You Were There (08/18/11)
I am trying to picture the scene, here, and doing so requires a certain amount of reading between the lines, filling in the details Luke leaves out. The order of the text, and the way this new event is introduced lead me to believe that there is a continuity between the dinner He just left with such turmoil and the gathering crowds now being discussed. That’s easy to imagine, isn’t it? Here is a rather famous Man at the house of a man well known to the community. Everybody would know that Jesus had gone here for dinner. And now, dinner at an end (and did it end rather sooner than usual?), this brouhaha has boiled over into the streets.
The noise of these Pharisees and scribes harassing Jesus with their myriad questions would surely attract attention. Anybody passing by, or waiting around for Jesus to leave the meal, would recognize that this was no friendly conversation. This was angry. It had moved beyond debating the fine points of theology to antagonism. Something had clearly happened at dinner that was quite at odds with the host’s plans. Word would spread swiftly. I think of that familiar scene of a fight in the schoolyard. Everybody comes running to watch. That same sort of dynamic seems to be happening here. There’s a fight, even if it doesn’t involve fisticuffs, and everybody’s running over to enjoy the entertainment.
I’m trying to establish the setting for this scene, and the nearest point of reference I find is mention of that earlier dinner with Mary and Martha (Lk 10:38-42). After that, it is said that He was ‘praying at a certain place’ when the disciples came asking how to pray (Lk 11:1). Then, we are told that he was invited to lunch with this Pharisee (Lk 11:37), and that’s where the fireworks began. It seems unlikely that all of this was out at Bethany, where Mary and Martha lived. But, we know Bethany was not terribly far from Jerusalem. After all, it was from near that place, in Bethpage, that Jesus began His triumphal entry. So, I am inclined to think that the certain place where He had been praying was either out in Gethsemene, which seems to have been a favorite location for Him, or in Jerusalem itself. The lunch was quite probably in that city, so it is onto the city streets that these men have spilled in their confrontation.
Picture that, then. Here is this milling multitude of onlookers, numbering in the thousands, all pouring into the narrow streets of Jerusalem, all jockeying for position, trying to get closer so they can witness the cause of all this excitement. The disciples are nearest, either because they were at lunch with Jesus and the Pharisees, or because they’ve been waiting outside for the return of their Teacher, so as Jesus turns His attention from the Pharisees to them, they are best positioned to hear His words.
This, too, is something of an affront to those self-important Pharisees. They are demanding His attention, but He is pretty much blowing them off to talk instead to His own. They are dismissed. Can you imagine! These are men who felt themselves important. They are the big shots around town, and Jesus is just this country hack, so far as they’re concerned. He is a novelty, an amusement, and yes, an annoyance. But, to their thinking, He’s annoying rather like a gnat is annoying. He shall be swatted. But, in the meantime, they expect the respect they suppose is due their station in life. And instead, He is acting like He has the royal prerogative. Of course, He does have exactly that, but not in their opinion.
My, my, my! If His words for them at dinner hadn’t sealed their animosity towards Him, this assuredly did the trick!
New Thoughts (08/19/11-08/20/11)
When Luke says Jesus spoke to the disciples first, it is not a matter of temporal order that is in view. It is not that Jesus first addressed the disciples, as if they were in some private place, and only later began to address the crowd. Rather, I would take prooton in the sense of primarily or, as Kittel offers, ‘in the first instance’. Given the setting, what this says to me is that Jesus is not speaking with the intent of being heard at the farthest edges of the crowd. He is not shouting out His message. He is speaking in a relatively conversational voice, evincing a calm all the more striking for the setting.
Think about what’s been happening. Think about that angry, pestering cloud of Pharisees that has surrounded Him as He left lunch. There’s a reason why so many thousands have gathered, as it were, of an instant, and it’s not solely because Jesus is such a cool guy. It’s the noise of controversy, the attracting effect a fight has on people, even if that fight is only verbal. There’s anticipation. There’s curiosity. If nothing else, this is a break from the dull ordinariness of life. But, Jesus isn’t speaking to overwhelm the noise of the Pharisees. He’s not turning to the masses to drum up support for His position. He is calmly addressing His own.
I should note that the phrasing also makes it clear that Jesus is not, as His words describe it, speaking in the ears of His disciples. His words are primarily addressed to them, it is true. But, they are not imparted in such a fashion as would seek for others not to hear. It rather gives evidence for the truth of what Jesus later pointed out to His accusers at court. “I have spoken openly to the world. I always taught in synagogue or temple, where all come together. I spoke nothing in secret” (Jn 18:20). That certainly applies in this case. He is not speaking behind the backs of these Pharisees, but has indeed been laying out the situation in their faces. And the warning He now gives His disciples is given with the Pharisees still very much present and able to hear. Their hearing His message now, though, is not His purpose. The message is no longer for them, but for His own. Yet, He will deliver it with an opportunity for all who have ears to hear.
Herein, I should note, is a model for our own lives, particularly for those who preach. The charge is often leveled against the Reformed perspective on salvation, and most particularly about predestination, that if God has already determined who will or won’t be saved, then there’s no point in preaching or evangelizing. It’s already settled. Never mind that to fail in these pursuits would be direct disobedience to the very God we claim to serve. It is also against His own model. We have, of course, the example of sun and rain which, as Scripture points out, He causes to come to all mankind, not only His chosen. We also have the example of Jesus, as in this instance, who teaches His own, but not to exclusion. The seed of the Word is indeed cast abroad without consideration of the soil, even as His parable had taught on another occasion (Mt 13:1-9). Thus, His repeated invitation at the end of each lesson: “He who has ears, let him hear.”
That is the very role the church is intended to have in the world. We are not to restrict our preaching to ourselves. We are not to keep Jesus to ourselves. Personal faith is wonderful, and most necessary. But, a faith that remains strictly personal must, in the end, be no faith at all. If, then, we would be true to the way of the Master, we must be at least as outward in our focus as inward. Our service of worship will necessarily remain a matter primarily for the saints. But, it cannot be exclusively so. And, if we are satisfied in our salvation, giving no thought for the lost and dying around us, this is likewise a great violation of that which we say we hold dear. It is, in a word, hypocrisy.
I have to say that this particularly line of thought was not what I had expected to consider here. It is only as I considered the example set by Jesus in this instance that the application came to mind, and coming to mind, insisted on making its way to the page. I daren’t leave the topic as something for others, for I am no preacher, even if I occasionally teach. There’s a distinction between the two. Yet, this does not let me off the hook, so far as it concerns the outward focus. I can come up with all manner of excuses for myself, as to why I have no opportunity to evangelize. Of course, it’s all stuff and nonsense, and I fool no one, least of all myself. The fact of the matter is, I’m just not comfortable with that role, which is no excuse at all. There is no excuse at all.
Let me put this rather bluntly, so that maybe even I can hear the point I’m making. When we fail to reach out to the lost, when we allow ourselves to keep faith private, and to sit in the happy comfort of our own salvation, it’s really an expression of greed, and there is no place in God’s kingdom for greed. Alternately, given our recent focus on the Law, it is also theft. By withholding news of the kingdom from our neighbor, our coworker, or whoever else may cross our path, we are robbing of the opportunity for Life! What theft could possibly exceed that in value? How nearly does this even border upon breaching the commandment against murder? After all, if murder is the taking of life, is it not likewise taking life to withhold it? Oh, yes. Yes, it is.
That parable of the sower that I mentioned: Bear in mind the fundamental point Jesus made there. The sower is not to concern himself with the condition of the soil. Throw the seed anywhere. I am not responsible for the response, only for the delivery of the message. But, fragile ego and an inflated sense of self causes me to be so concerned about what is almost assured to be a negative response that I don’t care to speak at all. I’d rather the safety of the classroom at church, where I can be certain that most to whom I speak will appreciate what I have to say, or at least keep their rejection out of sight. So much more comfortable, that.
Father, these things, which I am forced to confess are my native state, are unbecoming in a child of Yours. I ask, first and foremost, for Your forgiveness of my failures, coming to You in the name of Your Son Jesus. Yet, it is not enough for me that I have admitted my error. I need to commit to change, and I find that the strength to ensure that this is more than just empty words on a page is not within me. Come, then, my Strength, and grant that I might look upon the world around me with Your eyes and Your concern. Grant that my love for You might yet overflow to touch upon those around me, whether they are receptive or not. Grant that I might set aside this concern for self image and instead become consumed by concern for Your creation, for these blighted souls that ought to better reflect Your image. Let me, in short, be such as You created me to be.
What is it that prompted this particular line of thought in Jesus? Clearly, that confrontation over lunch has instigated what followed, but that’s not really what I’m after. Jesus could have responded to the Pharisaic irritant in a number of ways. Even if we restrict it to those responses that result in Him using this as a teachable moment for His disciples, there are any number of messages He might have delivered to them. But, He has settled on this message about hypocrisy. That in itself is not surprising, for it has been a primary feature of His issue with the Pharisees. But, He then goes to an oft repeated point of His, to do with things hidden being revealed, and the secret, private conversations being made public. It should be noted that He has used this general phrasing in both positive and negative ways.
Here, it seems clear enough that the intended meaning is negative. The secrets of the hypocrite will not remain secret. Fine. But, why this message and why now? What I believe explains the choice is that it is exactly what He has caused to happen. I commented in the previous study (Lk 11:53-54), that Jesus was being very intentional in stirring up the reaction He got from the Pharisees. Honestly, you can’t deliver the sorts of rebukes He was laying down without expecting a reaction – especially when these things are said to your very host! That being the case, the fact that their verbal altercations have spilled out onto the streets and attracted this swelling crowd of observers is likewise entirely according to plan.
In other words, He is doing with these Pharisees exactly what He is telling His disciples is certain to happen. He is making their secret behaviors, their private lives, visible and apparent to all. Going in to this luncheon, all had seemed polite and honorary. Look how well they’re treating Jesus! Why, they’re accepting Him almost as if He were one of their own. Given the history, I think it’s reasonably safe to say that this was not the host’s true intention. Indeed, it may very well be that the whole purpose of the meal was to get Jesus to relax His guard a bit so that He might make a mistake by which they might hang Him. But, He has turned the tables on any such plan even as He turned the tables in the court of the Gentiles. And, in doing so, He has stirred up their thinly veiled animosity to such a point that it will not remain veiled. The daggers are out, and as He leaves dinner with that vociferously angry cloud of Pharisees milling about Him, all these myriad witnesses are being granted a view of the real life and character of the Pharisee.
I could envision that as Jesus imparts these words to His disciples, He is taking in the still present Pharisees with a sweep of His arm. And, of course, the fact that this was spoken primarily for the benefit of His own serves to contrast His behavior with that of His opposition. For, while He is speaking primarily to them, He is doing so publicly. All who are gathered and within the reach of His voice are hearing the very same things He is saying to His own. There is no whispering in the ear on His part. There is no inner room, invitation only aspect to what He has just been doing and saying. Yes, there are those occasions where the disciples were granted a more complete explanation and instruction. I’m not saying this is as a universal statement regarding His ministry. But, on this occasion, it holds, and it also holds for the majority of His labors.
With that, I want to turn to the imagery of leaven by which He imparts His message. This, too, is a common device, and not only in His teaching. It is something that had long since been incorporated into the significance of the Passover meal. Why the unleavened bread? Well, that was a symbol of the haste and preparedness required on that first Passover eave. It is bread eaten in haste. There is no time to allow the bread to rise. There is an urgency to following God. But, as traditions developed, there was also that hunt instituted, almost a game. We must ensure that there is no leaven anywhere in the house. We must scour and search out every nook and cranny to make certain it has all been thoroughly removed. Why is that? It is because leaven had become a symbol for sin. And, why is that? It is because of the invasive nature of leaven.
Over and over again we encounter this point in Scripture. “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (Gal 5:9). What is the point made? If you leave just a little sin in your life, it will spread again. It will infiltrate every corner of your life until the whole of your life is filled up with sin. Indeed, left unattended, it will infiltrate not only your life, but those lives you are in contact with. Consider the corruption of a leader in the church. The laxness that develops in that leader cannot but spread to those he leads. There is a reason our enemy seeks to bring down those who have a following in the Church. It is because their fall is likely to take down a goodly population along with them. Leaven spreads, and it’s spread, as much as we may enjoy the effect on our bread, is really a spread of corruption and death. It’s a fermenting process, which amounts to the same thing. This, too, is highly symbolic of the nature of sin.
Jesus has applied this image, with all its well understood connotations, to the scribes and Pharisees before. On that occasion, I would note, the message was indeed a very private message (Mt 16:6-12), delivered to His disciples in a boat in the midst of the Sea of Galilee. Not much chance of being overheard on that occasion. This was, I should think, an act of mercy on His part. He did not make this a part of His general ministry message. It was a specific point being made to His closest students, and one that they frankly seem to have thoroughly misunderstood even when they thought they had finally grasped His meaning. Recall that their first thought on that occasion was that He was reprimanding them for neglecting to bring food with them for the journey. Then, they shift to perceiving that He is talking about the teaching of the Pharisees. Perhaps that is a part of the point, but it strikes me that with His words on this occasion, He has made His original point clear: that the leaven of the Pharisees is not their teaching so much as it is their hypocrisy.
And, now we arrive at a critical point to lay hold of. Hypocrisy, like leaven, is invasive. This is the great problem with it. It won’t stop with “putting on a public face.” Here, the NET comments, “The pursuit of popularity can lead to hypocrisy, if one is not careful.” I wonder if the cart and horse are not reversed here, or if perhaps one is but a symptom of the other. Is it possible to pursue popularity with good motive? I suppose that may depend in part on what we include as being pursuit of popularity. Is a candidate for office seeking popularity in seeking your vote? After a fashion, I suppose he is. But, somehow I tend to measure that a bit differently. Is your pastor seeking after popularity in seeking to preach messages that will be of value to you? I should hope not! There is nothing more deadly than a popularity-seeking pastor. Yet, there is no crime in the pastor being popular with his people. In many denominations, it’s something of a matter of survival for him. But, this must not deter him from preaching hard truths when hard truths are called for.
Given the imagery Jesus has chosen, I have to suppose that if there is popularity seeking in view at all, it is in view as a symptom of hypocrisy, not a cause. It is the hypocrisy which is invasive, which corrupts even what used to be whole. It is the hypocrisy that allows us to develop a higher opinion of ourselves than is warranted. It is hypocrisy that allows pride to rise up, allows boasting to become our habit when humility is the only reasonable choice.
What is hypocrisy? At root, it’s play acting. The actual origin of the term goes back to the actor on the stage, attempting to convincingly portray somebody he is not. Bear in mind that for the greater part of history, all actors were men, even when the characters portrayed were women. To pull this off, one must be convincing indeed! Yet, what is perhaps laudatory on the stage is reprehensible in real life. If we go about our days pretending to be what we are not, who we are not, there has to be a reason for that, doesn’t there? It must mean that there is something about the real person that we know is wrong, unacceptable, or at least less than ideal. So, we put on airs. And, what is our general perception of those who put on airs? If it is said of somebody that they have done so, is it not said as an insult? I dare say it is.
Now, there is this that can be said of leaven as well. The effects of leaven on the dough cannot long be hidden. At first, it might well be impossible to determine whether that dough is leavened or not, but let it sit for awhile, and the question will answer itself. What was in secret will assuredly become manifestly obvious. This, too, is a very intentional part of the image Jesus is using, as becomes clear in His explanation. It will come to light. True character will out.
The great trouble with the leaven of hypocrisy is that we begin to believe our own hype. We become convinced that we truly are as wonderful as we portray ourselves to be. No, no. I’m not beset by those sins common to man. Yes, I understand that other guys have trouble keeping their eyes in their heads, but not me. I would never think such thoughts! Except, of course, that I would, and denying it only increases the risk.
Listen! It is the nature of the hypocrite to hide away every shortcoming and keep it out of sight. It is our nature. Don’t let that escape you. It is our nature, and I don’t apply that as something unique to the church membership. It’s a matter of human membership. The problem is that as we struggle to keep these things out of sight of others we tend to lose sight of them ourselves. Because we lose sight of them, they are able to fester and ferment and arrive at something so full fledged and uncontrollable as will destroy us.
Now, this is something entirely different than the fact that we seek to practice the ideal of faith even though we know ourselves to be constantly falling short of the ideal. There’s a huge difference. That I find myself constantly caught short during these studies, constantly confronting my own moral failings does not necessarily reveal hypocrisy. Let me attempt a distinction here, and I’m sure God will correct me if I am but excusing myself. I don’t at present believe I am. The hypocrite seeks to mislead, seeks to appear better than he truly is that others may not notice the real man behind the mask. The believer, though he often finds himself at odds with what he tends to portray, puts himself forward as near to the Scriptural ideal as he may, but not with any thought for hiding his true estate, rather because he hopes by practice to arrive at this as his true estate. He is working towards a goal, not trying to hide a reality.
There is great cause, then, for the call for us to confess one to another. It is there to provide is with a system of checks and balances. It is to aid us in ensuring that we are indeed seeking to progress towards the ideal and not merely to cover over our favorite failings.
The Christian life is indeed a high calling, an impossible calling, or as near to as makes no difference. Just look at the standard that is laid down here. As the Message offers up verse 3: “You can't whisper one thing in private and preach the opposite in public.” One can hear the echo of many a cliché in that. You can’t be of the sort that tells everybody to, “do as I say, not as I do.” There’s no place for that in the life of the church. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. I’m saying it’s in violation of all that is good and holy. Or, you might hear the old adage, “actions speak louder than words.” I suspect we’ll be hearing that a lot as election season heats up. (Does it ever cool down anymore?) We know these sayings because there’s great truth to them. Actions will out what our words seek to hide. Our tongues will betray our inner estate given enough time. We are no more capable of keeping that mask in place perpetually than we are of practicing perfect righteousness perpetually. Both are equally impossible to us, and thank God for it!
So, here is the ideal that has been laid out: The believer is not permitted a public persona at odds with the private. We are called to be a people so utterly transparent as to have no secrets from anybody. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine such a thing working. I cannot imagine a marriage in which husband and wife have absolutely no secrets from one another. There are things that quite frankly I don’t believe she ought to know. I’m not saying that this fits the ideal, the standard that God has set out. But, it seems to me to be a necessity of fallen nature that we set bounds on this transparency thing. I note that Scripture calls us to confess to one another, but it does not arrive at the point of suggesting we ought to confess everything to everybody all the time. Society would unravel, were that to be the case!
Have I simply ingested too much from old sci-fi explorations? It seems to me there have been any number of tales written considering what it would be like to live in a society where every thought was broadcast. Never mind the pure cacophony aspect. How long could civil society persist if our true thoughts were perpetually out there and available for all to hear?
You know, we are already getting somewhat of a taste of how that works out with the advent of ‘social media’. Can I just say that I think it would be more apt to label it as anti-social media? What has been the impact? We could look at the fact that people spend more time socializing with their computers than with actual people. And, believe me, I’m as guilty as anybody on this front even without the social media aspect. There is also the fact that we seem inclined to publish to the internet things we would not dream of telling somebody face to face! We treat this incredibly public forum, and one with a particularly strong memory, as if it were a private phone call. We are constantly seeing kids posting pictures of themselves, writing things to their peers, that they could not possibly wish for their family to be aware of. Yet, it’s all but impossible that their family will not stumble upon those things anyway. We have people ‘speaking their minds’ to such a degree as renders them utterly unemployable, because employers have caught on. They can do a pretty good psychiatric screening, if you will, by simply scanning the public record we have created in this illusion of privacy.
How’s that all working out? We’ve got kids committing suicide because they’ve been forced to confront what used to be the secret whispers of other kids. They can’t escape it. Every negative comment is out there for all to see, and to echo and amplify lest they find themselves the next target. The whole thing becomes a huge feedback system as each person, seeking to preserve their own skin, finds other targets to deflect attention to. The results are inevitable. We may not be telepathic, but we’ve achieve a pretty near equivalence.
The sad part is that the us we expose on the internet is just as hypocritical as that which we despise. It’s just hypocritical in the opposite direction. Instead of seeking to appear better than we are, we allow ourselves to project as worse than we are. Or maybe that is the real us unleashed. If it is, then the measure of God’s mercy in allowing humanity to persist is just that much greater. I prefer to maintain a shred of hope for humanity, that were we restored to true community and society we would recall the art of a civil tongue, that we would seek to improve ourselves rather than degrade ourselves.
What we are seeing, I think, is another leaven that Scripture speaks of, the leaven of malice and wickedness (1Co 5:8). It’s there in all of us. We who have come to Christ at His calling are no exception. If there be any distinction to be made, it is that we have been made aware of that leaven and set to the task of cleaning it out as best we can. Rather than leaving it to ferment and corrupt, we seek to expose it and dispose of it. Oh, there’s still plenty of it there, believe me. Again, I would stress that the presence of sin in the believer does not, as is so often said, evidence of hypocrisy in the believer, only of humanity. The hypocrisy lies with those who claim there is no sin in them or, as happens so often, that there is no sin to begin with. If nothing is sinful, there can be no sinner. Problem solved, right? No. Hypocrisy rampant. That is all. That mindset will shatter entirely if once another’s sin encroaches. Steal that claimant’s life savings and see if they still hold that nothing is sinful. Burn down their house before their eyes and see if they find no sin in your actions.
I return to our challenge. Our challenge is to be so utterly transparent as to have no secrets, so thoroughly consistent that our private practice and our public persona are utterly indistinguishable. Let’s start with this much: Our public persona in church on Sunday ought surely to match our persona at work on Monday. It’s a start. Are you willing to shout out, “praise God!” on Sunday? Then you ought to be just as ready and willing to do so when something goes well at work. You ought to be just as happy to shout it out when you come across a bargain at the store. This is a test. It is only the first, and easiest test. You’ve doubtless heard it phrased in questions like, “if somebody interviewed your coworkers, would they find out you are a Christian?” Alternately, we might ask if our coworkers can perceive anything at all different about us, and if so, whether it is something positive.
I can recall certain coworkers in my past who made blatant display of their Christianity, making sure there were appropriate trinkets on the walls of their cubicles or what have you. But, come the internet and these same exemplars were spending the bulk of the workday cruising Christian websites rather than working. And, somehow, they convinced themselves this was justified and acceptable because it was putting Christ first! The true case is as Paul wrote. “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Ro 2:24). May I never come to hear such words said of me! I am inclined to say it would be better they never knew I was a Christian than that this be the impression I left, but really, I am not left room for such a choice. Either way is to fail Christ. What remains is to be the best Christian I can be. What remains is to represent Christ as best I am able and to do so publicly. In short, what remains is to live the same life in public that I do in private, and to seek that in both cases, I am living as near the ideal of Christian standards as I am able.
Lord, I pray You will strengthen me in this very thing, that I might strive to be truly a man of integrity, a man who is the same in the public eye as in private, who is consistent in how he acts towards his family, how he acts towards his fellow believers and how he acts towards unbelievers. I pray, that this be a case of seeking to be my best before all men, knowing I represent You whether I do so intentionally or to my shame. Let it be that I, by Your strength and power, am able to represent You well.
