Reflective Bible Study

During one of the many times that Jesus and His disciples crossed the lake, the disciples forgot to bring bread with them. While this probably already irritated the disciples enough, since they may have been hungry, an interesting conversation takes place. This conversation highlights one big challenge we all face in human nature.

In my imagination, probably about half way across the lake, the disciples realize they had forgotten bread. At about this very moment, Jesus gets their attention to say, “Be careful! Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” (v. 6)

While it is pretty clear to us that Jesus is speaking in a metaphor about something that is below the surface, the disciples didn’t catch this at first. The disciples did grasp that there was something more to Jesus’ words, because they started talking amongst themselves about what this phrase meant. It seems like they concluded by coming to what must have been the plainest, most surface-level, rational answer they could imagine in their moment of hunger: “He said this because we forgot to bring bread.” (v. 7)

The disciples might have also came up with the thought that if they saw a Pharisee or Sadducee merchant (which would be unlikely) selling yeast, or even one of these two groups of people giving yeast away, then they shouldn’t even consider getting any from them.

However, we know from how Matthew frames this event that Jesus is speaking with a simple metaphor: yeast equals something else. The context for the statement and the frame of mind of the listener both matter. Had there been an abundance of bread on this trip, the disciples may have realized that Jesus was speaking about something not directly related to bread.

It is the same for us when we communicate. For us to communicate without the message being lost when it reaches the listener’s ears, we must pay attention to the context. Otherwise, when we are trying to share a metaphor to help people remember a concept, they could be too focused on taking it literally.

In this passage, I am impressed with what is implied from what happened. While Luke begins by drawing our attention onto Zechariah’s doubt and subsequent muteness, in this passage, by the time Elizabeth gives birth, it would seem that Zechariah has a restored faith in God, and a restored obedience to the angel’s instruction.

While he was mute, Zechariah would have written out what He wanted to communicate with his wife and family. This would have included his desire for the child to be named John. Zechariah and Elizabeth probably had this discussion on the child’s name, and they both had agreed what the child’s name would be.

We don’t have any idea if the baby’s name was communicated outside of the couple, but if it had been, in the excitement of the birth, the relatives and neighbors got caught up with a different idea: Name the baby after his father Zechariah.

In many ways this is a compliment to Zechariah. By naming the child after the father, these relatives sent the message that they wanted the child to continue with the father’s legacy, and to become every bit of the man the father had become. Their desire was to compliment Zechariah by suggesting that his son be named after him.

Here’s how Luke describes what happened, “On the eighth day, they came to have the child circumcised. They were going to name him Zechariah, like his father. But his mother spoke up. ‘No!’ she said. ‘He must be called John.’” (v. 59-60)

However, their response was, “No one among your relatives has that name.” (v. 61)

Perhaps because they believed Zechariah’s opinions to be closer to theirs, or maybe because they wanted to draw out what could have been a disagreement between Zechariah and Elizabeth, they motion to Zechariah to come over. They wanted him to break this tie. While the relatives ultimately had no say over what the child’s name would be, they didn’t want it to be a name that wasn’t already in the family. They hoped that Zechariah would side with them, but when given something to write on, he wrote, “His name is John.” (v. 63)

In these four words we uncover Zechariah and Elizabeth’s marriage. While it likely had been strained because of his muteness, Zechariah had moved past his failures of faith and focused his attention on helping with a smooth pregnancy. In these four words, we discover that Zechariah and Elizabeth had communicated, and in spite of Zechariah’s temporary disability, they had kept their marriage strong while things were likely very stressful.

In John’s birth, we see a glimpse into the sort of marriage that Zechariah and Elizabeth had, and a glimpse into the man Zechariah had become. Zechariah focused on communicating during a difficult time and that communication paid off during John’s birth when their relatives had a different name in mind.

Whenever I read the gospels and look for examples of how Jesus treated people, and also for examples of how people treated Jesus, I am amazed to really only find love coming from Jesus, but I don’t find many examples of love going towards Jesus. It would seem that from about the time Jesus started helping and healing people, the Jewish religious system at the time was more interested in finding fault with what He was doing than on supporting His ministry.

But it probably wasn’t Jesus who drew out their legalism. The religious system was most likely legalistic, and Jesus was the popular celebrity in their minds who seemed to disregard the centuries of progression to the Law that the religious leaders had added. These religious leaders wanted to become as sinless as possible – or at the very least, demand a life that didn’t even approach sin from those around them.

On one occasion, when Jesus came into a synagogue, we see an interesting situation unfold. “On another Sabbath Jesus went into a synagogue and taught. A man was there whose right hand was paralyzed. Some teachers of the Law and some Pharisees wanted a reason to accuse Jesus of doing wrong, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath.” (v. 6-7)

Everything we know so far in this event makes me believe that it was a setup. I imagine this event happened because the religious leaders invited the disabled man to the synagogue that day, perhaps by promising him that Jesus would be there to heal him. But while the man came in hopeful, the religious leaders came in looking for fault.

This is where this event gets interesting: “But Jesus knew their thoughts …” (v. 8a)

Was this a result of the Holy Spirit giving Jesus wisdom, or was that unnecessary because Jesus was simply that aware of humanity’s personality quirks. Perhaps Jesus had learned in His growing up years how to read a room of people, and this room was clearly sending Him the message of “hostile” and perhaps “insincere”.

Instead of trying to sneak around the issue, Jesus challenged the religious leaders and those present. Jesus then “said to the man, ‘Stand up and come here to the front.’ The man got up and stood there. Then Jesus said to them, ‘I ask you: What does our Law allow us to do on the Sabbath? To help or to harm? To save someone’s life or destroy it?’ He looked around at them all; then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand became well again.” (v. 8b-10)

Jesus healed the man without even touching him – which would be about the furthest thing away from work in their legalistic eyes, but these leaders had already determined that any healing was already wrong. Since Jesus healed, He then crossed the line that they had set up.

But the big thing I see in this event is within Jesus’ character: Jesus chose to visit the synagogue, likely knowing what would happen before even arriving. Jesus knew the trap that the religious leaders set while He was there, but that didn’t stop Him from helping. Jesus helped the man because that is what God would do in that event. Jesus showed us that God cares more for hurting people than He does about the rules or laws. While the laws are important, Jesus demonstrated that love for hurting people is more important!