Tod also challenged we pastors to regard our blogs as places where we dare to present the "first drafts" of our thoughts, inviting feedback.
I loved this idea!
So, obeying the rule that says, "Thou shalt steal good ideas," this is my first consideration of the text for this coming Sunday. It's one which legions of preachers, those who employ what are called lectionaries--essentially, Bible lesson plans--will use as the basis for their preaching, Matthew 23:1-12.
One of the things that most strikes me in this passage is how Jesus condemns what two commentators call, "religious ostentation." Talmudic rules gave specific regulations about how a student (the word in the Greek of the New Testament is mathetes, which we usually translate as disciple) was to relate to his teacher (or, rabbi). The disciple was to be in a position of utter deference to the rabbi. These regulations told disciples that they couldn't walk beside the rabbi. Nor could they initiate greeting him.
Jesus appears to condemn all this deference. This seems to be the case even allowing, as two commentators, Albright and Mann point out, Jesus' words were not geared to the world at large, only to those who belonged to Jesus' followers. They were to regard Jesus only as their teacher. They were only to regard the Father in heaven as their father. To give such deference to earthly people seems to be a kind of idolatry or aggrandizement that's contrary to the humble subordination to God to which Christ calls us. Albright and Mann, in fact, link verse 12 to Proverbs 29:23:
A person’s pride will bring humiliation,Here, as in many other places, we see Jesus condemning those who use religion as a way of elevating themselves over others. That's why He condemns those who like to be seen wearing phylacteries. These were little leather boxes which religious leaders wore on their arms or foreheads. They contained sheepskins on which were inscribed a passage from the Old Testament Scriptures, usually Deuteronomy 6:8 or Exodus 13:9, 16. These passages spoke, it would appear metaphorically, of keeping the Scriptures in the forefront of our thinking. But the Pharisees and Scribes used this call to devotion to God as an occasion for engaging in what I call "showdog faith": to be seen as being faithful without actually having to be faithful.
but one who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor.
Of course, all of faithful people--including me--wrestle with hypocrisy, with not living the faith we confess. But Jesus singles these religious elitists out for laying heavy legal burdens on others without themselves being willing to obey God in spirit as well as in word. As Albright and Mann put it, among the Pharisees, "the minutiae were observed, but God's love, of which the Law was an expression, was easily forgotten."
Lest we forget in the midst of Jesus' withering criticism of the Pharisees, He doesn't condemn the Law that God has given the human race. The Law, designed to show us the perameters within which life is good, really is an expression of God's love, in the same sense that a parent's admonition to a child not to play in the street is not just a restriction, but an expression of love.
It's interesting too, that the passage begins with Jesus telling His hearers to obey what Scribes and Pharisees teach because they "sit on the seat of Moses." I want to unpack this more in my study this week. But Jewish tradition held that "councils of three" (like Jesus' "two or three gathered in My Name") were like "council of Moses," the great Law-Giver (more appropriately the Bringer-of-God's-Law).
Albright and Mann add that the "Moses Seat" was a place from which discourses on God's Law were given in the temple in Jerusalem?
Questions? Ideas? Let me know in the comments section below.
1 comment:
R:
Thank you for your comments. It's very important that people understand that the life and well-being of the congregation has more to do with the members' collective relationship with Christ than with whoever the pastor might happen to be.
Specific to this text, it's important that pastors not be put up on pedestals, especially important that we not seek to be put on pedestals. This was the prideful flaw of the Scribes and Pharisees Jesus excoriates here.
We pastors have a specific calling, as do all believers in Christ. The difference between clergy and laity is one of function, not of status. One of the notes I wrote to myself as I studied this text yesterday was, "Jesus says NO to hierarchies!"
In this connection, I heard something interesting as I was driving from an appointment to the church building yesterday. On NPR's afternoon program, the host (Neil Conan?) was interviewing several politicians--past and present, about the effects of their faith on their work.
Former Senator John Danforth, a Republican, and current Senator Joe Lieberman, a Democrat, were among those interviewed. Danforth is an Episcopal priest, who presided at President Reagan's funeral. Lieberman is a devout, practicing Jew.
Lieberman talked about how JFK had been his political hero, in part because of Kennedy's Roman Catholicism. Being the first Catholic president, Kennedy blazed the trail for people of all religions who might aspire to high public office.
Lieberman then spoke of how when he was nominated for Vice President in 2000, there was some momentary interest in his Jewishness--some mention of his being the first Jew to appear on a major party's national ticket and some antisemitism on a few web sites. But then, he was just another candidate for high office. (Which, of course, is as it should be.) This contrasted to the need Kennedy felt during the 1960 campaign to reassure voters that he wouldn't violate his presidential oath of office in fealty to some dictates he might receive from Rome. Lieberman attributed that he had no need to issue a similar statement in 200, in part, to the fact that Kennedy had gone before him.
The interviewer pointed out though, that JFK may have needed to issue such a statement because the Roman Catholic Church is hierarchical, while Judaism is a bit more--these are my words--loosey goosey.
Lieberman laughed and allowed that Will Rogers' famous statement about the Democratic Party--"I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."--might also apply to his Jewish faith.
In telling this story, I'm not condemning the Catholic Church per se. All churches have their hierarchies--formal and informal, overt and subtle.
But Jesus seems to be saying that within His family of disciples--that's all followers of Jesus--hierarchies shouldn't prevail. There definitely needs to be some organization--although the New Testament isn't specific about what the organizing should look like. And, as Jesus' words at the opening of this passage indicate, there should be some sense of authority--He seems to point to the bottom line authority of God's Word as mediated by the Spirit to collections of believers.
On this last point, our Lutheran Confessions (Augsburg Confession, Article VII) insists that the Church exists wherever the Gospel is rightly proclaimed and the Sacraments are rightly administered. Outward signs--and I would included humanly-instituted hierarchies--are not marks of the Church.
We Lutherans also insist that the Bible is the authoritative source and norm of our life, faith, and practice. What I say as a preacher, teacher, and theologian of the Church is to be believed only insofar as it conforms to what the Bible teaches.
But in this passage, Jesus also clearly is pointing to the immediate accessibility of God to all who come to Him through Christ. Jesus anticipates "the priesthood of all believers," which is mentioned in First Peter 2:9-10 (from the New Testament letter most like the Gospel of Matthew, incidentally) and which Martin Luther developed so well.
Thanks for dropping by and for leaving your comments, R!
Blessings in Jesus,
Mark
Post a Comment