#17 Parable of the Pharisee & the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14)
Main Message: Justification is not found in law
Jesus told parables to teach a subversive wisdom versus conventional thinking. He told parables to reveal the true nature of the Kingdom of God
As the Christian tradition has evolved, this story is perceived as one that teaches humility over religious arrogance. Primarily because of Jesus’ statement in verse 14b, “…for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” While this phrase is certainly believed to be genuinely from Jesus, many scholars do not think that he actually uttered those words in association with this parable. Many believe it was later added by the author as a commentary on the story to teach humility over pride, a conclusion that would greatly discount the first century context. When considering context and Jesus’ own example, we find a different direction for interpretation.
To Jesus’ listeners, the Pharisee’s words would not have been considered pompous, but rather a sincere thanks to God for providing such guidance. Such prayers were not considered pretentious and were quite common. In fact, one of the prayers uttered daily by Jewish males was:
“Praised, that he did not make me a heathen; for all the heathen are as nothing before him; praised be he, that he did not make me a woman, for woman is not under obligation to fulfill the law; praised be he that he did not make me…an uneducated man; for the uneducated man is not cautious to avoid sins.”19
Within our cultural context these words would be quite haughty, even scandalous, just as the Pharisee’s prayer would be equally pompous today. However, within first century Jewish context, such a prayer would be uttered with sincere thanks and been perceived in a similar frame. Therefore, when listening to the Pharisee’s words in Jesus’ parable, his audience would not have thought, “What an arrogant, self-righteous jerk!” More likely, they would have thought, “What a tremendous servant of God!”
The Pharisee prayed, “God, I thank you that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.”
The Pharisee in Jesus’ story had not only adhered to the Law, but, indeed, went beyond those expectations. While the Law called for all Jews to fast one day each year for repentance, this Pharisee fasted twice weekly—atoning for the sins of others. By tithing all that he possessed, the Pharisee also extended beyond the limits of the law.20 With the Purity System being such a pervasive component of Jewish culture, first century listeners would have been impressed with this display. Just as a 21st century Baptist audience would admire the following words from their preacher: “I don’t drink. I don’t do drugs. I go to church three times a week. I am a faithful husband and father; and, I am fair in my business practices. Thank you that I am not like gays, adulterers, and criminals, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.” Such words, even though considered by many to be pompous and even wrong, would most likely sincerely connect with a Baptist audience, just as, by standards of Mosaic Law, the Pharisee in Jesus’ parable would have been considered, indeed, a man after God’s heart.
Meanwhile, the tax collector is on the opposite end of the spectrum. Tax collectors were commissioned by Rome to gather tax money (often extorting a larger sum than was actually due) from their Jewish brothers. Put simply, they were “sell-outs” whose very existence was abhorrent to the Jews.
“And the tax collector standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” (verse 13)
This completes the foundation of Jesus’ illustration: on one side is the Pharisee, the keeper of the law to and beyond its fullest extent, while on the other end is a man whose very existence is synonymous with contempt. Notice that the tax collector does not mention any specific sin. To Jesus’ listeners, he did not need to; rather, his very being was held with great hatred in their eyes.
Next, Jesus presents the subversive twist: “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other.” (Verse 14a) It was an outrageous thought: the despised and evil tax collector is more justified in God’s eyes than the Pharisee who administers to the law beyond its necessity. In other words, Jesus is saying, “…if you think adhering to the numerous aspects of the law is what it’s all about, you’re wrong.”
Note that the word “justified” to Jesus’ audience would not have meant “forgiven” as commonly denoted. Forgiveness was obtained through temple sacrifice rather than public prayer. The word “justified” later emerged in connection to forgiveness with Paul’s teaching. The word’s association was different prior to that timeframe. With this in mind, Jesus is not teaching that humility bests self-righteousness. Rather, “justified” to Jesus’ listeners would have meant the same as a great king looking at one subject with ultimate approval while another was looked on with dissatisfaction; a final verdict confirming a person’s righteousness.21
Therefore, in one subversive stroke, in this final verdict, Jesus has leveled the playing field and the repentant tax collector is justified. After all, is a sinful man incapable of being made right with God? Are we not all sinful beings? And, does God not forgive sins? If not, then the very existence of each of us should be held with great disapproval. But, God does forgive sins. It is mankind who does not forgive sins. It is mankind that continually holds the sinner with contempt even after he or she achieves rightness with God. Is the position of a sinner, even the worst example of a sinner, not the very position in which we all stand? Thus, the playing field has been leveled. Because to Jesus, righteousness was not obtained through adherence to the Purity System, but rather through relationship with God and the compassion that it spawns. After all, Jesus is not saying that we conveniently rely on God’s grace for our own shortcomings, while our brother is left to fend for himself and subjected to some other due process. Not at all, Jesus relies on God’s grace for all, living in connection with those around him versus the alternative. The alternative was found two thousand years ago as well as today. Today, we still construct divisive walls between people deemed unworthy because of this “righteousness by law” mentality. Such a philosophy does not uphold a brother, now or then, but rather merely leaves our brothers as estranged outcasts for God to deal with.
Within Jesus’ ideology, all of mankind relies on the grace of God. All of mankind fights alongside their brother to support, love and care for him and her. Gone is the idea that the disdainful sinner should be scorned and ignored because he doesn’t measure up. Alive is Jesus’ idea that we are each that sinner. In Jesus’ reality, all were equal and life could be lived in loving connection with our brothers and sisters rather than in separation from them. Quite simply, justification, or divine approval, was not obtained through law. This philosophy was one reason that Jesus was criticized for eating with “tax collectors and sinners” in Mark 2. He applied this teaching to his own life and embraced all—even those deemed unhealthy in the comparative world of the Purity System. In this parable, Jesus invites his listeners to do the same as ultimate righteousness was not found in adherence to the minutest aspects of the law, but rather in humble relationship and the compassion that it generates.
This is what I believe the Parable of the Pharisee and tax collector would have meant to Jesus’ first century spectators. The “righteousness through law” mentality was simply not effectively serving the realization of the Kingdom of God. Rather, it was separating people from a connection to God, while building thick walls between brothers themselves. This is why Jesus used a tax collector in the parable, because this character’s very existence was despised while he was ostracized by others. In other words, if the worst of the worse in the world of conventional wisdom, the loathsome tax collector, was justified, then we all are—not by merits of the Purity System, or religious law, but rather by reaching out in relationship with God.
Fast forwarding two thousand years, the Purity System is all but gone, but we see legalism generating the same results. We see the self-righteous lording over others, attempting to play the role of gatekeeper while denying others the love of God unless they strictly adhere to the same “righteousness through law” mentality. We see those on the outside of the various interpretations of the law moving away from God because they have erroneously believed in their fellow man’s approach to religion. And we see the divisive walls thickening between those engaging “righteousness through law” and those deemed on the outside of the law looking in.
It saddens me that, regardless of the fluff talk about grace found through organized religion, man has still taken Jesus’ wisdom and contorted it into a revamped version of the Purity System. Righteousness through law was not Jesus’ approach. True righteousness emerged through an intimate relationship with God which produces love and compassion while engaging our fellow man, even the tax collectors of the world, in love.
Living in relationship with God…
Embrace relationship with God and the world around us.
Historian Will Durant noted that Jesus is a constant force in our theology, yet virtually non-existent in our behavior. Case in point: the Parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Even though Jesus denounced legalism and its ill effects, we see a constant gravitation toward such thinking as religion evolves. More and more, we see organized religion instilling the type of legalism valued by the Pharisee and Jesus’ first century audience. Perhaps this is why the story has emerged through the Christian tradition as one that teaches humility over self-righteousness. In the church’s infancy, maybe “humility over pride” was an easier lesson to accept than the denouncement of “righteousness based on law.” The tradition has seemingly shaped the teaching into a mold it could withstand. After all, in the mind of men, it is reasonable to set out to live a good Christian life with some type of road map—a helpful resource that gives us the do’s and don’ts of the day. However, such a mindset is not really what Jesus taught; and thus, we see Jesus present in our theology, as an iconic figurehead of sorts, but not truly at work in our hearts or lives. Jesus taught love and compassion. At the heart of his wisdom is relationship: with God and the world around us; relationships that otherwise do not develop within a legalistic mindset.
I have numerous issues with organized religion and church in general. Regardless of denomination, each sect seems intent on providing its members with their own religious checklist, more so than promoting an earnest relationship with God. Just as the stringent Purity System emerged with Moses’ inspirations, this approach has led organized faith to a religion by law—of being acceptable to God through adherence to its own select and distinct set of guidelines pushed on its members with the air of divine authority. This framed the attitude of the Pharisee in the parable and shapes the mindset of many today.
One interpretation of this parable I studied made the following analysis: “Jesus is laying the groundwork for the kind of people whom God accepts.”22 I wholeheartedly disagree. In fact, such an analysis is the kind of attitude being denounced by Jesus, merely proving the prominence of the “righteousness through law” mentality so prevalent today.
I do not believe that Jesus is laying the groundwork for more legalism. He is not adding the “humble” column to a person’s daily checklist. In proper context, the reality of Jesus’ message seems to be: “You can follow religious law to the utmost extent, and even beyond the utmost, but in the ultimate analysis, that’s really not what it’s about—righteousness is not achieved through law.” Otherwise, the Pharisee would have been blazing the trail to God’s good graces rather than going home without justification.
At the heart of the parable were two characters perceived to be as far apart from each other as possible: the Pharisee and the tax collector. Their disparities in social esteem meant easy casting for the roles in Jesus’ parable. Examining the two men’s social roles more closely helps us realize why they were cast in the story. The Pharisees were one of the three religious parties of Jesus’ day. The Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes were the most prominent of the three Judaic societies. As critical as Jesus was at times toward the Pharisees, they were actually the most liberal of the three parties. They began around the third century B.C. From their beginning, the Pharisees encouraged the Jews to stay true to the more stringent Mosaic Law in the wake of the Greek’s efforts to Hellenize them into pagan practices. The word “Pharisee” means “separatist,” which follows form to their original purpose.23 They sought to set the Jewish people apart from the Greeks. At the height of the Pharisees’ popularity, it has been estimated that there were around 6,000 in number.24 While Pharisees were strict and steadfast observers of Mosaic Law, they often extended law beyond the limits of the Torah. They called such additions, ‘the traditions of the elders.’25 Even though they had no true governing or leadership roles, the Pharisees were living examples to the Jews of how Mosaic Law should be lived.
Jesus certainly had his share of disagreements with some Pharisees. However, I do not believe he is targeting them in this parable as an example of “self-righteous arrogance.” After all, when examining the other prayers uttered by Jewish men of the time, the Pharisee’s prayer is very much in line to what a sincere prayer of thanks would represent. Yes, some Pharisees had become so consumed with adherence to Mosaic Law that they had developed an arrogant and pretentious self-righteousness, which drew criticism from Jesus. His disparagement came in an entire chapter of Matthew, which quotes Jesus’ displeasure toward the superior attitudes showcased by some Pharisees. For example in Matthew 23, Jesus equates some Pharisees to white-washed tombs. Examining cultural context, we learn that corpse impurity could be contracted by overshadowing a corpse or being overshadowed by a corpse. Therefore, merely walking over a grave would result in corpse impurity, which required a seven day purification process. To prevent accidental contact, and thus impurity, tombs were painted white. In this comparison, Jesus is claiming that the Pharisees were glossed over outwardly but inwardly impure.26 So yes, Jesus did take issue with many of the Pharisees; however, this parable is not such an example. Many Pharisees were undoubtedly devout and honorable men. Jesus used that reputation for honor as a resource in this parable. Their example showcased the “righteousness by law” mentality that Jesus disagreed with…enter the tax collector.
While adhering to the numerous purity guidelines created a devout image for the Pharisees, the tax collectors’ reputation put them on the opposite spectrum of the good-guy meter. As a group, they were despised by the people. The process of collecting taxes was done through a bidding procedure. The Roman government accepted the highest tax bid and in turn, the winner of the bid would then set the tax for their territory. That meant that the bid-winner would have to pay Rome
In the parable, the Pharisee stood in the place in which many feel they stand today: adhering obediently to a certain interpretation of God’s law and drawing God’s favor in the process. But to Jesus, even those with an impressive reality of abiding by religious law were not made righteous by such adherence. The tax collector stood in a place that all of mankind actually stands, the place of sin where equality achieves the mark of balance. Living in relationship with God, as revealed through Jesus, meant abandoning the philosophy of “righteousness through law.” It meant recognizing that spirituality is not necessarily about creating an impressive resume of “Do’s” and “Do not’s” but rather living passionately with compassion in relationship with God. The distinction between the two philosophies is vast. Convincing Jesus’ audience of this meant that he had to persuade them to recognize the need for grace for themselves and others as a prerequisite for relationship with God and the world around them. This meant putting aside ideas of treating the tax collector as one whose very existence is wrong, and instead embracing all brothers with love and support.
If Jesus’ listeners accepted the reality of this parable, two truths would emerge. One, they would realize that “righteousness through law” does not represent the final appeal of God’s verdict of justification toward man. And two, all mankind would embrace Jesus’ own approach in genuinely connecting with our fellow man, serving truly as our brother’s keeper and not our brother’s probation officer.
No comments:
Post a Comment