Lk. 18:1 Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart,
Lk. 18:2 Saying, “There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man.”
Lk. 18:3 “Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, ‘Avenge me of my adversary.’”
Lk. 18:4 “And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, ‘Though I do not fear God nor regard man,’”
Saying that a judge does not fear God is a most serious charge. Apparently he is more concerned about himself than about others. The widow in the parable is at an extreme disadvantage because she possesses no influence on her own.
Lk. 18:5 “‘Yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.’”
However, the judge does recognize the widow for her brazen tenacity. This tenacity is not something that the widow just all of a sudden developed just for this particular situation. It was part of her character. The corrupt judge is not concerned with equitable jurisprudence and fears neither God or anyone. The Jewish view of a magistrate possessed the highest concern for fairness and judgment. The judge represents divine authority on earth and was required to make equitable decisions based upon all the evidence. The Bible says, “And said to the judges, ‘Take heed to what you are doing, for you do not judge for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in judgment. Now therefore, let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take care and do it; for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes’” (II Chron. 19:6,7)
Source: II Chron. 19:6,7
Her adversary apparently controls a corrupt court by his powerful influence with an unscrupulous magistrate. Tenacity is the only weapon the widow possesses. She exercised her firm resolve and was tireless in her persistent requests to a corrupt judge.
Lk. 18:6 Then the Lord said, “Hear what the unjust judge said.”
Lk. 18:7 “And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He hears long with them?”
Thus the story reaches its climax. The unjust judge passes a righteous judgment. The widow as an outcast is received and the villain magistrate becomes a hero of sorts. The judge does not change his philosophy of jurisprudence. The powerful judge, however, is beaten down by the determined tenacity of the helpless widow. The Rabbis possess a high evaluation of chutzpah. When the Jewish literature is examined, a number of striking parallels are found which focus upon chutzpah as a valid expression of religious faith. In English, raw nerve or bold perseverance is not always considered polite. Certainly one should never approach God in that fashion. Jewish literature, however, is replete with examples of bold persistence in the relationship between the one Holy God and humankind. As Abraham argued with God in dialogue, other leaders in Jewish history sometimes employed boldness in their prayers.
Lk. 18:8 “I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”
Lk. 18:9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.
Lk. 18:10 “Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.”
Another barrier binding our understanding of the dramatic story concerns the prominence of the Temple in the parable. The role of the Temple in the working of ancient Israel must be carefully studied, since the parable itself assumes a background in the Temple. Could this parable have been developed after the temple was destroyed? Some New Testament scholars have questioned the authenticity of the parable, claiming that the early church invented the story apart from the teachings of Yeshua. Would the early church describe an individual as receiving forgiveness and justification during the sacrificial service in the Temple? Perhaps a strong argument for an earlier date of the parable and its place in the Gospel of Luke is discovered here. The realistic character of the parable’s background indicates that it possesses deep roots in the historical setting of the people of Israel before the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E.
The Temple was a place of prayer (Luke. 1:10). But the most prominent feature of the Temple worship in the minds of the people was the sacrifice. Within the Temple worship, people were permitted to offer individual sacrifices. The parable, however, probably depicts the daily sacrifice (tamid), which was offered twice a day, morning and evening. The people would go up to the Temple during these sacrifices and gather for worship. During the Second Temple Period, prayers were added to the service. The people would pray during the time of incense. The picture created in the opening of the parable suggests that the two individuals to pray at the appointed time of the daily sacrifices.
Lk. 18:11 “The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men – extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector.’”
There is a Rabbinic parallel found in the Mishnah that says, “I thank thee, my God, that Thou hast cast my lot among the men of the synagogue and not among those who sit in the highways. I rise early and they rise early, but I think that I might attend to the Law and they that they might attend to trifles. I work and they work, but I receive reward, and they none. I run and they run, but I to eternal life and they to the pit of perdition.”
Source: M:Berachoth 4:2
The Pharisees began to develop a method to exclude the publicans and tax collectors from all public and private functions. The publicans were so frowned upon that they were not allowed to give testimony in court, could not hold any office in the community, or any charitable donations given by them were rejected. Obviously Yeshua did not hold to all of this because He permitted Zaccaeus to repent and pay back what he had stolen. Some Rabbis so hated the publicans that they declared repentance of a tax collector was impossible, because there was no way to make restitution.
Lk. 18:12 “‘I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’”
According to the Midrash, fasting took place on Mondays and Thursdays. Fasting was one of the key elements of Phariseeism.
Source Midrash Rabba 76:3
The original audience listening to this story did not consider the Pharisee to be a stereo-type of the self-righteous hypocrite. On the contrary, the Pharisees were respected for their sincere piety. A Pharisee in the mind of the people of the period was far different from the popular conception of a Pharisee in modern thought. Yeshua is not attacking the theology of Phariseeism in this parable, but addressing the need for sincerity when one directs his or her heart to God in prayer. On the contrary, Yeshua never criticized Phariseeism as a religious movement. He did, however, sharply rebuke the hypocritical behavior of some Pharisees.
Lk. 18:13 “And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner!”
“Standing afar off” probably meant that he stood in the Court of the Gentiles.
The view of atonement in the parable reflects Jewish thought from the time when the Temple stood. The message of the parable focuses sharply on the attitude of one’s heart. The tax collector expressed his sincere desire to receive God’s mercy. He had directed his heart to God during a time of sacrifice and Temple worship. He beat his breast – an action which showed intense sorrow. He cried out in deep anguish of heart, “God be merciful to me, a sinner!” The Pharisee, on the other hand, was content. He viewed himself already as being righteous. He thanked God that he was not like other people. He stood erect during his prayer and perhaps located himself in a more prominent position nearer to the altar.
Lk. 18:14 “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be abased, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
“He went to his house justified.” (Greek - dikaioo; Hebrew - tsadaq. Meaning: “made righteous”) Please pardon my confusion here. This term is commonly used in connection with someone “getting saved” or being “born again” when they accept Yeshua as their Messiah after He died on the cross and then rose again. In this parable, not only is it before Yeshua died on the cross, but it is He that is telling the parable.
Even today the careful listener can still sense the keen wit and the strong personality of Yeshua in the theme of contrasts. The tables are turned as the seeming villain of a story behaves like a hero. Listeners are astonished when their perception of which character is a good person turned out to be false. An “evil” tax collector humbles himself and sincerely prays to God for forgiveness, whereas a “holy’ Pharisee is not as righteous as everyone assumes. The word for tax collector in the parable is sometime translated publican. The listeners realize that although the publicans collected taxes for a hated regime, he recognized his own need for God’s mercy. The two individuals, one symbolizing good and the other evil, surprise the listeners by their unexpected behavior.
The difference between the Pharisee and the tax collector was the kavanah of their hearts. As a Jewish theologian, Yeshua calls each individual to a genuine heart-controlled relationship with God. The beauty of the story is seen further in the image of the tax collector. God’s grace cannot be earned. Even a wicked tax collector is accepted by God when he crises out for divine mercy. It is the same for both the religious and the unholy. Both are needy but in different ways. God loves the tax collector. He loves the Pharisee. But, no matter how sinful or impious the individual may appear in the eyes of the good religious people, God’s favor possesses no limitations. He loves the publicans and the sinners. It does not matter what they have done. His grace is given to everyone who directs his or her heart to God in sincere prayer.
No comments:
Post a Comment