JOHN FACES DOWN THE PHARISEES AND PROCLAIMS THE COMING MESSIAH

JOHN FACES DOWN THE PHARISEES AND PROCLAIMS THE COMING MESSIAH

John and the Pharisees, Public Domain

Matthew 3:7-12, Mark 1:7-8 and Luke 3:7-18

We Christians have learned of Baptism in the church and some have heard about it all their life. Most people in America are familiar with the practice, even if they don’t go to church. And we tend to think of it as very Christian. It is easy to grow up thinking of John the Baptist doing some new radical thing of his own design. But it was actually a very old, and very Jewish, practice by the time Yochanon ben Zechariah (John son of Zechariah) came along.

It had its roots in the purification and cleansing rituals given in the Law of Moses (Exodus 19:10; Leviticus 8:6; Leviticus 16:4; Numbers Chaper19 and Numbers 31:21-24). Beyond the Scriptures, baptism as a practice became part of Jewish tradition long before the New Testament and was a key ingredient of the Mikveh, the conversion rites to become a Jew. This was tevillah, the complete immersion of the convert’s body in a pool of water. Contemporary with the times of Jesus were arguments over the importance of Baptism recorded between the rabbinic schools of Shammai and Hillel. (The Hillelites prevailed in the end.)

In the 12^th century, the Jewish Scholar Maimonides, wrote of the Talmudic tradition:

"By three things did Israel enter into the Covenant: by circumcision, and baptism and sacrifice. Circumcision was in Egypt, as it is written: 'No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof' (Exodus 12:48) (NIV). Baptism was in the wilderness, just before giving of the Law, as it is written: 'Sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes' (Exodus 19:10) (NIV). And sacrifice, as it is said: 'And he sent young men of the children of Israel which offered burnt offerings' (Exodus 24:5) (NIV). …When a gentile is willing to enter the covenant…He must be circumcised and be baptized and bring a sacrifice…And at this time when there is no sacrifice, they must be circumcised and be baptized; and when the Temple shall be built, they are to bring a sacrifice…The gentile that is made a proselyte and the slave that is made free, behold he is like a child new born. [Emphasis mine –LEM]"

Therefore, what John was doing wasn’t entirely strange to the Jews. Submersion in water represented a change of soul and rebirth to the Jew. It was a commitment to a new life and a preparation for life with a reborn spirit and fresh eyes. It was a step toward reaching a higher plane toward God, purification, a cleansing away of the sins and old life. This was just what John was offering, much as great evangelists offer the Gospel in the present age. John the Baptist was the Billy Graham of his day.

It isn’t surprising Pharisees and Sadducees would come out to see the phenomena. Note that they did not condemn John or claim he was breaking any of the Law or traditions, as they were to accuse Jesus of doing on several occasions. They must have been somewhat taken back by his greeting (“You brood of vipers!)”, though.

But when he [John] saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, he said unto them. “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say and think not to say within yourselves, ‘We have Abraham to our father’: for I say to you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

“And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”

It is worthy of note here that many of these allusions will reappear in parables and talks given by Jesus in his own ministry: brood of vipers, producing fruit, stones, cutting down of nonproductive trees to be thrown in the fire. The same as with John’s answer ("The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.") to their question, with prefigures part of the Sermon on the Mount.

And the people asked him, saying, “What shall we do then?”

He answered and said to them, “He that has two coats, let him impart to him that has none; and he that has meat, let him do likewise.”

Then came also publicans [contractors who hired out to Rome as tax collectors, suppliers to the military, overseers of public building projects and collectors of port fees] to be baptized, and said to him, “Master, what shall we do?”

And he said to them, “Exact no more than that which is appointed you.”

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, “And what shall we do?”

And he said to them, “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.”

And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he was the Christ, or not.

This too was not unexpected. People knew the prophesies of a coming messiah, and because of certain prophesies, especially those of Daniel, they were looking for the Messiah at this particular time. There were a number of false Messiahs in and about all ready. What they failed to understand was the two rolls of the Messiah and the two comings. John was here to prepare the way for the first coming.

John answered, saying to them all and this was his message, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance”. And preached, saying “But one that comes after is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire, and whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and will gather his wheat into his garner, but he will burn up the chaff with fire unquenchable.”

And many other things in his exhortation preached he to the people.

 What is John talking about when he says, “whose fan is in his hand…etc.”?

His illustration would have been under stood as it was a common practice of those times in the process of harvested grain. Some translation use “winnowing fork” in place of fan, but it could be a basket, such as the one in the illustration that has a fan like shape. This was used for wind winnowing. The winnower would toss the wheat into the air and the wind would blow away the lighter chaff or non-edible grain away from the good wheat. Chaff, the worthless grain, would become a synonym for anything useless or worthless. This worthless chaff would be swept up and burned. 

(Painting: “The Winnower”, 1847-48 by Jean-Francois Millet).

CALLING OF MATTHEW

“The Feast in the House of Levi” by Paolo Galliari Veronese, 1573

CALLING OF MATTHEW

Matthew 9:9-17; Mark 2:13-22; Luke 5:27-39

And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted to him and he taught them.

Jesus fame and popularity grew in Galilee, especially along the coast of Capernaum. Multitudes of people follow in his comings and goings. Many have come to hear what he says, but a great number are interested in his ability to cure.

And after these things, as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man as he passed by named Matthew Levi, the son of Alphaeus, a publicansitting at the receipt of custom: and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he left all, arose, and followed him.

One day walking through the streets of Capernaum he looks at a publican working in his stall. The man has two names, Levi and Matthew. Some critics have tried to insist Levi and Matthew were two different persons, but it is obvious from Scripture they were the same man. It was not unusual for people to have two names in those times.  Levi was the third son of Jacob whose descendents became the priestly class. It was common practice to name a child after past important figures in Jewish history. There is some speculation that Matthew was a name given to him by Jesus, much as Christ renamed Simon to Peter. Matthew is also from a Hebrew root and means Gift of Jehovah. It is interesting that Levi means, “joined”. Perhaps the naming was the other way around since Matthew joined with Jesus.

There are also critics who claim there are two different Matthews, the tax collector named here in scripture and some anonymous person who wrote the Gospel of Matthew. These critics do what all elitist and cynics do, base their judgment on the basis that someone couldn’t have accomplished certain things because they lacked the background and education of the elitists. But Matthew was an educated man to be a publican and probably versed in Latin, Greek and Aramaic. Because these men who became Jesus’ followers did not have college degrees did not mean they lacked knowledge or understanding of God and the Jewish Scriptures.

Matthew’s background is unknown, except for a few passages of the Gospel. He was the son of Alphaeus. This may mean that Mathew was the brother of James the Less, son of Alphaeus. That is not illogical. It is quiet possible, just as Andrew fetched his brother Simon to Christ, Matthew may have brought his brother James.

Jesus passed by and said, “Follow me” and Matthew got up, left his occupation on the spot and did. I don’t think it was a sudden whim. Jesus was preaching in Capernaum for a while by now. Matthew may have heard him at times, may even have been following him about. He may have had good reasons to be seeking a new life.

He was a publican, not a particularly admired profession. No one likes the tax collector and when the collector is more often than not corrupt and overcharging it borders on hatred. This was doubly so for Matthew, a Jew collecting duties for Rome. His people viewed him as a traitor.

Tax collectors were not as we have today. The publicans were freelancers, not elected or appointed. They placed bids with the Roman senate to acquire a post. They made their money by charging a fee over and beyond what the tax was. It was also common practice to exaggerate the tax and keep the difference.

There were two levels of publicans. Those who made the bids at the Senate were the chief publicans and generally came from the elite class of Romans called Equites. These were the ancestors of the equestrian or knight class. Matthew most likely belonged to the second level of publicans, who we can view as franchisees. These men worked for the Chief Publicans. All publicans could become wealthy within such a system.

And it came to pass that Levi made him a great feast in his own houseand as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, a great many publicans and other sinners came and sat down also together with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many and they followed him.

From this passage we see Matthew was among the publicans who did well financially. He also must have had influence among the others in his trade for a great many came to this feast he threw. Why did he have this feast? He wanted his friends to see and hear Jesus. This also tells us not to avoid those we know are sinners, but to reach out to them and try to help them see just who Christ is.

But when their scribes and Pharisees saw it, him eat with publicans and sinners, they murmured against his disciples and said to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners? How is it that your Master eats and drinks with publicans and sinners?”

Jesus has acquired enough notice by this time that the Scribes and Pharisees are dogging his steps. They aren’t interested in his message as much as catching him in some blasphemy. These men would not ever sit down and eat with the type of person Matthew is or his friends. They were too Holier-than-thou to mingle with sinners, seeing themselves as above sin.

But when Jesus heard that, answering, he said to them, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. But go you and learn what that means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

I doubt that these Scribes and Pharisees understood this explanation. They were too committed to judgment of those not like themselves. This is a warning to us as well. We as saved Christians must never see ourselves above the sinners we once were. Jesus saved and guides us, but our human natures are no different from the corrupt and lost around us. I think we look too forward to judgment rather than concentrating on mercy. It isn’t our job to condemn the sinners of this world, but to lead them to salvation. 

QUESTIONING BY THE DISCIPLES OF JOHN

“Christ Eating With Sinners” Artist Unknown, from Christ The King College, Isle of Wight

QUESTIONING BY THE DISCIPLES OF JOHN

Matthew 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; Luke 5:33-39

Jesus was at the banquet thrown by his latest recruit, Matthew Levi, the Tax Collector. The Pharisees and Scribes are critical of his sitting down with such people as Matthew’s friends. Jesus tells them, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” He then orders them to “go you and learn what that means, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

What then did the Pharisees and Scribes think of this order? These were men that were very familiar with scripture. The would probably immediately turn to Hosea 6:6, “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings.”

It is probably wise to look at the whole passage in Hosea, because I think it is key to understanding what Christ then tells the disciples of John and his two parables.

Come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us to pieces, but he will heal us; he has injured us, but he will bind up our wounds. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us that we may live in his presence. Let us acknowledge the Lord; let us press on to acknowledge him. As surely as the sun rises, he will appear; he will come to us like the winter rains, like the spring rains that water the earth.”

What can I do with you, Ephraim? What can I do with you, Judah? Your love is like the morning mist, like the early dew that disappears. Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets, I killed you with the words of my mouth—
then my judgments go forth like the sun.

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. As at Adam, they have broken the covenant; they were unfaithful to me there. Gilead is a city of evildoers, stained with footprints of blood.

As marauders lie in ambush for a victim, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, carrying out their wicked schemes. I have seen a horrible thing in Israel: There Ephraim is given to prostitution, Israel is defiled. Also for you, Judah,
a harvest is appointed. Whenever I would restore the fortunes of my people.”

--Hosea 6: 1-11

Hosea was a prophet living in northern Israel between 780 and 725 BC. His name means, “He saves” and was the original name of Joshua. The Book of Hosea is prophecies concerning Israel’s infidelity to God. These prophecies came just before the Northern Kingdom fell. Using the marriage of Hosea to Gomer and their children, the Book outlines God’s “divorce” from Israel as his people, but with the promise he will one day restore them. The book points toward Christ as Savior and of a new covenant in which God makes the sacrifice and sheds his mercy on those people who will accept it.

In other words, in hindsight, we can see the coming of Christ to people who are not Israel, who will be accepting of God’s love and mercy, but with the promise that God will not desert Israel completely. It points to not following some list of rules to gain God’s mercy, but an acknowledgment of God.

The Pharisees, however, had long followed a growing list of dos and don’ts. This we see implied in their condemnation of Jesus sitting down to eat with Publicans and sinners. We see this futher in the question about fasting put forth by the disciples of John the Baptist and the Pharisees’ followers.

And Then came to him the disciples of John and of the Pharisees used to fast and they come and say to him, saying, “Why do we the disciples of John and likewise of the Pharisees fast oft, but your disciples fast not, but eat and drink?”

And Jesus said to them, “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn while the bridegroom is with them? As long as the bridegroom is with them they cannot fast? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast in those days.”

John the Baptist has been jailed. Perhaps his disciples have come to Jesus looking toward him as a possible new leader to follow. They have been devout Jews and now they find Jesus and his Disciples behaving in ways that seem wrong to them. John had lived an ascetic life, eating locust and honey and here is this man Jesus feasting and drinking with sinners. The disciples of John probably have more in common with the Pharisees and Scribes at this point than in what Jesus is teaching.

When they ask about this, Jesus’ explanation must have been somewhat mystifying to them. “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn while the bridegroom is with them? As long as the bridegroom is with them they cannot fast? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast in those days.” They would understand such a saying as it applied to the betrothal traditions, but how did that apply to this situation? We can look at this and associate it with Christ being the groom and the church being his bride. We can look at this and understand that Jesus will eventually be crucified. But John’s disciples would not have understood those things at this time. And then Jesus follows this up with a couple of mystifying parables that seem unrelated to anything.

And he spoke also a parable to them. “No man also sews a piece of new cloth to an old garment, for else the new piece that which is put in to fill it up takes from the old garment, and the rent is made worse. If otherwise, then both the new makes a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agrees not with the old. And neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the new wine burst the bottles and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred, perish: but they put new wine into new bottles and both are preserved.

“No man also having drunk old wine straightway desires new: for he says, the old is better.”

From practical application we know what is stated is true. If you patch an old garment with new cloth that has not been shrunk, then the patch does not match the old garment so that when it is washed the new patch shrinks. When this happens the shrinking patch will pull taunt and make the original tear worse. We also realize that the bottles being referred to here are not glass, but animal skins. Wineskins are filled with new wine and as the wine ferments it stretches the skins. If the old wine is used up and the skins dry they become cracked and weak. When refilled with new wine they are at risk of bursting.

But what has patches and old wineskins to do with the question asked by John’s disciples and the Pharisees concerning their fasting verses Jesus and his band feasting? Everything. These parables are very difficult. I have heard people say the new wine and the new patch represent Christianity. It is said then that the old garment that is rent further by the new patch or the bottles destroyed by the new wine is Judaism. Christianity replaces Judaism and old wine is the Old Testament and the new wine the New Testament.

But this doesn’t make a lot of sense. Both parables say you don’t put something new on or in something old without destruction to the old. How could this be so? Did the appearance of the New Testament do away with the Old Testament? Was it Jesus’ purpose to destroy Judaism? If this is the meaning of these parables, than how do we square it with what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.– Matthew 5: 17-20 (KJV)

And how does such an explanation fit with the statement stated immediately after he tells these parables? “No man also having drunk old wine straightway desires new: for he says, the old is better.”

Where did this section begin? It began with Jesus calling Simon Peter, Andrew, James and John from their nets to follow him and be fishers of men. This question by John’s Disciples about fasting is raised right after Matthew leaves his tax stand to also follow Jesus. What lies not far ahead in this time frame is Jesus is naming his twelve Apostles.

And who are these Disciples of Jesus in the eyes of the Pharisees and Scribes, and probably John the Baptist’s Disciples as well? They are riff-raff, common ignorant men, and in the case of Matthew, a traitor. Here comes this bunch of fishermen and a tax collector joining Jesus as his closest companions. Why these guys? Why didn’t Jesus take in John the Baptist’s Disciples or recruit from the highly educated Pharisee class? If you were sent from God, wouldn’t you surround yourself with the “godly” people?

When Jesus tells the two parables there is no indication anyone present asked any questions. Is this because the Gospel writers choose not to present any opposing remarks or is it that what Jesus said was not altogether unfamiliar to the “godly” people asking him about fasting?

There are Jewish writings called Avots that the Pharisees and Scribes were probably familiar with. These were writings by Rabbis and teachers that dealt with religious thought and interpretation of the Torah. Contained in one of these called the Pirkei Avot (Chapters of the Fathers or Ethics of the Fathers) is a discussion with some similarity to these parables.

Elisha ben Avuyah said: "He who studies as a child, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written upon a fresh sheet of paper. But he who studies as an adult, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to ink written on a smudged sheet of paper.

Rabbi Yose ben Yehudah of the city of Babylon said, "He who learns from the young, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats unripe grapes, and drinks unfermented wine from his vat. But he who learns from the old, unto what can he be compared? He can be compared to one who eats ripe grapes, and drinks old wine.

Rabbi (Meir) said: Do not pay attention to the container but pay attention to that which is in it. There is a new container full of old wine, and here is an old container which does not even contain new wine.

In essence, Jesus has chosen untrained men who will study ink on fresh paper. This will allow them to see clearly what the truth of God’s words are rather then losing sight of the meaning in old ink that shows through the smudges of used paper.

Jesus is not bringing a new religious, he is bringing the truth to the old, which has been distorted and smudged with the ideas of men to the point the original truth God intended seems like some radical new idea. The Pharisees and Scribes have been taught since youth the wrong things, but this makes them like used wineskins, they will not easily accept the truth. The old wine is the previous teachings of men and the new wine is Jesus’ new teaching of the truth. The old cloth are the over-educated, the new cloth those who are teachable. It will be easier for these uneducated fishermen and sinners to understand the message Jesus is bringing, that God desires mercy, not sacrifice, then those long fermenting in the idea of sacrifice, not mercy. They are, as an old saying goes, “Too heavenly minded to be any earthly good.” Or perhaps, they “can’t see the forest for the trees.”

“No man also having drunk old wine straightway desires new: for he says, the old is better.” Do you understand? This is like all those people who tell you, “That’s how we always did it.” Once you have been thoroughly inebriated on the old, it is difficult to enjoy the new.