Does Jesus Hate Your Theology?

There are three narratives in the gospels that I think all believers should use as an evaluative lens to answer the question, “does Jesus hate my theology?” They are, Matthew 9:9-13, Matthew 12:1-8,  and Luke 10:25-37. This article will look at two of those three. Using the CSB translation, let’s start with Mathew 12:1-8 (Italics and some bold parts are mine).

Matthew 12:1-8

[1] At that time Jesus passed through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick and eat some heads of grain. [2] When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "See, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath." [3] He said to them, "Haven't you read what David did when he and those who were with him were hungry: [4] how he entered the house of God, and they ate the bread of the Presence-which is not lawful for him or for those with him to eat, but only for the priests? [5] Or haven't you read in the law that on Sabbath days the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and are innocent? [6] I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. [7] If you had known what this means, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the innocent. [8] For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

A few observations of Matthew 12

• The Pharisees accused the disciples as being unlawful for picking and eating the heads of grain

• “Lawful” means to be authorized for the doing of something;  it is right, is authorized, is permitted, is proper. Not lawful means the opposite. The Pharisees were essentially saying that the disciples were sinning against God and Jesus was allowing it

• Jesus used two examples, one from 1 Samuel 21, where David, on the run for his life, ate bread that was designed for Priests to eat. Using the same language “Not lawful” Jesus shows that God did not count David’s actions against him

• His second example, was showing that priest‘s essentially break the Sabbath by doing all of the sacrificing and cleaning up the blood and animal carcass on the Sabbath. Yet they are innocent

What you may not know

The real issue was that the disciples were doing what the Pharisees interpreted as wrong to do on the Sabbath. It was one of 39 prohibitions, designated as work that was not allowed on the Sabbath (oral rabbinic tradition).

Mosaic Law (God’s Law), Deuteronomy 23:25 allowed for the heads of grain to be eaten by the poor. In fact, this is how Ruth met Boaz (Ruth 2:2-3), and became the Grandmother of David, in the lineage of Jesus.

The issue here was not disobedience to what God said. It was disobedience to the application of what God said that was created by the Pharisees (look up Mishna). Jesus knew this, so he highlighted two examples that, according to the standards of the Pharisees, would’ve been sinful. Yet they never accused David of sin. And someone greater than David is speaking to them.

By accusing the disciples of breaking God’s law, they were also accusing Jesus of breaking God’s law. They were accusing Jesus of sin. And he, as typical of Jesus, puts the real issue back on them.

Last observations

• Jesus tells them that they do not know what Hosea 6:6 and Micah 6:6-8 mean

• He says the phrase, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.”

• By saying that the Pharisees do not what that means, Jesus was also accusing them of getting the biblical priorities wrong.

• He was essentially saying, that they desire sacrifice and not mercy

• Jesus said had they known (believed and lived by) the Word of God, they would not have condemned the innocent

• In that statement, he wasn’t just referring to their accusation against the disciples. He knew it was an accusation against him. And he is the innocent that they would eventually condemn. The Lord of the very Sabbath the Pharisees think they are defending

What you may not know

Jesus did not directly define what mercy and sacrifice were in his response to their accusation. But from the context we know at the very least, mercy would’ve not condemned the innocent.

The two passages believed to be where Jesus was getting the statement on mercy and sacrifice from, give a better understanding of what mercy versus sacrifice means.

Hosea 6:6 For I desire faithful love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Micah 6:6-8

[6] What should I bring before the LORD when I come to bow before God on high? Should I come before him with burnt offerings, with year-old calves? [7] Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousand streams of oil? Should I give my firstborn for my transgression, the offspring of my body for my own sin? [8] Mankind, he has told each of you what is good and what it is the LORD requires of you: to act justly, to love faithfulness, and to walk humbly with your God.

Mercy is faithful love, a knowledge of God, acting justly (which does not condemn the innocent). Mercy has to do with the character of God. The irony in Micah 6 is that giving the first born as a sacrifice for transgressions is an extremity. And would still be insufficient. And yet is this very thing that God does for us in Jesus. For us, it is His mercy that commands our mercy. Have you ever noticed that Jesus, the most theological man that ever lived, spent more time on teaching simple, faithful, and clear practical obedience?

Sacrifice is burnt offerings, Rams, oil, and calves. It is the Law of God. This represents more the theology of God. People can hold to the Law, have accurate theology, but lack the character of God. In modern day reformed terms, we can rightly understand the doctrines of grace, but lack the character of grace. In this above context, it was being merciful, so as to not condemn the innocent.

The second narrative moves us even closer to answering the question, “does Jesus hate my theology?”

Luke 10:25-37

[25] Then an expert in the law stood up to test him, saying, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" [26] "What is written in the law?" he asked him. "How do you read it?" [27] He answered, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind," and "your neighbor as yourself." [28] "You've answered correctly," he told him. "Do this and you will live." [29] But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?" [30] Jesus took up the question and said, "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him, beat him up, and fled, leaving him half dead. [31] A priest happened to be going down that road. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. [32] In the same way, a Levite, when he arrived at the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. [33] But a Samaritan on his journey came up to him, and when he saw the man, he had compassion. [34] He went over to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on olive oil and wine. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. [35] The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him. When I come back I'll reimburse you for whatever extra you spend.' [36] "Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" [37] “The one who showed mercy to him,” he said. Then Jesus told him, “Go and do the same.” …

A few observations

• The context here is about eternal life and how one inherits it

• Jesus doesn’t directly answer him apart from eluding to the Law but asks him how he interprets it

• The expert in the Law (Mosaic Law) understood that loving God and loving neighbor is the essence of the Law

• Jesus tells a story with 4 main characters.l; an unidentified man who was beaten, presumably dead, bloody, and beaten, lying on the road, a priest, a Levite, and a Samaritan

• A priest and a Levite were the first to see the man lying there. Both of these men would’ve presumably been experts in the Law as well. A priest for obvious reasons. The Priesthood was given to the Levites, so even though the second wasn’t a priest, he was from the tribe given the responsibility of knowing and representing the Law of Moses. They both decided not to intervene

• The Samaritan, the person to know the least of the commands of the Law that the expert listed in verse 27, sees the half dead man and has compassion

• Jesus asks the expert to describe which person proved to be a neighbor. Jesus didn’t answer the question but allowed the expert to answer his earlier question, “who is my neighbor?”

• Jesus used the word “proved” to put emphasis on the obedience of the essence of the Law. Mercy should be seen/proven not simply understood

What you may not know

The identity of the neighbor is unidentified. He is simply described as “a man.” This is intentional because Jewish teachers used “neighbor” to mean “fellow Israelite.” Since Jesus came to bringing further depth to the Law, he would not allow his Jewish hearers to think that their neighbor is only their ethnic Jewish brothers. By incorporating a Samaritan into the story, Jesus is drawing attention to the significance of the question, “who is my neighbor?” He is challenging their insular understanding of who love should go to.

There is more significance to the incorporation of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10. A chapter earlier, in Luke 9:51-56, we read, “When the days were coming to a close for him to be taken up, he determined to journey to Jerusalem. He sent messengers ahead of himself, and on the way they entered a village of the Samaritans to make preparations for him. But they did not welcome him, because he determined to journey to Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they said, ‘Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven to consume them?’ and they went to another village.”

In this scene, Jesus is rejected by the Samaritans because he was a Jew going to Jerusalem. Had they allowed Jesus and his disciples to pass through, it would’ve been a shortcut to their destination. The Samaritans denied Jesus coming through their village. A chapter later Jesus is using the Samaritans as an example of who to be like. Jesus is not just teaching loving your neighbor, he is also modeling it in real time. The same people that just rejected him in chapter nine, he is honoring as the heroes of the story in chapter ten. Telling Jews to be like Samaritans, they very people they hare, was a culture shock.

Priests were supposed to avoid impurity from a corpse. In Leviticus 21:1-4, and other OT passages priest were not to make themselves ceremonially unclean. It is highly possible the Priest and the Levite did not want to violate that law. However, the priest “happened to be going down that road” means he was leaving Jerusalem and would have already done his priestly duties. At best, it would’ve been an inconvenience for him to be unclean but wouldn’t have prevented him from his responsibilities.

It is probably accurate to assume that the priest and Levite didn’t want to be unclean. But the reality is, they wouldn’t have been unclean because the man wasn’t dead. He was “half dead” but not dead. They wouldn’t have been unclean at all. On one level, they did apply scripture but the higher principle they ignored. The God who rescued them from their demise wants them to at least care enough to see if someone is in need of rescue from their circumstances. Ironically, by leaving the man lying on the ground as if dead, they were in a roundabout way condemning the innocent. The story make it clear and the Priest nor the Levite understand a basic biblical principle. What you believe must seen in how you behave. They believed God cared more about them being unclean then he did about the the image bearer lying on the ground.

Does Jesus hate your theology?

Let me add one more scene.

Matthew 23:1-3

[1] Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples: [2] "The scribes and the Pharisees are seated in the chair of Moses. [3] Therefore do whatever they tell you, and observe it. But don't do what they do, because they don't practice what they teach.

In the last 12 years, I have seen many people who are presumably solid in their theology. They’ve written books, taught incredible sermons, have affected people’s lives albeit from a distance. They have big platforms and seem mature from all accounts. But, what mercy does their theology produce?

I watched some of these same people condemn the innocent. Argue over the definition of things like Justice, which was just code for who is my neighbor? Who does the Bible call me to do Justice towards? It’s not a bad question. But it’s also not a complicated answer. Yet, for years, much of what we saw was a concern for being “unclean.” We watched theologians teach, but not practice the mercy and love of God in their speech and judgment of others. And we cheered them on. Still do in fact. Many of us, imitated and still imitate them.

It should sober all of us that Jesus said the Jews should still listen to Pharisees but not imitate their lifestyles. This means God will use the teaching gifts that he gave to people even though those people may not be applying it themselves. It also means we are responsible for who we listen to and who we imitate.

Does Jesus hate your theology?

Why do I say your theology instead of theology? In the Good Samaritan story, Jesus asked the expert in law, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” By asking these questions, Jesus shows that the Law is pretty straightforward. The issue is how does one understand what it says? What biases do you bring to the Law? In other words, what is your theology? And how will you apply it? The issue for Jesus was was not ignorance of what God said. It was arrogance in not wanting to do what God said do. In particular to whom God said the love should go to. In the same way every temptation is a derivative of Satan asking Eve in the Garden, “Did God really say?” “Who is my neighbor,” is a form of saying, “who has better theology? Me or you?” But love and mercy will be better than right theology unless it stems from right theology.

What mercy does your theology produce? Does your knowledge of God produce a condemnation of the innocent? When is the last time you interacted with someone solely because you were trying love them as you love yourself? How does what you believe influence how you behave? Do you do the opposite of what you preach? Set aside the, “ nobody’s perfect language.” That phrase contributed to a lot of believers showing their sacrifice but not much mercy.

Depending on how you answer these questions, I think yes, it’s indeed possible that Jesus hates your theology.

I have been studying, closely, the state of the evangelical church (a segment of it) for the past 15 years. Particularly, the relationship between black and white Christians. Not for the purpose of digging up racial issues for the sake of race baiting, but largely because that’s where I’ve spent the majority of my Christian life. From the hood to the woods, I’ve made it my responsibility to understand my surroundings. And, as a believer, to make sure I know the difference between what the Bible describes and what it demands. This is often called prescription versus description. Prescription is what we must do. Description is what people in the Bible did, that may or may not be something we also do.

My main concern is what Jesus said to the religious leaders of his day, “Why do you break God's commandment because of your tradition?” I do not want to be blind in my thinking that the Catholic Church are the only people who make “tradition” equivalent or greater than the scriptures themselves. Most evangelicals/protestants think this is Catholicism’s problem not ours. But if the last 12 years have shown us anything, it’s that we are more than capable of making tradition/theology/sacrifice synonymous with mercy. And we’d rather argue over who’s interpretation of the “law” is better, than making sure we are not condemning the innocent.

Http://www.curtkennedy.com

Twitter: @imcurtkennedy