What is the more important attribute of the tax collector in Luke 18: 9-14

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You seem to imply that the tax collector was making a show of himself, but you are reading that into the verse.

I wasn’t trying to imply that he was making a show of himself, like some kind of self aggrandizement.

Ok.

I was assuming that other people in the Temple would still be able to see him do all of those humbling things.

That’s besides the point that Jesus is making. Whether anyone can see him or not, is not important.

In fact, the Pharisee knows that he is there. So, he wasn’t hiding either, it just says that he stood off at a distance.

Because he knows that he is sinful and doesn’t belong in the holy temple.

You disagreed that the actions are the more important element in this parable, but you didn’t provide any reason.

I provided another Christian lesson from the Gospels. The one which says that good deeds performed to be seen by others, do not please God.

I also said that the actions and the interior disposition are equally important. They must align one with the other. If you claim that you repent, but do not show it by your actions, you are not truly repentant.

What followed your reply of “wrong” was just a summary of the parable.

It was a summary within which you had instilled your wrong opinion. You said:

And may even be the more important element.

Which is wrong. The interior disposition is equally important. It this individual does not leave this place and do similarly to Zacchaeus and change his entire life, this little scene will have been for nothing. But Jesus asserts that he is sincere and will be justified.

Why wouldn’t there be a parable in which the will, or the action,

The will is the interior disposition. The action is the visible consequence. This parable displays both.

is emphasized as a step in the journey of one’s redemption?

They all show this. You have a mistaken idea of what is the “will”.

Even a first step, with God’s grace to follow.

Only if it is accompanied by the will to change one’s life. I believe someone mentioned “metanoia” earlier. That is what God wants. Not a one step and done. But a continued life of well doing.

Romans 2:7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Whether anyone can see him or not, is not important

But that’s not evidenced by this parable. I know that in general it’s not important that someone’s humility be seen. But this particular parable places the tax collector in a situation in which he is ‘humiliating’ himself in front of everybody. Can you imagine what people would have thought of him? But the one of the points of the parable seems to be that the tax collector didn’t care what other people thought about his actions at the Temple. So I don’t see how you can say whether anyone can see him is not important when that very fact is emphasized in this particular parable.

If you claim that you repent, but do not show it by your actions, you are not truly repentant.

Yes, I think that is a feature of this parable. And seems to be the focus of the parable.

The interior disposition is equally important.

This parable highlights the act of repentance, along with a particularly humble expression of it. It really doesn’t say much about the tax collector’s interior disposition expect to imply that it’s in transition. However, the parable does describe in detail the interior disposition of the Pharisee. Probably because the parable is being addressed to, “those who were convinced of their own righteousness
and despised everyone else.” I guess that includes some of the Pharisees who were listening to the parable.

I think Jesus may have been challenging some of the Pharisees to do what the tax collector did. But they wouldn’t have thought that they needed to do such a thing because they “tithe” and “fast”. They would never subject themselves to what they would think of as humiliation, because of course, they are ‘righteous’.

The will is the interior disposition.

I don’t think that’s a very good way of defining will. I would say that an interior disposition can influence the will. But a person can certainly act against their interior disposition.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The Pharisees practices had sanctifying value,

I still don’t know where your evidence of this is coming from. The parable says the “latter went home justified” and also adds, “not the former”. So there is no evidence that the Pharisee had any justification. In fact the parable says the Pharisee is not justified. How can there be sanctification without justification?

It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of a letter of the law to become invalid

What does this ^ have to do with whether or not the Pharisee’s works were meritorious in the eyes of God.

 

[De_Maria]

But that’s not evidenced by this parable.

It is not focused upon, either. Jesus didn’t say, “Make sure you are seen by others.” He merely stated that the man was standing far away. There is no insinuation that he was doing anything publically. Anyone who has ever gone to Church and sat in the back knows that this is the least conspicuous location.

humiliating

I had previously ignored your use of the word, “humiliating” in this context. I assumed it was a matter of a non-English speaker. However, you are misusing the word as you have already been corrected. Look up the difference between humbling and humiliating in the dictionary.

I will continue on the presumption that you mean “humbling”.

I know that in general it’s not important that someone’s humility be seen. But this particular parable places the tax collector in a situation in which he is ‘humiliating’ himself in front of everybody.

No. That is your interpretation. There are many commentaries on this verse throughout history. You might want to look some up.

Can you imagine what people would have thought of him?

He was a tax collector. He would not have wanted people to see him there, because they might have rioted. Do you remember what happened to Madonna when she tried to approach an Orthodox Church?

But the one of the points of the parable seems to be that the tax collector didn’t care what other people thought about his actions at the Temple. So I don’t see how you can say whether anyone can see him is not important when that very fact is emphasized in this particular parable.

No, it’s not. You are reading that into the parable.

Yes, I think that is a feature of this parable. And seems to be the focus of the parable.

This parable highlights the act of repentance, along with a particularly humble expression of it. It really doesn’t say much about the tax collector’s interior disposition expect to imply that it’s in transition.

There is no indication that this Parable is intended to diverge from previous Christian Teaching.

However, the parable does describe in detail the interior disposition of the Pharisee. Probably because the parable is being addressed to, “those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.” I guess that includes some of the Pharisees who were listening to the parable.

Ok.

I think Jesus may have been challenging some of the Pharisees to do what the tax collector did.

Precisely.

But they wouldn’t have thought that they needed to do such a thing because they “tithe” and “fast”. They would never subject themselves to what they would think of as humiliation, because of course, they are ‘righteous’.

Also true.

I don’t think that’s a very good way of defining will. I would say that an interior disposition can influence the will. But a person can certainly act against their interior disposition.

Have you never heard of people doing things against their will?

 

[adgloriam]

I still don’t know where your evidence of this is coming from.

Fasting gives control over the appetites. Thus it’s sanctifying because it fosters temperance over gluttony. But also, fasting can be -par excellence- a sanctification in of itself, your are sanctifying fasting. Because sacrifice is sanctifying. The evidence is in the catechism, scripture, and church tradition.

Regarding justification, it only applies to the specific moment -and conditions- contrasted and described, which are circumstanced. That does not invalidate sanctification by fasting.

(You’ve wrongly invalidated some of what I said, however other posts reaffirmed the validity of what I said. I have to wonder what the need, or reason, for that is. Pope Francis said sweetness is a Catholic virtue to be cultivated, taking others reason from them, with a blatant negative, calling them into question at every corner, feels as contempt, because out of sheer fair play, you’d be expected to contribute explicit positive definitions, to what both parties are saying.)

And in a way, I don’t need to take merits away from the pharisee, apart the very specific circumstances of the parable. (He could have been justified in a thousand others, just not that one case.)

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I had previously ignored your use of the word, “humiliating” in this context. I assumed it was a matter of a non-English speaker. However, you are misusing the word as you have already been corrected. Look up the difference between humbling and humiliating in the dictionary.

Humiliation is the abasement of pride, which creates mortification or leads to a state of being humbled or reduced to lowliness or submission. It is an emotion felt by a person whose social status, either by force or willingly, has just decreased.

Humiliation - Wikipedia

You are reading that into the parable

Well, it’s plainly written right there in the text. So, again I’m not sure why you don’t see it.

There is no indication that this Parable is intended to diverge from previous Christian Teaching.

I don’t know what you’re getting at here. When did I say it is conflict with other teachings?

There is no insinuation that he was doing anything publically.

No it’s not insinuated, it is plainly written:

“Two people went up to the temple area to pray”

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Regarding justification, it only applies to the specific moment -and conditions- contrasted and described, which are circumstanced. That does not invalidate sanctification by fasting.

I’m not sure what you are saying here.

Anyway, I found the pertinent paragraph of the CCC regarding what I said upthread regarding how the Pharisee could have had sanctifying works without first being justified.

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I love your question!

The parable is very well known, along with the primary message of a call to humility and repentance.

I’ve never thought about the issue of public repentance before, just taking the setting of the parable as a “scene” where Jesus can put the pharisee together with the tax collector to contrast them.

But he could have had them each at home saying the same things and taught the same lesson.

I agree that the setting of the Temple and the public repentance and self-humiliation of the tax collector is crucial to the meaning of the parable. Private repentance is good, but it should become public.

Just recently I’ve been thinking that one of the reasons God has imposed on us confession to a priest is that with it comes the act of going out of our way to find the priest (as the tax collector going to the temple, or the sinners going to Jesus), and then of sitting in line with other sinners. Surely much grace flows from these, as well as the Absolution.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Excerpt from Great Vespers for the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee:

From childhood till now, ie. 50 years, I always thought that “publicans” in scripture were hotel keepers! And have also wondered a little why they were counted as “sinners”. . Were the Jews referring to ones who might encourage debauchery, or was it every hotel keeper?

Well, I’ve learned something new! Thanks!

Publican , in the Gospels, is derived from the publicanus of the Vulgate, and signifies a member or employee of the Roman financial companies who farmed the taxes.

http://catholicencyclopedia.newadvent.com/cathen/12553d.htm

 

[1Lord1Faith]

the setting of the Temple and the public repentance and self-humiliation of the tax collector is crucial to the meaning of the parable.

Yes, this is what came to mind after I read it several times. The setting of the parable is playing out seemingly in front of everyone else who would be around. It’s not private at all. That seems to be meaningful.

I don’t necessarily think one’s repentance needs to be public, but it is certainly highlighted in this parable.

confession to a priest is that with it comes the act of going out of our way to find the priest

The line for confession is out in the open isn’t it. So is the Mass and most Sacraments.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Public and were tax collectors. Under Roman law, tax collectors had to gather X amount of taxes and they could keep whatever they collected over & above that amount. So the people hated them because they extorted money, lining their own pockets and living in luxury off of the income. Their sacrifices were not acceptable in the Temple and they couldn’t be witnesses in a court of law etc.

 

[Edmundus1581]

BTW, the reason I thought a “publican” was a hotel keeper is that is the normal usage in Anglo and Australian English. Is it the same in the US?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

I have no idea. I don’t think “publicans” is part of US usage unless it’s part of “Republicans”.

 

[adgloriam]

I’ve never thought about the issue of public repentance before

It equates to giving testimony. Which can be a valid, and necessary, option if done in the right way.

De_Maria:

There is no insinuation that he was doing anything publically.

No it’s not insinuated, it is plainly written:

“Two people went up to the temple area to pray”

This is actually ambivalent. The way the parable is written we can admit both characters were in a public setting, but their gestures might have been private -or public- done discreetly for no one but themselves to see and know. It works both ways. (Admitting the gestures were public does add complexity! Because we have to rethink the sociological effect of the gestures.)

De_Maria:

I had previously ignored your use of the word, “humiliating” in this context. I assumed it was a matter of a non-English speaker. However, you are misusing the word as you have already been corrected. Look up the difference between humbling and humiliating in the dictionary.

Humiliation is the abasement of pride, which creates mortification or leads to a state of being humbled or reduced to lowliness or submission. It is an emotion felt by a person whose social status, either by force or willingly, has just decreased.

The article in wikipedia refers to the proper noun, not the verbs.

The verbs carry different semantics, the NAB bible follows that coherently in its option- the verbs can be the same, but they are ambiguous and one carries a preponderant negative connotation the other does not. In the same way, you would never say “humbling” instead of “humiliation” referring to the proper noun. So the distinction is there, linguistically - and I deem it relevant in the parable.

 

[BlueMaxx]

Is the tax collector’s humiliation at the Temple a necessary part of being “the one who humbles himself”? Is the action necessary? Or is the interior disposition of humility enough?

It is all about the heart…and an understanding of history and who these two players are in the story Jesus tells helps open it up a bit.

To get to the real “meat” of the parable, you have to understand historically who the Pharisees we’re in this society. How they held themselves above the riff-raff.
You also have to have an understanding of what a tax collector was and who he was and who he worked for…Romans.
The Romans would demand so much for an individual…say five dollars. Anything above five dollars the tax collectors could keep.
The Romans didn’t care if another Jew ripped off another Jew as long as they got their cut.
They were also Jews…Jews who the Pharisees hated even more because they felt the tax collector was even more so low because he would betray another Jew by collecting these taxes and willingly take more than Rome demanded.
But Rome and the Pharisees and Jews had a, shall we say, tense working relationship.
The Jews knew they had to obey Rome or suffer a Roman penalty (never good by the way) and Rome really could have given a care if the Jews did not like it, they were to grin and bear it, and give to the tax man…and the Pharisees hated this.

So here Jesus is saying the man who holds himself above the scumbag tax collector, the man whose whole sect is to follow the Law to the nth degree was not thinking of loving and praying for his fellow Jew, he was praying and rejoicing he wasn’t like this fellow Jew.

Which brings us full circle of who Jesus was, who did He sit and dine with?
The prostitute, the tax collectors…the dregs of society from the perspective of the pious Pharisee.
That man wouldn’t deign those type of people even touch his garment much less permit them in his house to dine with.

Jesus on the other hand sees the tax collector, who may not have even wanted that position…because a lot of Jews wouldn’t want to do this to their fellow Jew.
So maybe he was pressed into doing this, maybe he had a truly horrible day…maybe his boss was forcing him to over collect from the peasants to enrich himself…whatever the case he came with an open, contrite, broken heart and recognized he was a sinner.

It was one of those prayers I have had when I am on the ground blubbering like a child to Christ for forgiveness…

Christ wants that from us, the broken hearted penitent man…not the one who counts himself above others because he thinks he is following all the rules…

It is all about our heart…it always is.

Anyway, hope this helps…

M

 

[EndTimes]

"What is more important? Is it the tax collector’s interior disposition of humility and his realization of his dependence on God’s mercy? Or is it his outward action of humbly expressing this in prayer at the Temple?

To put it another way for clarification,

Is the tax collector’s humiliation at the Temple a necessary part of being “the one who humbles himself”? Is the action necessary? Or is the interior disposition of humility enough?"

There’s never a need to divide what isn’t necessary to divide…

Akin to how Good Works Follow Inner Faith, Outward manifestations - such as helping those in need in praxis - of our inner Faith -should be viewed in its entire unity - as a whole; so to speak.