as best we may, even as we see our Christ and Savior doing consistently.
Outward acts can never cleanse our lives. Yet, as our lives are cleansed, we become the more inclined to such outward acts as befit the inner work that God has accomplished. It is impossible that we should know the cleansing work of Christ in ourselves and not be moved to serve as His hands and feet in this world of ours. The nature of our service will vary from person to person, as God makes each of us to serve Him in our own unique fashion, but service there will be, else God has not been in it.
