“When the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?’ And he said to them, ‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
‘“This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
‘You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.’
“And he said to them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, “Honor your father and your mother;” and, “Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.” But you say, “If a man tells his father or his mother, ‘Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban’” (that is, given to God)—then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.’”
R
eligion refers to the outward expression of those truths that a person holds as important. An individual’s faith system, the principles that guide his or her life, is revealed through the religion to which that individual adheres. The veracity of what a person avers is demonstrated through how they conduct themselves, and the religion of a person provides a primary clue about what motivates him or her in life.
The thing is, everyone has a religion, even those who insist that they have no religion. You may not be aware that the most dangerous religion is that which you don’t even know that you have! When people say they have no religion, they usually mean that they don’t participate in some organised religion. And in North America, they are usually referring to their lack of participation in activities associated with a church. But their lack of participation in organised religion does not mean that they are irreligious.
The people who say they have no religion do possess a moral code. However, their moral code is not founded on a fixed standard, their standard is fluid, changing according to their whims. And unlike a moral code that revolves around pleasing a deity, they are focused on pleasing themselves. Thus, their moral code revolves around making themselves feel good. People with no religion have an incredibly complex religion.
What I find especially interesting about this situation is that even momentary reflection reveals that those who claim to have no religion do not differ in principle from those who claim to practise a religion while holding to a fluid moral code that revolves around pleasing themselves. If those claiming to have no religion are dangerous, then these that are religious and living as having a fluid morality are more dangerous still! Yes, I’m talking about spiritual predators in the pulpit. The latter have a façade giving the illusion of righteousness while harbouring a heart that is corrupt and wicked.
How ruthlessly did the Living God excoriate the shepherds of Israel through His servant, Ezekiel! Listen as the Prophet exposes the danger of these false shepherds in EZEKIEL 34:2-10. “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord GOD: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.
“Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.”
And that was the situation confronting Jesus when the Pharisees came to Him complaining that His disciples did not wash their hands before they ate. These religious leaders were seeking to diminish Jesus in the eyes of the people. They would do this by censuring his disciples as undisciplined, thus implying that Jesus Himself was unable to control the disciples’ acts. The charge was that the disciples were ungodly because they did not adhere to pharisaic rules that were imposed on everyone. The issue of washing the hands before eating was not an issue of hygiene; it was a religious act demonstrating submission to the rules drafted by the Pharisaic sect. The issue motivating the pharisaical opposition was religious dogma rather than a desire to honour the Lord God.
A STUDY OF RELIGION — I don’t want anyone to think that I am depreciating religious exercise. I am an advocate for vigorous exercise of the religious freedom we enjoy in Canada. Though I am not particularly religious, I applaud openly holding to the Christian Faith. Nevertheless, we do live in an irreligious culture as evidenced by our language and through our actions; and I say this despite an abundance of “God talk” witnessed in our society in this day! At the same time, it is not unusual that more people than ever claim they are spiritual. What I have just said may seem contradictory, but in truth it makes considerable sense. It is a matter of definition. We need to define what we are talking about if we are to make sense of what superficially appears contradictory.
In the truest sense, what you say you believe is not very important; what truly matters is how you live. The way in which you conduct your daily life reveals your core beliefs. What you say may express your aspirations, but what you do when facing the challenges of daily life reveals what is motivating you. Your religion is revealed through your daily life. Don’t tell me what you believe—show me! And when great challenges confront you, they become the means by which you reveal who you in fact are.
James, in one of the earliest letters written that would be included in the canon of Scripture, spoke of the common misperception of what religion is to be. His arresting statement comes hard on the heels of what can only be seen as instruction concerning the necessity for self-control. To be certain, James does not use the word that would be translated “self-control,” but it is apparent that self-control is the concept that he has in view. James wrote, “Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
”But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing” [JAMES 1:19-25]. Then, having given this introduction to what God is seeking in religion, this brother of our Lord wrote, “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless” [JAMES 1:26].
Pure religion that is pleasing in the sight of the Lord leads the one practising that religion to be in control of his or her emotional state. The one whose religion is pleasing to the Lord is active rather than being reactive. They are not motivated by the negative climate about them; they choose rather to find and to focus on what pleases the Lord. The speech of the one practising godly religion is measured and tempered. The religious person is not easily angered. The one who is seeking to please God is aware of the Word, putting into practise what she reads. That one is willing to permit the Word or God do its perfect work, stripping away all pretence, replacing the natural with the supernatural.
The Apostle Paul knew something about the religion of the Pharisees, the religious leaders who were confronting Jesus in our text. When Paul was seized by religious zealots who were threatening his life, he was rescued by Roman soldiers and would ultimately be compelled to defend himself before a variety of Roman officials.
At one point, he was defending himself before Agrippa. Reflecting on that earlier time, Paul said, “My manner of life from my youth, spent from the beginning among my own nation and in Jerusalem, is known by all the Jews. They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee. And now I stand here on trial because of my hope in the promise made by God to our fathers, to which our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship night and day. And for this hope I am accused by Jews, O king” [ACTS 26:2-7]!
The Apostle identified his early life as an adherent of “the strictest party of the Jews,” a Pharisee. He adhered to the strict tenets of that religious party, observing all the minutiae that identified one as a Pharisee. To be sure, he had a hope in the promises of God, but he believed he had to keep these religious observances if he would please God.
And those tedious religious observances identified as being part of pharisaical religion led Saul of Tarus to oppose Jesus of Nazareth just as the Pharisees in our text were opposing Jesus. Listen as the Apostle continued speaking of all that his religion led him to do. Before Agrippa, the Apostle testified, “I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. And I did so in Jerusalem. I not only locked up many of the saints in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them. And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme, and in raging fury against them I persecuted them even to foreign cities” [ACTS 26:9-11].
As a Pharisee, Paul’s religion led him to oppose Jesus, the Risen Lord of Glory. Much as the religion of fervent Muslims, the religion of dedicated Hindus, the religion of ardent Mormons, and the religion of committed Catholics lead them to assail peace-loving worshippers of the Risen Son of God, so the religion of the Pharisees compelled them to oppose anyone who dared identify as a worshipper of Jesus, the Son of God.
There is a theme evident in the hostility displayed in all these religions. Religion, when that religion is not motivated by love, leads one to feel compelled to coerce others to agree with them in religion. To fail to compel agreement leaves the religionist with the sense that they have embraced error, which in fact they have done. For us who are followers of the Risen Saviour, we endeavour to persuade others of the veracity and the validity of our message. We are taught, “Knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others. But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience” [2 CORINTHIANS 5:11].
We employ argument rather than resorting to armaments. We communicate rather than attempting to coerce. We have received the example in Scripture given when the Apostle sought to convinced a self-centred congregation to do what was right and honouring to the Lord. Paul wrote, “I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away!—I beg of you that when I am present I may not have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some who suspect us of walking according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” [2 CORINTHIANS 10:1-5].
We understand that we cannot compel anyone to be a follower of Christ, nor can we ever change the heart of one who does not want to believe. No rite, no ritual, no effort on the part of another will make an individual accept the Faith of Christ the Lord. Surely, this is the understanding we gain from the Apostle’s teaching presented in Romans. Paul writes, “Let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. o then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding” [ROMANS 14:13-19].
As the time of the end draws near, there will be increasing efforts to compel uniformity in religion. We read of this when Paul writes the Pastor of the Ephesian Congregation in his final missive. The old saint pens these sobering words, “Understand this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For people will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, slanderers, without self-control, savage, opposed to what is good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, loving pleasure rather than loving God. They will maintain the outward appearance of religion but will have repudiated its power. So avoid people like these. For some of these insinuate themselves into households and captivate weak women who are overwhelmed with sins and led along by various passions. Such women are always seeking instruction, yet never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” [2 TIMOTHY 3:1-7 NET BIBLE 2nd].
Did you note how the Apostle pinpoints the essential characteristic of religionists in these last days, the days in which we now live? It appears that Paul is telling us that the world will grow more religious, though it will not be the religion of Christ the Lord that is practised. As I’ve already stated, the days of which Paul wrote in this instance are already upon us. However, for those of this world, the pressure to conform in religious practise will grow more intense after the Master has removed His people from the earth and as the Living God at last begins to unleash the awful judgements of which He has warned. When the unholy trinity is unveiled—the antichrist, the false prophet, and his infernal majesty—as revealed in the Revelator’s words, those who are left behind on the earth will be compelled to worship the antichrist.
John writes of those awful days, warning, “I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed. It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived. And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666” [REVELATION 13:11-18].
HOW RELIGION GOES WRONG — “Now when the Pharisees gathered to [Jesus], with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands properly, holding to the tradition of the elders, and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, ‘Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands’” [MARK 7:1-5]?
It will help us understand what was happening when these religious leaders confronted Jesus if we are able to get a handle on the culture in which the principles in this account were immersed. We need to remember that the Gospel of Mark was written to acquaint Gentiles living in the Roman Empire with the Good News of Jesus Christ. Apparently, Mark realised that the intended audience for the Gospel he wrote would have difficulty understanding the customs he described, so he included a parenthetical statement to clarify why he would speak of the need for Pharisees to require washing the hands before eating, to say nothing of ritual washing of furniture. And we sometimes struggle to understand what the rationale behind the actions described might have been.
Let’s do a little investigation into this business of washing the hands “properly” and into “the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.” Washing the hands was a tradition of the elders—and that is an important point to hold in mind. As a tradition of the elders, the ritual did not employ soap. The action performed had nothing to do with hygiene. One contemporary translation renders the third verse as follows: “The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they perform a ritual washing, holding fast to the tradition of the elders.” [2] The phrase “unless they perform a ritual washing” is literally “except they wash the hands with a fist.” What is described was a ceremonial washing performed as water was poured from an ewer over first one hand as the opposing hand balled into a fist was rubbed against the hand that was being wetted, and then the procedure repeated as water was poured over the opposite hand. The action was intended to show that the one preparing to eat was ritually clean. The failure of the disciples to go through the ritual before eating was what the Pharisees and their scribes found offensive.
Some years past the British Columbian businessman, Jimmy Pattison hosted a dinner honouring the common heritage of Christians and Jews. Lynda and I were invited to that meal together with a large number of Christian ministers and prominent Jews. Before the meal began, observant Jews were invited to prepare for the meal by washing their hands. The practise was precisely as describe by Mark in our text. Water was poured over their hands and into a basin as the Jews who would observe the ritual balled one hand into a fist and rubbed that fist into the opposing hand. Then, they switched hands and again washed the other hand. It was a ritual that moved back into the ancient past. Jesus’ disciples would have recognised what was being done at that meal.
In our text, Mark continues by speaking of the practise of washing furniture as a tradition of the Pharisees. He informs the reader, “And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches” [MARK 7:4b]. Again, it is important to note that Mark is not speaking of common cleanliness; he is telling us about rituals that identify those participating in these actions as adhering to a particular religious dogma.
And that raises the question, “Why do you hold the religion you claim to practise?” If you are honest, you will admit that you practise the religion to which you adhere for one of two reasons. Perhaps you practise your religion in anticipation of getting something of value from that religion. Perhaps you participate in your religion to please your parents—you know, keep them off your back. Or if your parents are not around, you practise your religion out of habit. It doesn’t require much thought to go to a building dedicated for the practise of your religion, and it is just what you do.
Undoubtedly, many people practise their religion with an eye to the future—they expect a return for the investment of time, and so their religion is important as a form of exchange for eternal bliss. For these individuals, the practise of their religion is something like an ecclesiastical RRSP or a spiritual 401K. They reason that they are going to need the benefits at some future point, so they are willing to make deposits against the inevitability of death and what they suspect lies beyond this life. Moreover, they hope the investments will grow as interest accumulates on what is squirreled away against the inevitable. Perhaps that somewhat describes the thinking of the Pharisees.
Because we see the Pharisees as opponents of Jesus, we sometimes forget that they were highly esteemed in Israel at that time. They were the fundamentalists, the conservatives of Judaism at that time. They held to the traditions of the fathers, ensuring that the worship of the Lord God didn’t die out through neglect. They were opposed in their position of faith by the Sadducees, who were akin to liberals within Christendom. The Pharisees and the Sadducees served as the opposite poles of religion in Israel.
The Pharisees didn’t begin their rise to prominence with a decision that they would oppose Messiah when He came. They were determined to so live that they would welcome Messiah when He was revealed. It was Pharisees who rose from the ashes of a conquered nation, determined to hold to the Scriptures that had been so grossly distorted during the final years of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judea. The Maccabees, Jewish patriots determined to resist the intrusion of Greek paganism into Jewish life, appear to have been in the lineage of the Pharisees. The Jews who returned from Babylonian captivity as detailed in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah were determined to honour God, determined to keep the Mosaic Law. And their determination continued! What changed? How did such a movement transform into the religion that invites ridicule to this day?
In short, the emphasis of the pharisaical movement transformed from one that focused on honouring God to a movement honouring tradition itself. Open expression of commitment to tradition became more important than honouring the God Whom the Pharisees claimed to honour. In this one subtle change, the Pharisees did not differ greatly from the Fundamentalist movement within contemporary Christendom. The Fundamentalist movement arose during the early years of the twentieth century. The Fundamentalists represent a movement that arose within American Christendom as Christian leaders taught of the need to again embrace the foundations of the Faith.
Liberalism had permeated the churches of America, as it had churches throughout Europe. The liberal doctrines depreciated the authority of the Word of God, emphasising human intellect. Liberalism questioned the deity of Christ the Lord, even casting doubt on His resurrection from the dead. Consequently, liberal theology was more concerned with social change than it was with salvation. Few liberal churchmen believed in the need of salvation because they no longer held to a belief in heaven or hell. In reaction to this alarming move away from the authenticity and accuracy of the Word of God, a few ministers began to speak more pointedly to the need to hold firm to the Faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Two men, W. Bell Riley and A. C. Dixon, brought together a number of ministers who wrote a series of articles published as “The Fundamentals.” Then, Curtis Lee Laws, editor of The Watchman Examiner, in an article about a gathering of Bible-believing Baptists convened to plan how to oppose theological liberalism in the Northern Baptist Convention of the United States, identified participants as Fundamentalists.
As the movement grew, spreading throughout the United States and reaching into Canada, the initial adherents identified the inerrancy of the written Word, the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the authenticity of the miracles recorded in the Bible as the Fundamentals of the Faith. Soon after this, the Second Coming of Jesus was agreed upon as necessary to the Fundamentals. What is important for us to remember is that these doctrines are not the totality of fundamental doctrines.
Perhaps we would be well served to think of essential doctrines as those teachings that are clearly taught in Scripture, those that explain Who God is, those that describe what salvation is and how one is saved, and those teachings that we are warned not to deny. However the Fundamentals were, and are, described, in time some adherents began to add to these doctrines. And some of the additions were quite plainly wrong.
Lynda and I were saved in a Fundamental Baptist Church. I am thankful for the strong teaching we received in that church, but I am also aware of some strange teachings that really could not be sustained when examined by referring to the Word of the Lord. The translation one used became a matter of fellowship. The length of one’s hair (men could not have long hair and women could not have short hair), whether a man chose to wear a beard, the clothing with which one dressed (women could not wear “that which pertaineth to a man,” men were proscribed from wearing bell bottom trousers, neither men nor women could wear clothing with fringes on the sleeves) were all issues that could debar fellowship. My favourite was the prohibition of mixed bathing!
What had happened is that the Fundamentalist movement had transformed from a movement focused on honouring God to a movement honouring tradition itself. And when God was no longer the focus of the movement, the people calling themselves Fundamentalists began to divide even among themselves. They became unbiblical as the spirit of bitterness and acrimony began to manifest itself. The people became overly occupied with the issues and uncontrolled suspicion against good people permeated the movement. People began to approve of, and even demand, caustic language against others with whom they disapproved. And when there was reason for correction, spokesmen were eager to do so publicly rather than privately as taught in the Word. Without realising what was happening, the once blessed movement became pharisaical.
As I grew in my understanding of the written Word of God, and as I permitted myself to think, I realised that the movement that had begun well had degenerated into grave error. People could still be saved in the fellowship in which we had found grace and received the Lord, but they were in danger of growing bitter and suspicious of other good Christians if they were not grounded in the Word. The teaching of the Word was being distorted, with the result that good people were becoming committed to their own efforts rather than being encouraged to be committed to the Risen Saviour. Ultimately, we were compelled to leave that movement, though we had received so much from it.
Having broken with the pharisaical movement, I had several run-ins with the movement over the years. I don’t approve of liberalism; I oppose that view of Christianity with every fibre of my being. However, at the opposite extreme, I am unalterably opposed to the pharisaical extreme. I was invited to speak at an encampment in California on one occasion. I had been asked to speak on the issue of creationism. I would appear with a professor from a major fundamentalist school, and with another professor to speak to pastors from northern California.
I was completing doctoral studies at the time, and I had been assured that the group organising the conference would reimburse me for expenses incurred in travelling from Dallas to San Francisco. After arriving, I was informed that I would not be reimbursed and I would not speak if I did not shave my beard, which I should add is always kept trimmed so I will be pleasing to my wife. Facing a financial bind, I did shave, though I did so reluctantly, making it clear that I did so under duress.
The following year, the group announced that they were hosting the same conference, and that I would be a featured speaker. By this time I had graduated from my studies and was engaged in post-doctoral studies at the University of California in San Francisco. I informed the organisers that I had not been approached, nor would I ever agree to speak at that conference. They responded that the notices had already gone out and there was nothing they could do. I politely informed them that they could send out new notices noting that I would not be speaking at the conference, and if they declined to correct their presumption, then I would be forced to take legal action. The coercion that I experienced was that odious to me. I would not permit this group to impose their strange doctrine on me nor would I permit them to associate me with their movement ever again. I was free.
I have witnessed pharisaical religionists refuse to fellowship with good Christians of a race different from their own. Such actions are evil and need to be exposed as wicked. I have witnessed pharisaical religionists insist that a missionary to another country, a country in which English was not the common language, refuse to set apart that missionary to the ministry to which God had clearly called him because he would not certify that he would preach from their preferred English Bible! How silly can a group be? I have witnessed pharisaical religionists disfellowship a congregation because it was successful in reaching street kids with the Gospel through basketball. The group would have rather seen street children go to hell rather than sit in a Bible study because the youth were not reached in the “right way.” All these instances reveal people who had become focused on compelling commitment to their commitment rather than rejoicing as people were brought to Christ. And that is exactly what was happening with the Pharisees in the days in which Jesus ministered in Judea!
RELIGION PLEASING TO GOD — There does exist a religion that is pleasing to God. James, the half-brother of Jesus our Lord, writes, “If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” [JAMES 1:26-27]. He contrasts what some imagine to be religion and that religion that honours God.
There is a religion that dishonours the Lord, going to excess in relationships with others, demanding tedious adherence to ritual from oneself and from others, and exalting “oneself.” That religion is destructive both to the one holding to the tenets of that religion and to those who are forced to interact with the practitioners of that religion. And the religion that does to excess does not honour God. That religion is attractive to people disposed to exalt their own efforts, but it isn’t impressive to God. In fact, it is odious to God. God is pleased when people are transformed; God is impressed when your religion moves you to action. Perhaps you will recall God’s statement through His servant Micah. We saw this description recently in a message when Micah wrote,
“‘With what shall I come before the LORD,
and bow myself before God on high?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?
Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?’
He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?”
[MICAH 6:6-8]
God is not overly impressed with ceremony, but with character—transformed character. The Lord seeks those who will honour Him by walking in His way. Even before Jesus ministered in the days of His flesh, Malachi was rebuking the priests of Israel because they chose ceremony over character. Listen to the Man of God. “And now, O priests, this command is for you. If you will not listen, if you will not take it to heart to give honor to my name, says the LORD of hosts, then I will send the curse upon you and I will curse your blessings. Indeed, I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung on your faces, the dung of your offerings, and you shall be taken away with it. So shall you know that I have sent this command to you, that my covenant with Levi may stand, says the LORD of hosts. My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him. It was a covenant of fear, and he feared me. He stood in awe of my name. True instruction was in his mouth, and no wrong was found on his lips. He walked with me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many from iniquity. For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts. But you have turned aside from the way. You have caused many to stumble by your instruction. You have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the LORD of hosts, and so I make you despised and abased before all the people, inasmuch as you do not keep my ways but show partiality in your instruction” [MALACHI 2:1-9].
Religion that is pure and undefiled flows from a heart that seeks the Lord and that longs to do His will. Religion that is pure and undefiled flows from a heart that endeavours to find what pleases the Lord and then courageously does that. Religion that is pure and undefiled flows from a heart that wants the Lord to be exalted in how that individual lives on a moment-by-moment basis.
If religion is what you do briefly on Sunday morning, you may well be dishonouring the Lord. If your religion compels you to honour Him in your interactions with others, it is likely that you are walking humbly with the Saviour and your life is pleasing in the sight of the Lord. Pure religion begins with faith in the Risen Son of God; it begins with receiving God’s promise, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” [ROMANS 10:13]. Christ died for your sin, even for the sin of arrogance. He was raised to life so you could stand in righteousness before the Father. Amen.
[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
[2] Bible Studies Press, NET Bible, 2nd Edition (Thomas Nelson, Denmark 2019)
