Thoughts and Summary: The Pharisee and the Tax Collector at the temple (Luke 18:9-14)

Another quick summary with a few thoughts along the way.

Thoughts and Summary: The Pharisee and the Tax Collector at the temple (Luke 18:9-14)

Luke’s introduction and conclusion pictures a God who will reverse the position of the arrogant elite and the humble poor -David L. Balch.

This parable, unique to Luke, is one of my favourites because the way it demands a response. When you read it you either say “Thank God I am not like the Pharisee”, in which case you very much are like the Pharisee or you are empowered by the powerful, humble prayer of the tax collector and the outcome described by Jesus.

The People

The Pharisee-

Pharisees were a group of Jewish believers that were extremely pious believers who closely followed and study and followed the law (Torah.) Not only this but in addition to the written law they followed what an ancient Jewish historian named Josephus called “the tradition of their fathers” or as Mark 7:5 describes the “tradition of the elders.” This tradition seemed to add extra, more strict regulations to the law to help the Pharisees in their individual pursuit of holiness. The name 'Pharisee' most likely means “one who is separate” but it is not known whether this is a name they were called negatively or a name they called themselves and embraced positively. In this parable however, it is clear that the Pharisee perceived himself to be ‘separate’ positively-  considering himself to be righteous whilst holding others with contempt. Jesus critiques this view and instead the Pharisee stands out as “one who is separate” in a negative way.

Pharisees occur frequently in the gospels- more often than not in opposition and antagonistic towards Jesus and his teachings. Jesus frequently condemned them for their lack of humility, compassion and the hypocrisy and arrogance that seemed to be characteristic of the movement. Luke’s gospel presents them as self promoting and obsessed with self-righteous acts. Yet they held a deep respect for the law and being faithful to God. Rejoicing and participating in the law was not a bad thing and the NT does not always interpret the Pharisees negatively.  It is worth mention that generally, the Pharisees were staunchly anti-Roman and part of their obedience was in hope that God would provide a saviour to rid and free them from the Roman Empire. Tax Collectors worked for the Roman Empire and these tensions and beliefs sit behind the parable.

The Tax Collector

Tax Collectors had the job of collecting revenue for the Roman government. Most often there were private contractors that were required to pay a set fee back to the Roman government but were able to keep anything over the fixed amount as commission. As you can imagine, this led to a large amount of corruption and abuse. To make things worse, the contracts for tax collector were often given to wealthy foreigners. Often they picked on poorer farmers trying to sell or move goods to the markets. Needless to say they were not popular in first century Palestine. The Pharisees held them with such little regard they considered them unclean through there contact with gentiles. Often these negative views come across through the pairing of sinners with tax collectors (almost as if these words were synonymous) i.e. Luke 15:1, Matt 11:19, and Matt 9:11- “  When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

The Story

Audience

The introduction tells us that Jesus told this parable to “some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else.” Who is this audience? We don’t know.  The temptation would be to try and fill in the gaps and presume it was some exceptionally bad and hypocritical people (maybe some Pharisees). But who is to say he is not addressing the disciples? Who is to say it is not Jesus’ own followers that trust in themselves and despise others? We as readers, should not be tempted to exclude ourselves as being the audience Jesus in addressing here (Joel Green mentions this). Either way, the introduction makes clear that Jesus is about to make a connection and parallel the behavior and character of the audience and the Pharisee.

Where do I stand?

The Pharisee is described and being “by himself” while the tax collector is described as being “far off”.  The Pharisee is probably by himself because he considers others, and the tax collector to be unclean. To me though, it goes a bit deeper than that. He is also “by himself” in the sense he is reliant only on himself, and no one else. The Tax Collector however, is “far off”. This shows his reverence, humility and humbleness. He recognizes his short comings and takes responsibility. The attitude of the Tax Collector from the start is not to judge others or prove/justify himself in front of God.

The fact that the Pharisee notes he is glad he is not like the Tax Collector is actually his undoing. The parable illustrates that it is the tax collector who is justified. The Pharisee doesn't need to be condemned, because he has done that himself in his admission that he thanks God he is not like the tax collector.Additionally, Bailey notes he was probably praying aloud as per Jewish custom. He comments on this

Such a voiced prayer would provide a golden opportunity to offer some unsolicited ethical advice to the “unrighteous” around him who might not have another opportunity to observe a man of his stratospheric piety! Most of us in our spiritual journeys have, at some time or other, listened to a sermon hidden in prayer.

It is, without a doubt, a ‘loaded’ prayer with a focus on himself (note the repetition of ‘I’ in his prayer.) Whether it should even be considered a prayer is up for debate. What is certain is that his prayer lowers others and lifts himself up. But what Christ teaches is that we lower ourselves and lift others up. I really think the Tax Collectors prayer speaks for itself. There is no confusion as to what is going on (except maybe the beating on the chest which was an ancient form of mourning that you see often in the OT). The Tax Collector is simply humble, transparent, and genuine, and for that is justified because “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbles, and he who humbles himself will be exalted“. 

Thoughts and Summary: The Adulterous Woman (John 7:53-8:11)

I recently scored a free copy of Kenneth Bailey’s Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes from Manna Bookstore and its inspired me to take a closer look at some of the stories and parables of Jesus. Here is my first post of the story of the woman caught in adultery.

Thoughts and Summary: The Adulterous Woman (John 7:53-8:11)

“The scene...is...described with a perfection of skill: not a word to few or too many”-Rudolf Schnackenburg

Should it be in the bible?

Firstly, I ask a question that is common in scholarship but not so common for everyday Christians reading the bible. Should this passage be in the bible?

No matter how highly or inspired you regard the bible, when you turn to this passage it will most likely be sectioned off and say “The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53- 8:11.]”-as the NIV study bible does. This text is completely absent from the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of John’s gospel. None of the Eastern church fathers mention it at all and is seems to be a largely western tradition that recognises the story.

The author of John did not record this story and it is not original to the gospel. There is simply no possibility whatsoever. However, some scholars (e.g Metzger, Brown, Bailey, Burge) suggest that this might be a part of an oral tradition that told a legitimate and historical record of Jesus, and was later inserted into John’s Gospel on these grounds (agrapha). This sounds like an evangelical cop-out but it actually holds some weight and has been argued well by some. I lean this way, although it enters into territory I am not skilled enough to robustly argue in. Not everyone shares this view though. I have a very good commentary on John by Kostenberger who devotes a few pages as to why this section of text should be considered apocryphal. He offers no commentary on the text as we have it today and even notes that it should “be omitted from preaching in the churches (not to mention inclusion in the main body of translations, even within square brackets).” Augustine thought that early scribes may taken this story out of the gospel out of fear that it lessened the sin of adultery. Calvin acknowledged the issues but generously judged it to be “containing nothing unworthy of the apostolic spirit” (Bruner). 

The Story

This story, that is called often called “The Woman Caught in Adultery” actually has very little to do with the woman, and more to do with Jesus’ response to her. While they teachers of the law could have brought the woman before Jesus privately, they want to make a scene of it- putting Jesus on trail. The Pharisees had set up a trap for him to which, as Bailey notes, they expected one of two outcomes

1.       He could have agreed to have her stoned, caused a commotion and been arrested by the Romans because of both the commotion it and the subversive act of execution outside of the Roman legal system (remember in John 18:31 we hear only the Romans have the power to execute)

2.       He could reject their clear application of the law, be discredited and seem like a coward.

As the ECB puts it, “Either he must appear to be against the Torah [Jewish law] or against Roman law.

But Jesus manages to turn these loaded expectations into their rightful place and respond in an unexpected and powerful way. His response “let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone” challenges the mob to reverse their judgement and recognize their own fallen humanness, outside of the religious and judgemental mob they hide behind. These religious leaders and followers belong to a tradition that recognizes human sinfulness. Ecclesiastes 7:20 comments that, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” And yet the Pharisee’s cannot claim that Jesus endorsed or refused to respond to the woman’s sin, with Jesus commanding “Go now and leave your life of sin”.

So, by the end of the story what Jesus has achieved is astounding (some of these adapted points from Bailey).

·         He has not, in this instance, been so subversive towards the Romans that he has been arrested, as the Jews would have desired at this time.

·         He has not shown a lack of understanding or care of the law.

·         He has not been discredited or had his authority successfully challenged .

·         He has not shown indifference to the sin of the woman, but did not let that get in the way of saving her (in fact he is the only one that seems to show any kind of compassion towards the woman).

·         He has not show indifference to the unwarranted hypocrisy and condemnatory motives steaming from the accusers.

·         Both the Woman and the accusers leave with a challenge to reform and adapt their lifestyles.

Of course this whole situation also points to something bigger as well- the cross, where undeserving sinful people are shown grace, love and compassion and are given a freedom that results in a different life direction.

Other interesting thoughts from the story:

• ·         Where is the man caught in adultery?
• ·         Deuteronomy 13:9 and 17:7 states that the accuser is to be the one to cast the first stone. Could Jesus be making reference to this in his response of casting the first stone? On this Witherington suggests that by “without sin” actual means, “without moral responsibility.”
• ·         What did Jesus write in the dust?

Burge- possibilities: buying time, a Hebrew verse that shapes his response, traditional view [endorsed by ancient interpreters such as Ambrose and Augustine] is Jeremiah 17:13 “those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the LORD, the spring of living water”. Thus some have said Jesus was writing the sins of the accusers in the dust.

Derrett says Exodus 23:1 “Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness.”

Bruner- thinks that Jesus was drawing attention away from the woman and/or buying time.

Bailey- Bailey comments that he is convinced that Jesus wrote , “death”, “kill her” or “stone her with stones.” Showing that Jesus knew the punishment- but who would be righteous enough to carry it out?

In Roman law a judge would write down a verdict before making it know, thus Jesus may have written an acquittal (Ridderbos discusses but thinks unlikely)

• ·         This passage has also been found inserted into some manuscripts of Luke’s gospel after Lk 21:38.
• ·         Some have argued that the method of stoning most likely indicates that the woman was engaged to be married rather than married (Deuteronomy 22:23), but this is not clear.
• ·         The nature of the story and the shortness of it may indicate that it once belonged to a longer collection of lost writings.