Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!

The entire 23rd chapter of Matthew is a rant and a railing; it is a condemnation of spiritual leaders. Christ does not pull his punches but unleashes the full force of his ire against those who sit in Moses' seat. These leaders, against which our Lord rails so vehemently, constitute the guidance of an entire nation. The rule these leaders exert is both religious and political, and despotic in nature, for they have taken to themselves exclusive ownership of the house of David.

Yes, this is another departure from the study of parables, but it is one truly deserving of definition. Christ spoke openly to the common man, but also as openly to leaders of men. His parables set his message in story form. His condemnations were plainly worded. His truth was stark, even brutal. There is no room for doubt of intent here, but perhaps room for misunderstanding – a matter we shall address. In pointing out the Scribes, Pharisees, and all other leaders, Christ pointed to a type of spirit in action. It is a will and mind embodied even in leaders of our present day. Definition, in its initial phase, will always begin with comparison. Let us compare the old to the new.

Christ identified the outward manifestations of the type. “They say, and do not. They bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.”

We know these all too well. Politicians send young men and women to wars they themselves will not fight in. Preachers will demand, cajole, and connive tithes for fancy churches they will not pay for themselves. These edifices are gaudy testaments to their inflated sense of self-worth. Further evidence of their swelling can be seen in suits costing hundreds of dollars, Florsheim shoes, and Rolex watches. We even hear them as they refer to themselves as Pastor this or pastor that. World leaders prefer to be known as leaders rather than the public servants they actually are.

In case there was a doubt, Christ fully exposed their secret dealings and power plays:

“ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. (ye) say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever swears by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift?”

Funny how similar their concerns for money and gifts are to those of modern day preachers. The important parts are used as means to an end, and they show themselves more interested in the revenue than the connection to God. Christ tells us plainly what the spiritual meaning of the physical act should be, for all action and intent must have the backing of purpose.

“Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, swears by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, swears by it, and by him that dwells therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him that sits thereon.”

A large and gaudy display often shows that something is missing. Christ went on to compare the outward gleam to inner disrepair: “ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel . . . ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.”

Christ gave a simple explanation of how rightness works: “clean first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.”

Christ made it brutally clear what kind of leaders and preachers and teachers and experts and professionals we seem doomed to attract: “ye are like unto whited sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

Could this next sentence be an indication of the Catholic church? Christ said, “ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchers of the righteous.” As with the military spirit that must constantly beat the drum and stir patriotic sympathies, the church plays the emotions of the common man as if they are strings on a harp, ever parading before us prophets and saints and holy personas that keep church goers neatly mired in manageable habits and attitudes.

Christ exposed them by the length of their arms. In patting their own backs to prove themselves liberal, and morally advanced, they only proclaim their true allegiances. “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.”

America, for all its condemnation of war, yet funds and trains the foreign soldiers it will someday turn to fight. For all its condemnations of past atrocities done in the name of the Catholic church, modern churches still build themselves up by tearing others down. Too many are the insignificant details that denominations wish to be identified in. Some wear beards or hair coverings, some denounce music, some lift themselves in the naming of a name. One will always find in such choices the rejection and exclusion of all who bear a different stripe. Personal agenda and restrictive identification often find a way to become radical and destructive. The question becomes then, who is fit to lead?

First to the Jew, but also to leaders of every station, caliber, era and historical placement Christ states his rejection of any and all who are not inclusive in their thinking. To all who would steal the kingdom of God and deprive their fellow man of its good, Christ says, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that kills the prophets, and stones them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord.”

The sad fact about these leaders is that they all claim to come in the only name that matters – their own. Their downfall will be that they cannot conceive that another may come in another name: that very concept is rejected out of hand. Yet, these very souls exercise authority over us. They have ensured they have the power to command, but it is not from strength. They live in secret fear of the day when we stop listening and start saying. They fear the spilling forth of such a flood, couching it in such terms as 'mass panic', 'rioting and looting' – but that is not all of us; that is only the ignorant and criminal element who hold no place in leadership.

“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but do not ye after their works.”

To the rest of us, here is what we must not be a part of:

“Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.”

“Call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

“Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”

“He that is greatest among you shall be your servant . . . and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.”

(But) “whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased.”

 

Death cannot speak

Another pause from the study of parables that we might examine a powerful explanation given by our Lord. Christ gives answer to the Sadducees in Matthew 22:29-32. The Sadducees were those who believed a man did not rise to life after death. They asked a question of Jesus about the resurrection – which, if you think about it, someone who does not believe in the resurrection should never bother to ask.

They believed the end was death, while resurrection, as bodied forth by Christ, was set toward the end of life. This opened the possibility of two resurrections, and indeed, the answer Christ gave addressed both a resurrection of life and a resurrection of death. Let us first explore the question, and then those who posed it.

A woman who had seven husbands in life would need to settle accounts in the afterlife. In other words, she could only legally belong to one if all of them were alive. We are all well aware of the legalisms spouted by Sadducees, Pharisees, and that particular ilk. The tempters of Christ were doctors of the law and purveyors of pedigree. They prided themselves on being well versed in even the smallest facet of the law. They would divide and divide again, and no fine point was ever too fine for additional review.

As to those clever ones who thought they had a fine point, they were not unlike their rivals the Pharisees. Both groups were nationalistic in that they drew their authority from the law which God had given to Moses – a law that was legally recorded through the very lineage of the Hebrew nation. It was a proven standard and seal that was shown in the national pedigree they inherited through their fathers: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Aren't we all a bit legalistic? Aren't we all over-burdened with too many fine points? Even in our modern mindset we recognize the division between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, but which do we lean the more toward? Our understanding is a rudimentary beast, born of personal prejudice and suckled on inopportune opinion. We take the parts we desire and jump to conclusions, clothing ourselves in the agreement with those of similar disposition, being equally prejudiced and opinionated.

Christ gave answer to the Sadducees, and to us alike. We do not know the scriptures, therefore our conclusions and fine points are erroneous. If we have not fully fathomed the what God has said to us, how can we fully comprehend the power at his disposal? If we have an incomplete understanding of the word of God, an understanding filtered by our own limited ambitions, then our understanding of God and what he is all about is also filtered.

Matthew 22:29, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”

A cursory review of the scriptures will accomplish no more than a limited understanding of God. The statement Christ gave the Sadducees was a lead-in to his explanation of one of the two resurrections: the resurrection of life. When a man, or a woman, rises to life after their physical death – they are like the angels of God. They are like the angels! They . . . “are as the angels of God in heaven.” So – how are they angels of God in heaven? What degree of life and freedom are they permitted in heaven? Well – according to the son of God, and who better to know, they neither marry nor are given in marriage. This statement was given in response to our filtered understanding of the scriptures.

A filtered understanding will thus conclude that the resurrected, like the angels of God, are sexless or have no binding relationships. In fact, Christ only states that there is no marriage like our filtered understanding is used to. There is marriage in heaven, to be sure: it is the marriage of the son of God to the church. So then, we must inquire: who exactly is the church? The church, in answer to our own question, is the entire body of those who reach heaven. They are the ones that live on.

Our misunderstanding of the scriptures is a monster of an obstacle. We not only know less of the power of God, but less of his true nature, and therefore, less of our own connection. We cannot assume that there are molecular bodies in heaven. They may be atomic. We cannot even be sure that there are bodies. We do after all speak of a spiritual plane. Perhaps all there is in the way of a body is a sense of personal identity. And what will that identity associate with?

Unlike the limited nationalistic view held by the Sadducees and Pharisees, a spiritual identity will associate with life. The Sadducees associated with Abraham, Issac and Jacob in a nationalistic and genealogical sense, all of whom had bodies that died. Christ turned that association against them with the very scriptures they were so well versed in.

Matthew 22:31-32, “Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Issac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

If the Hebrews found their continuance in their Patriarchs, and their fathers lived on in and through them, then how could those who rejected resurrection lay claim to them? The reference to scripture was a jab in the soft underbelly of non-believers and well deserved. If you do not believe in the resurrection, do you even get to talk about it? If you do not believe in God, do you even merit an opinion? I think not. Life is for the living: to be lived, embraced, and discussed by the living only. Death cannot speak.

Are you worthy?

See now the parable of Matthew 22:2-14. It is the parable of the wedding. These are the parameters – the king prepared the wedding for his son, there was a predetermined list of guests for the wedding, there were servants tasked with gathering the invited guests. Oh, and the king had an army.

The king had great resources, and preparations for the wedding were extensive. He had looked forward to the wedding for a long time and rejoiced to do all he could for the joy of his beloved son. Not everyone was invited, but certainly representatives of various peoples and cities. A king with an army is quite likely a conquering king, and the invited guests were people with which he had a covenant of peace. They were a surrendered people who enjoyed the king's grace only through the instrument of a treaty.

It seems that in the course of time these people got uppity and took the king's grace for granted, feeling superior and seeing the king as ineffectual. What a mistake! Look at all they lost – they had been chosen by the king and would have remained chosen by the son. In their pride and arrogance, they threw all that to the wind.

This is another situation where Christ directly accused the governing body of the Hebrew nation. Such an accusation would have seemed like a knife in the heart, for Jewish theology was based on the notion of an unbreakable bond to God through Abraham; the seed of Abraham could not fail. Sadly, they held to the promise of God to Abraham without honoring their end of the bargain. There were terms for both sides in the covenant, and the treaty hinged in no small part on the compliance of the Hebrew nation.

This is a parable equal to the one in which Christ stated that the kingdom would be taken from them and given to another nation. The servants report the non-compliance of the first set of guests, and the king chooses a second set of guests. Not only is the favor of the king removed, but certain guests who mistreated the servants had their cities burned.

The servants were sent into the highways to gather travelers to the wedding, and it is at this point that we come to our need for definition. Here, we will want to define the nature of the highway, the types of people found there, what they were coming from, why, and where they were headed. The gathering of the second set, at least on the surface, was indiscriminate – which means they were not 'chosen' as were the first. These new guests were merely replacements, all the rest would be sorted out later. What was to be sorted would include their abilities to recognize the treaty and the readiness to comply.

The highways may be considered as the avenues between nations. They may also be considered as timelines between critical historical junctures. The highways serve not only as a means of conveyance but as a spill-over: a place to be when there is no place to be.

The types of people found on the highways will be more than a few. Also, these types may be representative, in a larger sense, of nations and peoples without a clear connection to a king and a king's grace. They're a mixed bag. Some have no place, they live as vagabonds and hobos and Gypsies. Some seek purpose and travel toward something elusive which may be found in the next city. Some flee the places where they used to live but have yet to realize they have no place. There are those who embrace the place-less voids, they may follow those who travel and inhabit the highways, preying upon them at their leisure.

Those who seek purpose take a calculated risk. The place they were failed them in some regard, the place they go to may provide advancement. The purpose may only be a personal construct, they may not see the bigger picture. It could be that they suspect there is a bigger picture and only need an opportunity to embrace it.

Those who flee may do so perpetually – as those who are always at the wrong place at the wrong time, or those who can never make the right decisions. They may be the criminals and derelicts who somehow carry with them the mark of Cain. They are the chaff that every wind will drive before them.

Whoever the people are, those who seek or those who flee; those who have ceased to care and make a bed for themselves in no-man's-land, or those who make their living off the wayward, they represent a type without connection. They are like the men found in the marketplace who stand idle because no man has hired them.

Imagine the surprise of one such person who is approached by the servants of a mighty king. Perhaps the servants are accompanied by armed soldiers. You get a sense of urgency from the invitation. You realize the power and authority of the king. How do you choose? If you are the seeker who has been long in your travels, you may see this new opportunity as a step in the right direction. You will treat your invitation with respect. Should you garner the grace of the king, your advantage is assured wherever you find yourself.

If you are the one who flees you might view the invitation with fear. The power of the king and his army fills you with trepidation. You will treat your invitation with caution, acting in compliance as an extension of your sense of self-preservation. Besides, if you garner the grace of the king, your place may be assured. You may find a home. The king will protect and guide you so you no longer need to flee.

If you are the one who preys upon others, you may only see a greater opportunity. You care nothing for the invitation, you have no respect of persons, kings or soldiers. You are in it for the loot. If you are the one who has lost everything, and the only home you have, is no home at all, the invitation may humble you. Why would a king bother with the like of you? Life is hard in between, and if nothing else, you may benefit from a free meal.

Now, this is a wild-card of a king. He is impressive not only in his power and authority, he blazes the non-traditional trail. In other words, he pretty much does things his own way. Whether you have accepted the invitation out of fear or respect or a hope of getting something for nothing, you would be wise to arrive in a wedding garment. This might be akin to a Tux in some cultural applications, or to one's Sunday-go-to-meeting attire in other cultural settings. At least one owes it to oneself to put on one's best bib and tucker.

The wedding garment was a sign of respect, not so much station. In the parable, almost everyone, no matter their personal circumstance, was able to dress in a wedding garment. Now, one does not travel through life with a wedding garment in their backpack for just-in-case. The wedding garment, while not described in the parable, might have been no more than a clean white robe, or a garment adorned with some token of respect. As I just noted, while one does not travel equipped with a wedding garment, almost all of those invited to the wedding were able to obtain or accomplish the requirement of respect.

One who did not was singled out. He came to the wedding but failed to dress accordingly. It must be a given, and the king would have known, that many who frequented the highways were destitute and without the ability to provide for themselves. Yet, even the poor can wash, adorn, and present their selves respectfully. I think that if one tries, there will be an acceptance. It would likely be the rogue who was found in a disrespectful state. It would be someone emboldened by their own bravado. It would be someone working the fringe of the crowd who chose to wear their independent nature as a badge self-importance.

Is there a type that is known for such blatant disregard. Actually there are many, and they range from the supposedly benign to the unbridled antagonistic, and violent. Since the wedding of the son has greater spiritual implications, who would be the ones who choose not to wear the wedding garment? The basic definition of this parable is: you are either with the king, and his son or you are against. From the king's point of view, if you do not have the decency to respect the son, you do not belong. Those who do not belong, then, are those who disregard Christ. This group includes both the radical Islamist and the supposedly benign atheist. Are you worthy of the king's grace, or will you be thrown out?