I.) The Players
A.) Pharisees (37) — The Instructors
The Pharisees were the Talmud Traditionalists of their time. They were the ones who were uber concerned with their wrong notions of the law not being violated. Their problem wasn’t their zealousness. Their problem was that their zealousness was misdirected since they had twisted God’s law into the Talmud to suit their ends.
The word “Pharisee” may very well be derived from a term which means “to separate,” and so they viewed themselves as above the rank and file. They were the religious elitists of the day. You would not find them among the rank and file sinners of the day because they were do good for them.
Luke 15 “Then came unto him all the Publicans and sinners, to hear him. Therefore the Pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying, He receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.”
The origin of the Pharisees as a sect seems to have been in or around the second century B.C. They soon became detached and distant from the political regimes (the zealots, for example, would have brought about change through revolution). The Pharisees sought to produce spiritual holiness and spiritual reformation. They recognized that Israel’s condition was the result of sin, specifically a disobedience to the Law. It was their intention to identify, communicate, and facilitate obedience to their twisted version of God’s law, thus producing holiness and paving the way for the kingdom of God to be established on the earth. The problem was that they had, over centuries, inserted man’s law in place of God’s law so that they were more concerned with formalities than they were with righteousness. This disagreement over the law (Talmud vs. Torah) was the reason why Jesus clashed with them over and over again.
Pharisees believed in the inspiration and authority of the Scripture as they had twisted it to fit their traditions. They believed in the supernatural, in Satan, angels, heaven (the earthly kingdom of God at least) and hell, and the resurrection of the dead. Their error was in the fact that they were twisting God’s law and that they were using the law unlawfully as a means to curry God’s favor.
If God’s Law was the Constitution the Pharisees were the Supreme Court and much like our own Supreme Court for over a Century now has been twisting the original meaning and intent of our Constitution the Pharisees were twisting God’s Law in favor of their own fever demented imaginations.
And so instead of being the first to recognize the Lord Christ as God’s Incarnate Law-Word, they were the first to reject Him. Rather than turning the nation to the Lord Christ, they sought to turn the nation against Him.
We should note here that a person is not a Pharisee all because they are convinced they are right. A person is not a Pharisee all because they have a standard which they seek to uphold. A person is a Pharisee when they depart the revealed God of Scripture and His Law-word in favor of a god made in their own likeness with their own autonomous own law word, all the while insisting that they are representing God.
B.) Lawyers (Experts in the law) — Instructors of the Instructors
The Lawyers were a subset of the Pharisees. They were the cream filled center to the Pharisaical Oreo Cookie. They were those who were the informed hub around which all the Pharisees found their orbit. They were the Jedi Masters and were teachers of the Pharisees.
And so the audience of our Lord Christ were the cream crop of learned men. These men were the gatekeepers of the Hebrew culture. In our culture today they were the Hollywood moguls. They were the High level politicians and judges. They were the movers and shakers of our publishing houses. They were the nationally known televised Journalists and their producers. They are the Nationally renown clergy at our Mega Churches
And the truth be told they are too often you and I.
So this is the audience of our Lord Christ and he intends to pick a fight but only because these folks have been picking a fight with God for centuries.
C.) What do we learn here?
We learn that there is a people and a time and a place for direct words.
And who are the people for whom the direct words are reserved? Well, if Scripture is any indication it is the people who twist God’s Word. It is the people who alter the meaning of God’s word AND who think they are doing God a favor by doing so.
Quoting Rev. Doug Wilson here from his book “The Serrated Edge,”
“We are to be kind to one another. Sheep are to be kind to sheep. Shepherds are to be kind to sheep. But if a shepherd is kind to wolves, that is just another way to let them savage the sheep (60).”
If a Pastor sees wolves savaging Christ’s sheep the Pastor has a role to resist the wolf. If the Pastor doesn’t, The pastor is unfaithful. Unfaithful to the sheep. Unfaithful to the wolf. And unfaithful to the Sheep and Wolf owner.
Now, quoting Wilson again,
“…we must be careful not to be hasty in imitating [Jesus], since His wisdom is perfect and ours is not. It is therefore good to take counsel with others. Related to this, sharp rebukes and the ridiculing of evil practices should seldom be the first approach one should make, but usually should follow only after the rejection of a soft word of reproach, or when dealing with hard-hearted obstinacy displayed over an extended period of time.”
When all of this is taken together it is incredibly difficult to discern. Is now the right time to say something? Should I bide my time and wait? Would there be a better time in the future?
And keep in mind in all this that if there is a sin of being too harsh and jagged in speech there is also the sin of being to soft and effeminate. If we can sin by saying too much we can sin by saying to little.
And now remember that God’s enemies always love it when we say too little and are too soft and effeminate.
II.) The Issue (vs. 37) — The Law
Occasioned by Washing = Ceremonial Washing
The washing here was not for hygienic reasons but for ceremonial purity. It was thought that the hands could accidentally come in contact with all sorts of things that were ritually unclean and so punctilious Jews would wash their hands potentially defiled hands so as not to contaminate their food. This is an example where their oral law was going beyond Scripture. One of the treatises in one of their books chronicling the oral law covers details of hand washing, such as how much water is to be used and how many rinsings are necessary and other arcane details.
This issue comes up in a different place,
Matthew 15:1 Then [a]came to Jesus the Scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the Elders? for they [b]wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 [c]But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
In both of these places we see that the Lord Christ takes the opportunity to lay into his opponents over the issue of how they are handling the Law. In both texts the sin is the fact that they are being so punctilious about comparative minutia while ignoring the substantive and explicit word of God.
In Matthew they are ignoring God’s law as to their responsibility to parents to the end that they can do what they want with their money. Here in Luke they are ignoring God’s Law that requires justice and the Love of God in favor of ceremonial and ritual washing.
Make no mistake though … the problem that the Lord Christ goes full throttle on is the seeing how the Pharisees are manipulating the Law so that they come out looking good.
The problem is not the Law. Indeed, in the Matthew passage Jesus even says that they should have obeyed the comparative smaller portions of the Law but without violating the comparatively more significant part of the law. His problem is not with people who honor God’s law. His problem is with people who say they honor God’s law all the while dishonoring it.
The Lord Christ was opposed to Lawlessness in the name of lawfulness.
We should note here that since Law is a inescapable category it is always the case that lawlessness comes in the name of some kind of lawfulness. When we set aside the law of God we will always take up the law of man. So, consequently antinomianism is really impossible, for whenever we are against God’s law we will always be in favor of some other law, even if it is the law that teaches it is impermissible to say that anything is not impermissible.
Pharisees and Teachers of the Law come in all shapes and sizes. And we probably do best on this subject when we start with ourselves. Who of us have a complete understanding of God’s Law? Who of us doesn’t twist God’s law to our end and purposes. Behold, Pharisee and Hypocrite is a title we do all well wear to one degree or another.
Having said that we must recognize that whole cottage industries have been spun in the Modern church by denying God’s law in one way or another.
There are those who deny God’s Law because they say Jesus ended the Law with His death
There are those who deny God’s Law because they say it was “culturally conditioned.”
There are those who deny God’s Law because they say that most of it should be seen as an Intrusion Ethic
There are those who deny God’s Law applies to Christians as they engage in the Public square
This is the age in which we live and one wonders, given how out of sorts the Lord Christ was over the Pharisaic twisting in the 1st century how out of sorts He is now with the Modern Church.
III.) The Communication Methodology
A.) Audience
Before we can choose a methodology of communication we have to know our audience. Jesus did not always speak the rough way he speaks here to all people, though this is not the only time he speaks this jaggedly with people. As one reads the NT we readily see that Jesus spoke to different people in different ways.
Few examples,
Luke 7:37 And behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at table in the Pharisee’s house, she brought a box of ointment. And she stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment…. 48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven thee.
Luke 8 (Woman with a blood issue) And he said unto her, “Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath saved thee: go in peace.”
Mark 7 – Syro-Phoenician woman — Request to cast devil out demon from daughter
27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be fed: for it is not good to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
So, what we note here is that the Lord Christ gauged his communication with people according to the audience he was encountering. And because that is so, we must at the very least pray that we will have the wisdom to likewise know how to assess our audience and so how to communicate.
There are other considerations as well. There is the matter of the setting or context in which we find ourselves. You might not say something to someone at a formal dinner that you would say to them at a ball game. You might not say one thing to a Judge in his courtroom that you would say to him out of his courtroom. You might not say one thing to someone in the context of a funeral that you might say to them in the context of a wedding.
What we want to note here though is that direct language in a public setting is not always the wrong play as Jesus demonstrates here.
B.) Motive
Love for the listener. Love for the eaves-droppers (those listening in). Most importantly … Love for God.
There will be those who read this passage and conclude that Jesus is mean here. I do not conclude that. The Lord Christ is giving to these men exactly what they need to hear even if recoil over what is said to them. The Lord Christ is demonstrating the Love of the Father to these men.
C.) Protestation (vs. 45)
“Teacher, when you say these things you insult us also.”
I’ve always been amazed by this passage. There is an implicit plea here to go easy. Be nice. Don’t include us in your harsh judgmental “woes.”
But instead of slowing down in the face of this plea, the Lord Christ, accelerates. It is as if the only purpose of this plea, in the text, is to serve as a speed bump that does not work.
What can we say? Only that He knew what they needed to hear and how they needed to hear it.
IV.) The Consequence (vs. 53)
Conclusion
Having said all this we can not forget the other side of the equation
Scripture presents “lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love” Eph. 4:2, as the normative state of affairs in the body of Christ. Scripture does take account of other people’s feelings. Consider Paul in these passages.
Just as a nursing mother cares for her children, 8 so we cared for you. Because we loved you so much, we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well… But, brothers and sisters, when we were orphaned by being separated from you for a short time (in person, not in thought), out of our intense longing we made every effort to see you. 1 Thess. 2:7-8, 17
II Cor. 1 So I made up my mind that I would not make another painful visit to you. 2 For if I grieve you, who is left to make me glad but you whom I have grieved? 3 I wrote as I did, so that when I came I would not be distressed by those who should have made me rejoice. I had confidence in all of you, that you would all share my joy. 4 For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you.
And yet this same Paul could write that he wished the enemies of the Gospel would go all the way and castrate themselves. And then turn around and say,
Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore such a one, in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.
And so, we are often left in these matters begging in prayer for the Wisdom to know how to engage. To know what the proper word is and the proper way it should be said.
God grant us forgiveness when we fail and the grace to ask for forgiveness.
