PART 2 – EXPLORE THE CHARACTERS
​
Chapter 10 - Honour Confrontations in the Gospels
In episode 3 of the Joseph story we looked at the growing jealousy and anger between Joseph and his brothers as an “honour confrontation”, with Joseph being (actually or potentially) allotted status and honour which threatened the position of his brothers (especially that of Reuben, who should rightfully inherit the birth-right and blessing apportioned to the firstborn son).
​
This kind of confrontation occurs frequently in both Old Testament and New Testament contexts, though New Testament examples are usually rather more subtle and seldom involve overt physical violence.
​
Here we will look at a section of Luke’s Gospel which contains remarkable parallels to the passage we covered in the Joseph story. Here the confrontation (or rather a series of confrontations) involve Jesus versus the Pharisees and the teachers of the religious law (the Scribes). At the beginning of this series of confrontations, the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees and teachers of the law is tentative and suspicious, but not especially confrontational. But as Jesus claims more and more status and authority, at the expense of the religious leaders, their jealousy and anger grows, and builds to a climax, paralleling the story of Joseph and his brothers to a remarkable degree.
​
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confrontation 1. Healing the paralytic (from Luke 5:17-26)
​
One day Jesus was teaching in the home of one of his followers, He was standing in the central courtyard of the house, and the crowds that gathered around took up every available space. Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law were sitting on the edge of the crowd. These men seem to have come from every village in Galilee and Judea, as well as from Jerusalem.​
​
​Jesus’s reputation for healing the sick had got around, and so some men came carrying a paralyzed man on a sleeping mat. They tried to get inside the courtyard to bring him to Jesus, but they couldn't reach him because of the crowd. So they went up onto the roof and took off some of the tiles that covered the central courtyard, above where Jesus was teaching. Then they lowered the sick man on his mat down into the crowd, right in front of Jesus.
​
When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, "Young man, your sins are forgiven."
But the Pharisees and teachers of religious law said to themselves, "Who does he think he is, speaking such blasphemy? Only God can forgive sins!"
​
Jesus knew what they were thinking, so he asked them, "Why are you raising such objections in your hearts? Which is easier to say 'Your sins are forgiven,' or 'Stand up and walk'? But it doesn’t matter which one I choose to say – my actions are enough to prove to you that I, the Son of Man, have the authority on earth to forgive sins." Then Jesus turned to the paralyzed man and said, "Stand up, pick up your mat, and go home!" And immediately, before everyone’s eyes, he got up, picked up his mat, and went home praising God.
​
​Everyone was amazed and awestruck. They praised God, exclaiming, "We have seen something incredible happen today!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now there is no suggestion in Luke’s account, before this particular incident, that there was any tension or opposition between Jesus and the religious leaders. However there are a couple of clues in the story that suggest the Pharisees and teachers of the law were here for a purpose:​
​
-
They apparently had come “from every village in Galilee and Judea, as well as from Jerusalem”. This suggests a coordinated effort for so many to be gathered there in the same place and at the same time.
-
They were “sitting on the edge of the crowd”. So not getting personally involved in the proceedings, but looking on from the outside, taking an objective and critical viewpoint.
-
It seems likely that they were sitting in a group so that they could easily discuss their reactions and responses with one another and compare notes.
So putting these facts together, it seems that the Pharisees and teachers of the law were there to check out this new young Rabbi, to see why he was rapidly becoming so popular, and to examine whether his teaching was orthodox. And what they heard caused them to object most strongly. Jesus’s words seemed to them to be not just unorthodox, but blasphemous! The words they objected to were fairly simple words, but had very deep implications: "Young man, your sins are forgiven."
​
​The Pharisees objection is, on the face of it, also quite simple and well justified: "Only God can forgive sins."
True. Only God can forgive sins. It is often commented here that Jesus’ statement is a claim to divinity. That is certainly true, but I’m not convinced this was the immediate cause of the objections of the religious leaders. The Old Testament law required that forgiveness be obtained through fairly complex rituals of offerings and sacrifices. The Pharisees and teachers of the law interpreted and refined this system of regulations, defining what was permitted by the law and what counted as sin, and also setting out the ceremonial rituals and sacrifices that must be made to atone for offences committed. God’s forgiveness was mediated by the religious leaders of the day, who acted as God’s representatives in accepting the appropriate sacrifices and pronouncing the sinner cleansed and released from the effect of their sinful deeds.
​
So Jesus, by taking upon himself the authority to forgive sins (without, mark you, any requirement to seek the services of the priest or offer any sacrifice of atonement) was bypassing the official ceremonial system and challenging the authority of the religious leaders.
​
So the parallels between this story and the Joseph story start to emerge. In the story of Joseph, Reuben and his full brothers – Simeon, Levi, Judah – have rightful status and honour in the family because of their position as the children of Leah, Jacob’s first and elder wife. In particular Reuben is the firstborn son, and as such has the responsibility for mediation between his father and his younger brothers. But along comes Joseph, the young upstart, who is promoted as his father’s favourite, loved above his brothers, given privileges and status that (from his brother’s viewpoint) he doesn’t deserve, and appointed by his father as mediator and go-between, reporting his brothers deeds to their father, and causing so much anger and resentment.
​
In the story of Jesus’ relationship with the Pharisees and teachers of the law, the religious leaders consider themselves the rightful representatives of God, and mediators between God and the people, which gives them status and honour above that of their fellow countrymen. Now along comes this upstart, Jesus, who claims to have a special relationship with God, to have been given authority which bypasses and threatens their own, and to be able to act in his own right as the mediator of God’s forgiveness and blessing. And their subsequent anger and resentment parallels that of Joseph’s brothers.
​
​The following series of confrontations further frustrate the efforts of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law to regain their honour, and increase their anger and jealousy.
​
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confrontation 2. Eating with tax collectors and sinners (from Luke 5:27-32​)
​
​Later, as Jesus left the town, he saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at his tax collector's booth. Jesus said to him, "Come along and follow me.” So Levi got up, left everything, and followed him.​
​
Later, Levi held a banquet in his home in Jesus’ honour. Many of Levi's fellow tax collectors and other guests also ate with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of religious law came to Jesus' disciples, and harangued them, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with these tax-collectors and other such scum?"
But Jesus answered them, "It’s not the healthy who need a doctor—it’s the sick! I haven’t come to call the righteous – or those who think they are - but those who are sinners and recognize their need to repent."
​
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​
-
Why does Jesus’ action in this passage upset the religious leaders?
-
What authority does Jesus claim to have in his last statement?
-
How does this threaten the authority of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​​
Confrontation 3. Harvesting grain on the Sabbath (from Luke 6:1-5​
​
​One Sabbath day as Jesus was walking through a fields of wheat, his disciples broke off some of the heads of wheat, rubbed off the husks in their hands, and ate the grain.​
​
But some Pharisees said, "Why are you breaking the law by harvesting on the Sabbath?"
​
Jesus replied, "Haven't you read the story in the Scriptures about what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He went into the house of God and ate the sacred loaves of bread that only the priests are allowed to eat. He also gave some to his companions. My point is, the Son of Man is Lord, even over the Sabbath."
​
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​
-
Why does Jesus’ action in this passage upset the religious leaders?
-
What authority does Jesus claim to have in his last statement?
-
How does this threaten the authority of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confrontation 4. Healing the man with the withered hand (from Luke 6:6-11​)
​
On another Sabbath day, Jesus was teaching in the synagogue, and there was a man right there in the synagogue with a deformed right hand. The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees watched Jesus closely to see if he would heal him. If he healed the man's hand, they planned to accuse him of working on the Sabbath.​
​But Jesus was one step ahead of them and knew what they were planning. He said to the man with the deformed hand, "Come and stand here in front of everyone." So the man came and stood there. Jesus said to his critics, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, "I have a question for you. Does the law require us to do good on the Sabbath, or to do evil? Is this a day to save life or to destroy it?" He looked around at them all and then turned and said to the man, "Hold out your hand." So the man held out his hand, and it was completely restored!​
​
​At this, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees were furious with rage and began to plot against Jesus and discuss how to get rid of him.
​
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
​
This confrontation takes a somewhat different direction from the preceding ones.
​
Firstly, while the previous three confrontations arose spontaneously, this one is definitely pre-planned. The Pharisees and teachers of the law had deliberately set up the situation, and were watching Jesus carefully to see if he would fall into the trap. Their plan was to accuse him of “working” on the Sabbath. But as the story tells, Jesus was prepared for them and knew what they were planning, and he turns the situation completely on its head:​
​
-
​He pulls the man with the deformed hand out of the crowd and has him stand at the front of the congregation in full view. In this was Jesus “springs the trap”. Now everyone knows that Jesus is aware of the Pharisees plans and is prepared to confront them full on.
-
He poses a question to the religious leaders. This is a strategy Jesus often used when challenged by his critics, and he always manages to phrase the question in such a way that his opponents cannot answer without incriminating themselves. The Pharisees and teachers of the law cannot possibly answer, “The Sabbath is a day to do evil”, but if they answer, “It’s a day to do good.” Then Jesus will answer, “Then why do you object to healing this man on the Sabbath?” There is nothing they can say (and in a confrontational debate with an opponent, that is the worst place to be!)
-
He heals the man, and in a way which is clearly miraculous. The man simply stretches out his hand, and it is healed. Jesus leaves no question that this is a direct intervention from God. Furthermore, the Pharisees can’t argue that the man didn’t have the withered hand in the first place – they were the ones who set him up!
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law have suffered a resounding and public defeat. Their plan has been exposed, and they have been placed in a position where they have no response to Jesus’ challenge. They can only stand and watch in dumb frustration as the man is healed, and Jesus gains the glory and honour.
​
But it’s the cumulative effect of these different confrontations that build up the tension and raises the stakes step by step, to the point where the religious leaders are driven to discussing the final solution – how to get rid of Jesus for good. If we read the same story in Mark’s Gospel, Mark tells us that:
“Immediately they went and talked with the supporters of Herod, and plotted with them how to kill Jesus”
​
At the root of this extreme response is the question of honour. What we have is a series of honour confrontations in which Jesus comes out the winner every time. As a result, Jesus gains in honour, reputation and favour with the people, and the Pharisees and teachers of the law see their honour and status being threatened and eroded.
​
From this point on, the Pharisees and teachers of the law are determined to see Jesus condemned to death, and do everything in their power to bring their plan to fruition.
​
John’s Gospel especially brings out the honour/shame aspects of the confrontation between Jesus and the religious leaders, which ended up with Jesus death on the cross. Crucifixion was intended in Roman culture as the ultimate expression of shame and dishonour. But John consistently portrays the cross in terms of high honour, victory and glory.
“… as Moses raised up the bronze snake on a pole in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be raised up on high, so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life.” (John 3:14-15).
​
This “raising up” is the very opposite of the “putting down”, the shame and disgrace intended by the religious leaders. Jesus’ death on the cross is the highest point in his glorious sacrifice and victory over sin and Satan. It is Jesus who is crowned with glory and honour, while the religious leaders of the day are the ones who bear the shame and disgrace.
_____________________________________________________________
​
Some questions for thought or discussion
​
-
What do you feel you have learned by comparing the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees/teachers of the law and that between Joseph and his brothers? Do you see any other parallels that are worth exploring?
-
What do these confrontations reveal about the character of the Pharisees? Why were they so antagonistic towards the things Jesus said?
-
What truths can we learn about the person of Jesus Christ through this series of stories?
​
​
​
