More on the Parable

of the Publican and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14)

The sermon below does not afford the space to look at the full extent of what happened to the Publican. Jesus said, "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other." "I tell you" is a phrase that is loaded with meaning, by which Jesus declares that the word He proclaims is His own, standing in the place of the ancient prophetic address, "thus saith the LORD." It is spoken as boldly as "verily, verily (amen, amen) I say into you." What He tells us is astonishing, giving assurance that everyone needs to have, that God forgives sins.  

"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other." The word for "justified" is δικαιόω (dikaioō) from δίκαιος (dikaios), which means "just." Equally, it means "righteous." This is a very important concept in Judaism, to be a צָדַק (tsä·dak' ), a just or righteous person. The Sadducees, as our English Bible calls them, built their name on this word, calling themselves, in their group delusion, "the righteous ones."

What matters for us, in this parable, is that the man Jesus Christ so identifies (calling him a tsadok or righteous man) is identified first of all as a man whose sin is so terrible that his very entrance into the temple required stealth. A publican, that is a tax collector, would have been forbidden to enter even a synagogue, let alone the holy temple itself. Therefore, the very sincerity of his repentance, which Jesus makes abundantly clear in this story, implies that he has decided to repent of his notorious occupation; how else could he stand there? 

That the man goes home justified is no small matter. The whole theological meaning of justification is of major importance in the New Testament, and the theme receives its greatest development by St. Paul. It is obvious that Paul builds his meaning on the same understanding of justification that is very clear in Christ's parable. The publican has had, as of yet, no opportunity to make restoration (though we may take a clue from the story of Zacchaeus in the very next chapter, v.8, that Christ requires no less). And, he has had as of yet no time for a process of sanctification to have produced the virtues. All we can see in him is faith, and that faith is expressed in sincerity when he prays, "God be merciful to me a sinner."

This parable is about the place where it must begin for each person. The life of faith must have a beginning, even if that beginning is a return rather than an absolute genesis. After all, those of us who were baptized in infancy were, at that moment, "made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." But, the life of faith must begin in order to be lived; in fact it must have such a beginning every day: "It is of the LORD's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness (Lam. 3:23,24)." The assurance we are given by the Biblical doctrine, so clearly set forth, is that we can begin with the full assurance of justification.

On the cross, as He died, Jesus uttered the word τελέω (teleō), which takes three English words to say: "It is finished (John 19:30)." In those days, when Greek was the international tongue, the word τελέω was written on a final receipt of payment; so we may conclude that the usage of the word was meant to convey not only the completion or perfection of a thing, but full payment. Christ has paid in full for it all, for "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (I John 2:2)." 

Many voices would "teach" you that this is not so. They would insist that no one can have faith in God's justification. As we have seen, their main error is a poor Christology, by which they treat Jesus Christ as less than fully Divine. They imply that we cannot have faith in God's justification of sinners based merely on this one man's death, even though the Bible clearly says we can (Isaiah 53, Romans 5). They teach that sins can be worked off in a long punitive Purgatory, and that we may have in addition the merits of saints applied to us, or we can perform works of the Law that justify (Rom. 3:28). They teach that justification requires the process of sanctification, making the justification of the publican in the parable completely meaningless, and always leaving room to question if we have been "justified" enough. 

This leads me to a painful thought. I fear that even in this present day we have people who would be stumped by the problem that was actually faced in the year 1517 in the German town of Wittenburg. Yes, Anglicans are not Lutherans; we have a few differences of course. But, on the great problem raised by the sale of indulgences by Johan Tetzel, who worked directly on behalf of Pope Leo X (formerly Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici), there should be no problem agreeing entirely with Luther and his Ninety-five Theses.

If, for some reason, you find the need to think it over, perhaps based on some notion of papal claims as they are generally diluted through the process of identifying Rome as "first in honor," I must stand in doubt of you. I must wonder how three vague references to Rome as "first in honor," made at Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon during the time when the Roman Empire was a political reality, have become so meaningful as to acquire equal weight to the word of God set forth in absolute authority with powerful clarity, from the mouth of Christ and by the pen of St. Paul. How did these obscure and unclear statements of mere imperial etiquette become loaded with dogmatic implications? The issue in 1517 was simple: Does anyone, pope included, possess the power to sell salvation for money? Are repentance and faith necessary unless and until an alleged, and self-proclaimed, "successor of Peter" invents a new gospel (Gal. 1:8,89)? An Anglican has no need to waste time deciding who was right and who was wrong in 1517. The truth is obvious (enough for me to say "here I stand").

Frankly, the voices that would rob you of the meaning of Christ's words in this parable, "this man went down to his house justified," are too numerous to mention. The theological confusion of the Church of Rome in 1517 is but one example. Other examples include those who make light of the publican's contrition, and who would "teach" him that he need not repent; that God "understands." They would replace justification with acceptance, a God Who accepts sin, rather than forgiving repentant sinners. For what God approves, He would not forgive; and what a convicted penitent publican needs is forgiveness, not "understanding." 

The truth that you must grasp is something you really know deep down inside. Though each of us remains a sinner, in that we are weak through the Fall and unable to get through an hour without sin by thought, word or deed, we can be sure nonetheless of God's mercy. We have the assurance by Christ's cross, even in this fallen condition, that we have been justified if we believe His Gospel. He has given this assurance by His word and sacraments. We may be sure that we are liable to fall again and again even if involuntarily, but also that absolution is absolute.