Those who lift themselves up will be humiliated; cont’d

Last week I raised the question about the dualism in this parable of the Pharisee & the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14). I focused the open-ended question on theology, not particularly the parable. That was intentional.

My goal is the notice the lens we bring to reading the Bible. My point, ‘sure, if you’re looking for explicit right & wrongs in the Bible you can find them.’ What is the consequence of this kind of reading, though? Well, for one; humans deserve to get humiliated by God. Is this a little troubling for you, too?

Another less explicit issue is that, you water down the power of this parable. I am happy to say that much of the research I did noticed this. In fact, many astute and faithful theologians address similar issues. (This is a cause for hope in the trajectory of Christianity in the future.)

As Brian Stoffregen notes:

If the Pharisee is viewed as a villain and the tax collector a hero, besides the historical inaccuracies, the parable loses its power. They have only received what they deserved. There is no need for the reversal in this last verse.

Well noted, Brian! Thanks.

In other words, this parable is about much more than pride being bad, and humility being good. There is a lot more going on than a simple moral-isms.

So, if the lens we bring to reading this parable is a dualistic black and white, what happens is a boring, typical reading. Each character gets what they deserve, & to borrow Stoffregen’s phrase, there is no need for the reversal in the last verse.

-

Before we deal explicitly with the humiliation of the Pharisee, let’s focus on some of the research I said I hoped to accomplish:

Concerning the role of the Pharisee in the community, David Schnasa Jacobsen notes:

It would be a mistake to read Luke's Pharisees as if they were Matthew's or a mere stereotype for legalism. If there is any group that is closest to Luke's very Jewish Jesus, it is the Pharisees.

Furthermore, E. Elizabeth Johnson makes this point:

It is curious that he (the Pharisee) goes to the temple at all, since the Pharisees are the first to promote “the priesthood of all believers,” and the locus of their religious lives is the home rather than the temple altar.

(Feasting on the Word, 214)

And Audrey L. S. West in New Proclamation:

Pharisees, for their part, were devoted to God's commandments, and they worked to discern how best to live and act faithfully in matters of everyday life. The Pharisee in the parable, for example, tithes and fasts (v. 12), positive acts that demonstrate his piety. Pharisees in Jesus' day were not nearly as influential nor viewed so negatively as the canonical Gospels suggest, particularly in the region of Galilee.

(Note: The New Proclamation links may not work, as you have to be a member to view many of their links.)

This research suggests that most first century Jews hearing this story would likely identify the Pharisee as the model of proper/righteous piety. That begins to show how incredible Jesus’ proclamation at the end of the parable is.

And now, finally, we must deal with the Pharisee & his humiliation.

The Pharisee is not justified (before the cross-event has occurred), the tax-collector is.

In 1711 Jonathan Swift made the provocative point that we have enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.

At this point, I have to admit to myself, like it or not, the parable is pointing out something. This parable offers a judgment on religion, and the religious, that needs to be heard.

One’s piety, institutional or private, affects how one relates their neighbor. In the case of the Pharisee, piety does not bring him closer to his neighbor (the tax collector) and therefore it doesn’t bring him any closer to God. In fact, it creates separation.

Perhaps that is the humiliation. In his assumptions about God, God’s love, his neighbor and himself, he has gotten it all wrong. God chooses creation, and says, ‘yes,’ to that creation.

The humiliation could be explained in terms of what are typically described as God’s punishments after the sin in Eden.

Rather than thinking of the aftermath of eating the fruit as punishment, the consequences could be better explained as the natural outcomes of choosing to dwell in a place of self-obsession.

The Pharisee, in his pursuit to justify himself, will be humiliated. The humiliation will come in the fact that he will despise people who are loved by God. The humiliation will come in the pretentious acts he engages in, i.e., ‘standing apart and praying thus.’

On my “about me” section on my facebook page I make the assertion that I am tension. During my last two years of college, as I got wrapped up in theology, I became taken with the on-going tensions in Christian theology.

This parable brings me back to those tensions. This parable does not condemn the Pharisee to justify the tax-collector. That isn’t how God works.

This parable is just that, a parable: a picture of a time and a place. Often we become fixated in a particular moment. The tax-collector leaves justified, hopefully in God’s grace there is a future beyond humiliation for the Pharisee, too. Jesus’ ministry was about those who needed a gracious God.

To remember Michael Hardin & Jeff Krantz salient point “…we might say that each one gets the god in whom he believes. Alas for the Christian who believes in a violent retributive God.” Let’s pray for a new future for that Pharisee, too. (Which might be the very point of where and when Jesus preached this particular parable.)

*One last point, the process of researching this parable was interesting for me, someone in seminary. Throughout the week I realized I quickly jumped to get religious folk off the hook. Perhaps this is always inappropriate, particularly for “professional church folk.” Jesus’ critiques were often aimed at the religious elite, in North America, Christians in general have been given this particular place. It is “right and salutary” to pray for folk like the Pharisee, but there should be accountability for them, too.