Sermon Tone Analysis

The Comfort of Conservatism

Mark 7:1-13

 

/The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed.

(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders.

When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash.

And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

/

/So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?” /

/He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: /

/”‘These people honour me with their lips, /

/but their hearts are far from me.

/

/They worship me in vain; /

/their teachings are but rules taught by men.’

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.” /

/And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

For Moses said, ‘Honour your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’

But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.

Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.

And you do many things like that.”/

| S |

hortly before I moved from Coquitlam a new family moved into our neighbourhood.

The family, living across the street from my house, had been in Canada for only twelve days when they introduced themselves.

They had learned from another neighbour that I was a minister of the Gospel and they asked about church services in the area.

They mentioned that they had attended the services of a large, well-known evangelical congregation in the area the previous Sunday, but that they had no intention of again attending services there.

Their reason for not returning to that congregation was not what I might have expected.

They had waited at the conclusion of the service for a blessing, but none had been pronounced.

Their expectations were not met and they were quite offended at what they saw as a serious breach of evangelical etiquette or a grave doctrinal deviation.

A tradition among the evangelical churches in Europe is the inclusion of a benedictory pronouncement, a blessing of the congregation at the conclusion of the service (European evangelical worship being somewhat more structured then that of Canadian congregations).

Consequently, this family anticipated certain traditions to authenticate a congregation.

Confronted by unmet expectations they drew a conclusion which though probably invalid will forever preclude their return to that congregation.

Consequently, they continued to look for a church which would outwardly fulfil their expectation of what an evangelical church should be.

Before you leap to a conclusion concerning the piety of my former neighbours, consider that each of us to greater or lesser degree make judgements about the piety of fellow Christians and concerning the doctrinal integrity of churches based upon dearly loved traditions (some of which are of more recent vintage than we might think).

Christians, and especially ministers, do not smoke since smoking is a sign of a sinful heart.

I have always held Charles Spurgeon in high esteem, yet Spurgeon smoked cigars until rather late in his ministry.

Likewise, I have greatly benefited from the writing ministry of G. Campbell Morgan.

Like Spurgeon, Morgan smoked throughout the entirety of his ministry, the difference being that he smoked cigarettes.

I still remember the shock registered when a saintly minister from South Carolina stepped off the tour bus on which we were all riding and lit a pipe.

Is smoking clearly condemned in the Word of God, or is avoidance of smoking a tradition of more recent vintage?

Jesse Mercer, noted Baptist divine from the nineteenth century was frequently supported with gifts of corn liquor by the parishioners of his churches.

We judge commitment to Christ by a variety of means – individual actions, appearance or dress, which version of the Bible is used in the pulpit, the congregational hymnody, instrumentation in the church, or the manner of worship.

Such judgements may or may not inform us of individual piety and devotion to God, and such judgements may or may not inform us of congregation piety, however the possibility of misjudgement does not deter us.

Such judgements have guided religious devotees for centuries, even during the days of Christ.

An example of such judgement, rendered against Christ Himself, is given in our text.

Join me in examining the kitchen debate as the Pharisees judged Jesus’ disciples.

The Incident In Perspective — The text records yet another of the long-standing and ongoing conflicts between Jewish religious leaders and Jesus.

Many of the incidents in the Gospels are explained by this war which could only result in the utter defeat for one side or the other.

Either Jesus must die or the Pharisees and teachers of the law must yield to His teaching.

Throughout the whole of His earthly ministry, Jesus was beset by men bitterly opposed to His teaching.

An old saying which is commonly heard throughout the southern United States instructs: if you don’t want trouble, don’t say anything, don’t do anything, don’t be anything.

Jesus had constant conflict with the religious leaders of that day which leads us to believe that He ignored the advice of that old saw.

Mark begins his gospel with a review of Jesus’ ministry in the words: after John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God [*Mark 1:14*].

From that moment the religious leaders engaged in a form of religious guerrilla warfare against Jesus, constantly trying to trap Him in His words [*Matthew 22:15*].

A truth squad seems to have followed Jesus in an attempt to correct His teaching with the people.

On one occasion, one of these truth squads was present when Jesus’ disciples paused to eat (whether a full meal or a snack we are not told).

Pharisaic tradition demanded that a person could not eat until he had washed.

Frankly, I am in favour of washing before meals, especially if you have engaged in certain activities such as baiting hooks, spreading fertiliser, gardening, or other such activities.

However, I view such precautions as a health issue.

For these religious leaders, however, such washing had nothing to do with health but everything to do with religion.

The mundane activity of washing was elevated to a religious ritual … a purification rite!

On one occasion Lynda and I were present at a Jewish-Christian conference where those wishing to wash before the meal were invited to the platform to perform the ablutions.

Of especial interest to me were three observations.

I observed that only orthodox Jewish males took advantage of the offer – the Christians and liberal Jews apparently having washed before they came to the dinner.

I also noted that the washing could not have been sufficient to cleanse the hands even though water was poured over the hands and onto the forearms; it was strictly a ritual and obviously not a health consideration.

My final observation was that the ritual was performed quite openly, on an elevated platform at the front of the building, presumably as an indication to all observers of the care with which the ritual was observed by those participating.

Believing they had something, if not directly against Jesus then at least against His disciples for whom He bore responsibility, the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus: Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with `unclean' hands?

[*Mark 7:5*].

What a shock they must have received when He replied for He did not defend His disciples and their actions, but simply applied pointed prophetic Scripture against them.

He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

 

These people honour me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

They worship me in vain;

their teachings are but rules taught by men

[*Mark 7:6,7*].

He continued in His refutation of their cowardly and calumnious attack by making a specific charge against them, detailing the error of their current fuss with the disciples eating with unwashed hands: You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men [*Mark 7:8*].

Greater than any violation of the law, though, He charged them with attempting to rewrite the law!

And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

For Moses said, `Honour your father and your mother,' and, `Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'

But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: `Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.

Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.

And you do many things like that."

[*Mark 7:9-13*].

The religious leaders had attempted to trap Jesus, discrediting Him before His public, only to have the tables turned against them.

They were powerless, as all frauds are powerless, before the truth.

Underscore in your mind several concepts vital to your understanding of the continuing conflict.

The Pharisees and teachers of the law were not “bad” people.

In fact, the Pharisees and teachers of the law were generally held in high esteem by the people.

The Pharisees and teachers of the law held, however, an inflated a sense of their own importance.

They were so focused on the external aspects of religious observance that they failed to recognise the foundational, internal aspects of religious ritual.

We must always remember that every external practise must be founded upon an internal truth in order to be valid and in order to insure endurance.

The Pharisees ignored this great principle of religious practise.

The Assertion Of The Pharisees – Actions Reveal Attitude — The problem of the Pharisees is also the basis for the threat which becomes the calamity of conservatism – the tendency to assume that actions are of greater importance than attitudes.

I wish to examine this matter in greater detail, but I must first state my conviction that the Pharisees have received a bum rap in our day.

I do not believe the Pharisees were as generally despised as we are sometimes led to believe.

In fact, they appear to have been held in considerable esteem.

The Pharisees were the conservatives of Jewish religious practise.

They were, if you will, the evangelicals of Judaism.

Pious people respected the work of the Pharisees and held them in esteem.

The shock of Jesus’ condemnation was that it was the Pharisees who were condemned!

When Judah was finally deported from the land and forced into Babylonian captivity, there seemed little hope that the Jewish Faith would survive.

Godly men determined that they would insure the survival of the Mosaic faith and out of that determination grew up the concept of the synagogue with local control over the expression of the Faith.

It set a minimum number for worship and called the people back to the Word of God.