Sermon: Group Project

Lectionary: Proper 25(C)
Text: Luke 18:9-14

Pharisee and the Publican
Millais, John Everett, 1829-1896

Over the past several months, we have considered several parables. In those examinations I have suggested that the traditional interpretations, while not necessarily wrong, are often inadequate. I have explained that the point of parables is to provoke thought and to cause discomfort regarding traditional ways of thinking and living. I have explained that what we hear from the parables is colored by our culture and traditions, which are quite different from that of the original audience, and as a result heard things quite differently. I have also pointed out that many parables have a starting frame that is added by the editor which has the effect of guiding the reading and interpretation down one path while discouraging others, and that interpretations are often added as a closing frame to further restrict interpretation.

These observations also apply to today’s parable. Luke, or the gospel account’s editor, adds commentary in verses 9 and 14 as opening and closing frames to guide the reading and interpretation of the enclosed parable. Consequently the traditional reading and interpretation of this parable rarely deviates from the supplied editorial framework.

In the dozen or so commentaries I glanced through during preparation, nearly all followed the same interpretation. In this interpretation the Pharisee is turned into a villain and the tax collector into the hero. The Pharisee is interpreted as exhibiting arrogance, pride and hypocrisy, whereas the tax collector shows humility and acknowledges his shortcomings. Not all, but many interpretations suggest that ritual purity was involved in some way within the parable. And some interpretations suggest that the Temple and its religious structures, to which the Pharisee was allegedly a part, was itself part of the problem which the parable speaks out against.

Keeping the above in mind, let’s revisit today’s reading and the parable contained within to see if we can discover anything different.[1]

The frame or the bookends read as follows:

⁹ He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt… ¹⁴ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other, for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9, 14 NRSVue)

From this we can see how the parable ends up vilifying the Pharisee and speaking out against his prayer. After all, who are the ones who trust in themselves that they are righteous and regard others with contempt? Who is the one who exalts themselves? Clearly, it must be the Pharisee.

But wait. Is the audience of this parable the Pharisees or any of the privileged among the Jews? If we go back over the preceding couple of chapters of Luke, it becomes clear Jesus is addressing his disciples. The “some” that Jesus is speaking to then, the “some who trusted in themselves,” are the disciples, not the Pharisees.

We will revisit verse 14 toward the end of today’s sermon with a suggested alternate translation of a small word, but which changes the meaning of the entire parable.

But we continue on.

¹⁰ “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. (Luke 18:10)

This introduces the setting and characters. Christians have been handed down a tradition where we tend to regard the Jewish temple and Pharisees as corrupt and evil. The disciples, the audience, would not have seen them in that light. They saw the temple as a place where they could approach their holy God, where they could offer their prayers and sacrifices, and be restored to right relationship with God and with fellow human beings. They saw Pharisees, not as power hungry hypocrites, but leaders who genuinely wanted their people and nation to follow God’s commands. Pharisees were respected.

Many of the negative views of the temple and Pharisees which Christians hold today can be traced to anti-Jewish sentiments developed through two millennia of Christian history. Many of the seeds of these negative views, when examined closely, have no basis in history. This is something that we need to be acutely aware of, confess, and repent.

¹¹ The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ¹² I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ (Luke 18:11-12)

We hear this and object to its tone. We jump to the conclusion that because of this the Pharisee must be self-righteous and prideful. However, there are several things we should note about this prayer. First is that in ancient times, people did not pray or read silently. Praying and reading only in one’s mind was something the ancient people did not even consider as possible. The prayer of the Pharisee may have been expressing what today would be only thoughts directed silently. Secondly, do we ever say or think, “There but for the grace go I?” The Pharisee’s prayer is akin to that saying.

A third point to note is that in the ancient Near East boasting was not frowned upon but was expected. A key example in the New Testament is of the Apostle Paul who boasts about his credentials as both a Pharisee and an Apostle. Among other things, to the Philippians, he wrote, “… as to righteousness under the law, blameless.” (Philippians 3:6b)

In Deuteronomy 26, Moses instructs the Israelites that when they offer prayers of thanksgiving that they are to thank God that they are Israelites, and to enumerate the ways in which they have been faithful in following the law. The Pharisee’s prayer is like that. He is expressing gratitude for who he is. Therefore, to fault the prayer as expressing pride is to miss the point. In listing some of the other people categories, the Pharisee is giving thanks to God that he has been given the opportunity to be more faithful to God than they.

However, there is a problem with the Pharisee’s prayer, and that is when he prays, “… or even like this tax collector.” Here he turns from gratitude to judgment. He lists the ways in which he could be seen as super-righteous (or supererogatory to use a fancy term for “going beyond”). He goes beyond what is required by the law by fasting more and giving tithes of everything, even those things that were normally considered small enough that tithing was not required. Surely, if righteousness was the basis of merit, he had it far over the tax collector.

Tax collectors were agents of Rome and therefore considered traitors. Traditional Christian view of tax collectors is that due to their occupation they were perhaps considered ritually unclean. However, note that he is in the temple grounds, meaning that introducing ritual purity is not appropriate to the interpretation of this parable.

If the parable was a melodrama, the audience would be booing and hissing at this point.

¹³ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ (Luke 18:13)

The audience of the parable would not have liked to hear the tax collector utter this prayer. They knew that God’s mercy did extend to the tax collector. They had to consider the possibility that the tax collector could be forgiven and made righteous. They had to consider that both the Pharisee and the tax collector could be equally righteous under God.

We now come to verse 14 which is traditionally translated something like,

¹⁴ I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other, for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Luke 18:14)

Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, in Short Stories by Jesus, discusses how the phrase “rather than” is one of several possible translations, one that has been traditionally chosen to fit with the earlier verse 9.

She, however, suggests a different translation. She translates verse 14 as follows:

To you I say, descending to his house, this one is justified, alongside that one. Because everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.[2]

She also writes that when we accept the traditional interpretation where the Pharisee is vilified, we are tempted to say, “Thank you, God, that I am not like that Pharisee.” And when we say or think that, we have sprung a trap on ourselves. We have made ourselves the Pharisee.

In Western Christianity, and especially in American Christianity, justification and salvation are considered something granted to individuals. However, in ancient Jewish and in the earliest Christian communities, justification and salvation was bestowed to and through community. The Jews also believed that supererogatory acts of ancestors could trickle down into their descendants. Hence the Jews believed that the supererogatory faith of Abraham continued to offer benefits to them.

Lest we think that as an odd way of thinking about things, we Christians accept that the supererogatory faith of Jesus in his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension grant justification and salvation to those who trust in that work of Jesus Christ.

When we pray the Lord’s Prayer, we don’t pray “My Father… Give me my daily bread… Forgive my debts.” No, we pray “Our Father… Give us our daily bread… Forgive out debts.”

We are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. What one member does to hurt the community hurts all of us. What one member does to help and maintain the community blesses all of us. Together. Christianity and seeking God is not a solo project. It is a group project.

Dr. Levine, in the chapter where she discusses today’s parable offers an updated version that we might understand better.

The story of the tax collector’s ability to tap into the merit of the Pharisee and the encompassing, communal grace of the Temple system is the ancient version of the middle-school group project. This assignment, perhaps now more familiar through reality television, puts together, in classical terms, the smart one, the one who is good at art, the one who is able to provide provisions (e.g., coffee, donuts, Scotch), and the one who both literally and figuratively brings nothing to the table. Three do their fair share, and more, since they cover the fourth’s work as well. The project receives an excellent grade. The fourth, who may show up at the meetings with all sincerity but who contributes nothing, benefits from the work of others. In middle school, where I was the “smart one,” I found this system unfair. I was justified (I got the “A”), but alongside me, indeed because of me, so was the slacker.

My sense of justice then was too narrow, my sense of generosity too constrained, my sense of self-import too great. But that fourth person believed in the system; that fourth person, whom we dismissed as lazy, as stupid, or as unable to contribute, may well have done what he could. He may have felt himself unworthy; indeed, we three others may have signaled to him that we were disappointed he was assigned to our group. He trusted in us; he trusted in the system. Had we been more generous with him rather than resentful, we would have learned more as well.

And what if he didn’t care at all? What if he depended on us, even thought we were fools for doing his work for him? What we do is still worthwhile. We can afford to be generous. There are other systems of justice (e.g., test grades, a final judgment) in which his contributions or sins will be assessed.

We are all our brother’s, and sister’s, keeper, and living in a community is another form of group work. We all have something to contribute, even if what we give is the opportunity for someone else to provide us a benefit. If we take more seriously this necessary interrelationship, we might be more inclined to consider others, because our actions, whether for ill or for good, will impact them. And if our good deeds aid someone else, rather than begrudge them, why not celebrate all who are justified?

In the name of God who creates,

In the name of God who is always faithful,

And in the name of God who discomforts the comfortable, Amen.

Bibliography

Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Levine, A.-J. (2014). Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Levine, A.-J., & Brettler, M. Z. (2011, 2017). The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd ed. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Richards, E. R., & James, R. (2020). Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Sievers, J., & Levin, A.-J. (2021). The Pharisees. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

 

 

---

[1] I am indebted to Dr. Levin’s discussion of this parable in Short Stories by Jesus in putting together this sermon.

[2] (Levine, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi, 2014)

Sermon: Faith and Faithfulness

Abraham's Journey to Canaan - 1614

Lectionary: Proper 5A

Texts: Genesis 12:1-9; Romans 4:13-25; Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26

Introduction

For what would you give up all your comforts and stability of life? Is there anything for which you would pull up all roots, cut all relational ties, and embark on a nomadic life, not knowing whether you would ever settle down again?

Given our modern context with its technology and communications, it’s difficult to imagine the Bronze Age world in which leaving one’s place of belonging – the land on which one was born and would inherit and all the family, clan, and tribal ties – meant risking one’s own very life and survival.

Yet Abraham (or technically, at the time, Abram) did just that. Why?

This turns out to be yet another instance where the story is quite familiar, and because it has been heard so many times, we assume a lot about it that just isn’t there in the actual text. But there are also other details that aren’t in the immediate text of the narrative but can help fill in the broader context. Some of these can be found by looking at other texts in the Bible, and others from historical and cultural studies of the times and places in question.

Gods of Abram’s Household

The text reads that Yahweh spoke to Abram and told him to “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.” (Gen 12:1[1]) Because God commands, Abram obeys. It’s as simple as that. Or is it?

Most of us read these patriarchal narratives with the assumption of monotheism, where the one true God is already known and worshiped. But that is not at all the case. When archaeology is examined, monotheism among the Israelites does not take hold until the Jews return from their Babylonian Exile. Up until their captivity into exile, most Israelites assumed the existence of, and often worshiped, multiple gods.[2]

Abram and his father’s household was no different. There is evidence that their primary deity was Sin, or the moon god of Sumeria. Many of the names found in the family may have references to the worship of the moon god.[3] The city of Haran is known to have had a temple to Sin.[4]

Abram does descend from the line of Shem, so it shouldn’t be surprising to find Yahweh among the household gods. But it is quite possible and (in my opinion) likely Yahweh had been relegated to one of the minor household deities.[5] We aren’t told how Yahweh speaks to Abram. It could be through divination, it could be through omens, it could be through a dream.[6]

The One Thing that Matters to Abram

However it happens, Abram hears from Yahweh. But why heed the words of one god among so many? As for Abram, there is nothing special about Yahweh. Except one thing. Yahweh promises Abram that he will have descendants. Back in Genesis 11:30, it was noted that Abram was married to Sarai, who was barren. We read that when Abram hears from Yahweh, he is about seventy-five years old. It would seem nearly impossible to have a child under these circumstances. Yet that is Yahweh’s promise. And it is the one thing for which Abram would and does leave his father’s family and ancestral lands. It is the one and only thing that is of value to him.

It was no simple or easy matter to leave one’s household behind.

A man was identified in the ancient world as a member of his father’s household. When the head of the household died, his heir assumed that title and its responsibilities. It is also identified with ancestral lands and property. By leaving his father’s household, Abram was thus giving up his inheritance and his right to family property.

Land, family and inheritance were among the most significant elements in ancient society. For farmers and herdsmen land was their livelihood. For city dwellers land represented their political identity. Descendants represented the future. Children provided for their parents in old age and enabled the family line to extend another generation. They gave proper burial to their parents and honored the names of their ancestors. In some of the ancient Near Eastern cultures these were considered essential to maintaining a comfortable existence in the afterlife. When Abram gave up his place in his father’s household, he forfeited his security.[7]

Abram was not only forfeiting his own security, but he was also turning his back on caring for his ancestors and the rest of the household. I strongly suspect that there was tremendous pushback and appeals to change his mind. Yet the one thing – having descendants of his own – was stronger. And one of the gods, Yahweh, promised that one thing to him. 

Abram’s Self-Interest

Lest we assume that Abram is just that devoted and willing to follow words he hears from a god, we only need to go a few verses into the next narrative to discover that Abram is self-serving and conniving. At least at this point in life, Abram’s primary interest is making sure he prospers.

¹⁰ Now there was a famine in the land. So Abram went down to Egypt to reside there as an alien, for the famine was severe in the land. ¹¹ When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know well that you are a woman beautiful in appearance, ¹² and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife’; then they will kill me, but they will let you live. ¹³ Say you are my sister, so that it may go well with me because of you and that my life may be spared on your account.” (Genesis 12:10-13)

When Abram hears from Yahweh the promise of descendants and a great nation to boot, I’m sure he notices there are no conditions other than leaving his ancestral ties. There are no ongoing requirements. There is nothing required to be given to Yahweh once the promise is fulfilled. It’s all win for Abram. Subsequent promises and covenants Yahweh makes with Abram do not contain conditions either. This Yahweh seems to be all about giving and not requiring nor expecting anything in return. This is about as unconditional a promise as one can be.[8]

Although Abram left behind security of land, belonging to a household, and the comforts of living in a city, he did take along sufficient wealth that could be carried or walk on their own – livestock, portable wealth, his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and slaves. Abram gave up much, but according to the text, certainly not everything.

Definitions of Terms Matter

Although the Genesis 12 text does not explicitly state that Abram believed Yahweh, farther into the Abraham cycle of stories, in chapter 15 we read that Abram believed Yahweh. I think it is appropriate to read Abram’s believing back into chapter 12.

But what does it mean to believe? What is faith? In the reading from Romans, we heard the two terms faith and believe multiple times in Paul’s use of the story of God’s promise made to Abraham. The first verse that we heard from Romans reads:

¹³ For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:13)

Righteousness is yet another term that pops up in frequent association with faith and belief. Many of Paul’s references to Abraham in this section of Romans comes from Genesis 15, including one that is the key to Paul’s argument, “And he [Abram] believed the LORD, and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6)

Frameworks for Defining Theological Terms

Those of us who were raised in the modern Western world traditionally approach the concepts of faith, belief, and righteousness from a perspective of science and law. We tend to emphasize knowable facts and attributes of God. Faith and belief then, becomes accepting and believing those data points about God. Righteousness is a term weighed with judicial and moral overtones. So, a righteous person is one who is morally good and does their best to always keep the law.

Maybe it comes as a surprise that this kind of thinking is exactly what Paul is writing against in Romans chapter 4. Or maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise at all. The Roman Empire was fastidious in its laws and observances. There were detailed and specific rituals to be performed to maintain one’s good standing with the gods. It is to those who were raised in this environment, immersed in this way of thinking about the law, to whom Paul writes. And it should be noted that we in the West are inheritors of this way of thinking, both in secular politics and in religion.

Paul, even though he is a Roman citizen, is thoroughly Jewish and Hebrew in the way he approaches the concepts of faith, belief, and righteousness. Instead of a legal framework for these terms, Paul understands and utilizes them within a relational framework.[9] The starting point of faith for Paul is not accepting facts about God, but rather, trust in the reliability of a relationship. Belief is not about an intellectual assent about God’s attributes, but rather, the confidence that God will deliver on God’s promises. And righteousness is primarily not about being in good moral or legal standing with God, but in a trusting relationship with God.

That is why Paul writes about Abraham, “No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, being fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. Therefore ‘it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’” (Romans 4:20-22)

Stated another way, faith is trust in God’s absolute faithfulness. And that is the only human response necessary and appropriate to God’s invitation to be in right relationship with God; aka, righteousness. Unlike with other deities and nearly all human relationships, there are no conditions, no rituals, and no imposed penalties. The offer from God is unconditional.[10] This is grace.

Examples of Faith (Trust)

This is the framework in which we can read the gospel text for today. Yes, it begins with the call of Matthew into Jesus’ group and Matthew seems to get up and follow Jesus, leaving behind his prior life, much like Abraham. But in the broader textual context, the call appears to be just a minor detail. It seems mostly a narrative hook to bring us to the series of other vignettes that follow.

The thematic thread that I see going through the vignettes of our gospel reading is the question, “What kinds of people place their trust in God (or more precisely here, in Jesus)?”

First, there is Matthew and then all his family, friends, and acquaintances. They were generally thought to be socially unacceptable at best, and treasonous at worst. Jesus invites Matthew to trust in him, and Matthew does and brings many others to get a chance to meet Jesus. Those who thought they could never be fully accepted by God are now being invited into a relationship with God.

But then, a leader of the people (Mark identifies this person as a synagogue leader) comes to ask Jesus for help. Jesus does not turn aside the request from someone with higher social standing.

And then a woman with a flow of blood for twelve years quietly approaches Jesus, not wanting to make a scene nor to be known. Here is a person who is ritually impure, to be avoided. When she does get her wish to touch Jesus’ cloak and is healed, Jesus notices and commends her for her faith (or shall we say, trust?). With her healing, she can return to normal society and restore relationships that had been ruptured due to her condition.

And finally, Jesus touches a dead girl (although he does say that she “is not dead but sleeping”). Touching a corpse rendered a person ritually unclean. Yet that fact does not stop Jesus. Instead of being contaminated, Jesus restores life to the girl and restores relationships that moments ago were, metaphorically speaking, dead.

Faith Begins and Ends with God

Each of these is a vignette of someone placing their trust in God and God’s promises, and God holding to the promise. A broad range of social standing, gender, and age are included as an example of God’s encompassing acceptance and faithfulness.

God’s faithfulness does not depend on human response. It is God’s to unilaterally and unconditionally offer. I think that is the most important point that is being made across the three readings. Human faith in God is fallible. Abraham’s trust in God faltered many times. The churches to whom Paul wrote often had serious issues. Jesus’ had to often rebuke his disciples for lack of faith. Yet God remained and remains faithful to any and all who dare take a chance on God’s promises and begin the walk of trust in God’s reliability. That is faith and faithfulness.

In the name of God who provides and sustains,

In the name of God who walked the path of faith,

In the name of God who stirs us to walk in faith…

---

[1] Bible texts from the NRSV Updated Edition, unless otherwise noted.

[2] Many of the references to monotheism in the Old Testament may be seen as aspirational or idealistic; it can be seen as exilic and post-exilic editors attempting to explain the reason for being conquered and exiled, and a polemic against their prior history of religious unfaithfulness.

[3] New International Commentary, Old Testament, Genesis 1-17. Commentary on Genesis 11:27.

“Yet the possible connection of Terah (Heb. teraḥ) with the word yārēaḥ, “moon,” and yeraḥ, “lunar month,” if substantiated, would suggest that Abram’s family and ancestors were worshipers of the moon. One suggestion is that Terah means “Têr is (the divine) brother (or protector, Heb. ʾaḥ),” têr being a dialectal variant of šhr, a South Arabic term for the moon. Sarai (Sarah) is the equivalent of šarratu, “queen,” an Akkadian translation of a Sumerian name for Ningal, the female partner of the moon-god Sin. Milcah is the same name as the goddess Malkatu, the daughter of Sin. Laban (Heb. lāḇān) means “white,” and leḇāná, “the white one,” is a poetic term for the full moon. In addition, both Ur and Haran were thriving centers of moon worship; thus it is probable that the theological milieu in which Abram lived for a good bit of his life was one in which the cult focused its adoration on moon worship.”

[4] IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament. Commentary on Genesis 11:31.

[5] Wondrium, Understanding the Old Testament: Lecture 5; Abraham, the Father of Three Faiths.

               “There is no suggestion in the text that Abraham has met God or knows anything about him. Later Jewish tradition filled in all sorts of stories from Abraham’s earlier life, but those are not in the text here.

               According to verse 1, Abraham is being asked to relinquish “his land and his family.” He is being asked to leave Mesopotamia—that is, ancient Iraq. Essentially, Abraham is asked to relinquish rich mercantile cities for a life of nomadism, leaving behind gold and jade.

               There is no indication that Abraham has any established credentials for this deity that has made this command.”

[6] It should be noted that there are many behaviors and actions that are taken by the patriarchs that would later be proscribed in Israel. Divination is one. Marriage and sexual relations with siblings or half-siblings is another.

[7] IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Commentary on Genesis 12:1.

[8] Wondrium, Understanding the Old Testament: Lecture 5; Abraham, the Father of Three Faiths.

               “In chapter 15, God reiterates an earlier promise that Abraham will have abundant descendants. God provides him a visual image of how many descendants he will have, but that supplies no basis at all to shore up any confidence. Still, Abraham accepted God as reliable…

               God is making promises to Abraham that are unconditional. There’s nothing Abraham has to do in order for God to keep his side of the bargain. Symbolically, God binds himself in this treaty ceremony without asking Abraham to do the same.”

[9] Richards, E. Randolph and James, Richard. Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes. “Grace and faith are the language of relationship.” (108)

[10] Richards. “God, however, is not like the typical patron. God generously gives patronage to all, including undeserving and treacherous clients, because he can and wants to.” (108)