The term "Pharisee" is pretty well-known among Christians and even more broadly than that. To call someone "Pharisaical" is not a compliment. No, no. We're all clear on this. It's a bad thing. Those overly pious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, hypocritical Pharisees have come to represent this whole concept of, well, an overly pious, self-righteous, holier-than-thou hypocrite. Jesus reserved His harshest words for the Pharisees, pronouncing "woes", which isn't today's term. In His day it was a curse, the pronouncement of evil on whoever received it. There were, in the Hebrew mind, blessings and curses. This "woe" concept was the curse side of that equation. It meant, to them, that God would turn His back on them, truly a horrible concept. And Jesus pronounced multiple woes on the Pharisees.
So ... how bad were these guys? I mean, they must have been the "Hitler" of their day. You know. If you wanted to describe someone who is utterly evil, you could compare them to Hitler and everyone would know the depths of their depravity. Truly horrible. At least, that's how we see it. The Pharisee was the religious zealot, the evil hypocrite who heaped rules on the people without merit. I believe, however, that our understanding of the Pharisees is skewed today. Consider the biblical record.
Historically, the Pharisees started out during the intertestamental period, that 400-or-so years between the last of the Old Testament prophets and the arrival of Christ. They feared that the Scriptures weren't meaningful enough to the people (sound familiar?), so they decided to present them in a more meaningful way. When God said "Six days you shall labor, and do all your work ...", what exactly did He mean? I mean, what is "work"? Is it "work" to go visit your neighbor? To pull your livestock out of a ditch? Defining "work" became a little dicey, so the Pharisees tried to liven it up a little and make it clear. That kind of thing. Not a bad concept ... until their suggestions became rules and violation of their rules became sins and keeping all this straight became important. Then they were elevated to a position of power. That wasn't a good thing, right?
Well, if you read the words of Jesus, you might start to come away with a slightly different perspective. In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:20). "Yeah," we say, "they weren't very righteous." No, that wasn't the intent. That would be a foolish comparison. That would be like saying, "Unless you become more righteous than your casual, everyday child molester, you'll never make it to heaven." No, what Jesus was saying was that they really did have a high level of righteousness. And if you wanted to get to heaven, you'd have to exceed that. Or consider His words in Matthew 23 where He actually pronounces those "woes" on them. Did you know that Jesus told His disciples to listen to them? "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses's seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you -- but not what they do" (Matt 23:2-3). That is, they had the position of authority and they had the right things to say. There problem wasn't in their theology, but in their practice. What else does Jesus say in that passage? Well, for one thing, it turns out that the Pharisees were serious about making converts (23:15). Are we? They held the things of God in high regard (even though they misunderstood the actual concept) (23:16-22). Do we? One of the things they were very well known for was tithing. They tithed on small spices! "Yeah," we grumble and point, "they were sure concerned about foolish things, weren't they?" Actually, Jesus is commending them for it. "These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others" (23:23). It wasn't that they were too concerned about little things. It was that they were concerned about little things as they should be but missed the weightier things as they should not. What about us? Are we concerned about the little things as well? (Don't even get me started on tithing.) The Pharisees were not in error because of what they said. The Pharisees were in error because they didn't do what they said. What about us?
The Pharisees were the teachers of the people (that's a good thing). They were known (rightly) for an above-average level of righteousness (that's a good thing). They tithed on the smallest thing (that's a good thing). Do you know what else they did right? They searched the Scriptures. Why? "Because you think that in them you have eternal life" (John 5:38). And that's a good thing! The truth is that the Pharisees actually had a whole lot going on that was good. The problem, of course, was their hypocrisy. They claimed a level of holiness they didn't have. They claimed to obey in ways that they did not. That, of course, is the famous concept of a Pharisee, but don't forget all the positives assigned to them.
The question, then, is not, "Are you overly self-righteous?" We're all pretty clear on that. It's a bad thing. Nor is it, "Are you a hypocrite?" We all know that's a bad thing. And (hopefully) we are aware of that and working to avoid it. But the question I have is about the reverse. Are we aiming at attaining the level of righteousness they had? Do we search the Scriptures with their diligence? Are we careful about tithing at all? Are we diligent about spreading the Gospel? Is our theology correct? The Pharisees were certainly self-righteous hypocrites, and we don't want to mimic that. On the other hand, there are things about them we ought to be copying. Are we?
19 comments:
I agree with much of what you've written here. According to Baker's Evangelical Dictionary...
Josephus says the Pharisees maintained a simple lifestyle, were affectionate and harmonious in their dealings with others, especially respectful to their elders, and quite influential throughout the land of Israel... Josephus mentions their belief in both fate (divine sovereignty) and the human will, and in immortality of both good and evil persons. Some Pharisees refused to take oaths. Of particular importance are Josephus's statements that the Pharisees adhered to "the laws of which the Deity approves" and that they "are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws"
I'd agree that one of their great failings was their hypocrisy. I'd just add to that that their hypocrisy seems to have mostly resulted from their overly harsh/"underly" gracious approach to laws. Or, in short, a lack of grace.
Like Paul, they could go so far as to kill those whom they found to be "heretics." Mere rebukes weren't enough. Merely acknowledging that they had a difference of opinion wasn't enough. Demonization and even killing those who did not believe rightly was acceptable to them.
"Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?"
~Jesus, in Matt 23
"Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?"
~Jesus, in Matt 15, basically telling them to "lighten up, Francis."
In short, I agree. The Pharisees, on one hand, have gotten a bad reputation. They were some original "back to the basics" reformers who were trying to restore a sense of holiness (in a good sense) to their faith community. They were trying to help Israel be distinct and different from their Roman overlords.
It just seems to me worthwhile to consider the root of their hypocrisy and that, to me, seems to be in their lack of grace.
Or, from Matt 23...
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?...
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
I think the study of the relationship between Jesus and the Pharisees is a great and important matter for the church to consider, lest we - with the best of intentions - fall into the sins of the Pharisees, the one group that Jesus consistently and most strongly chastised.
That is, you don't find Jesus strongly rebuking whores, adulterers, "the gays," the "lazy poor," the homeless bums, the beggars on the streets... the target of so much attention in churches today (and with the Pharisees, as well, it seems). No, Jesus only has words of compassion and concern for these.
But for religious hypocrites, wow, Jesus, John the Baptist and others have the strongest words of rebuke. "Brood of snakes?" "Blind guides?"
Wow. I don't want to be on the receiving end of that rebuke from our Savior.
Also, I think it very worthwhile to see what specifically Jesus condemned them for...
Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone.
"Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.
"Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it."
One of the experts in the law answered him, "Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also."
Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.
"Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. Because of this, God in his wisdom said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.' Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,
"Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering."
From Luke 11
I'm not sure their problem was lack of grace. (I think I clearly stated that sentence as an opinion.) I think your conclusion is based on a presupposition from today's world. "It's bad to kill heretics." When you read Paul's view, for instance, he actually saw that as a positive. In Philippians 3 he talks about his "reason for confidence in the flesh." He quotes his lineage and he touts "as to zeal, a persecutor of the church". He doesn't seem to view that as a bad thing. He isn't saying it's bad; he's saying it's not good enough. He's saying as good as all that is, "Whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ."
In earlier times the devout thought that teaching lies that led people to Hell was a bad thing, and the safest thing to do to protect people was to put the heretic to death. That is, the earlier thinking was that truth was important, especially when talking about God, and it would be better to throw them into the sea with a millstone around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. Oh, wait, that sounds really familiar. I wonder who said that?
You don't think Paul repented of and regretted his killing of Christian "heretics?"
Then we disagree on that point.
The devout STILL think that teaching truth is important and disagreeing with those we believe to be teaching NOT truth is still important.
The difference, it seems to me (and it seems to me to be a Great GOOD difference) is we recognize our fallibility and our own ability to be mistaken. We recognize that all of us who are saved are saved by GRACE and, thus, we can disagree with grace (strongly disagree, if need be, but with grace).
So, I guess we disagree, too, that a lack of grace is part and parcel of the "sin of the Pharisee."
Such is life.
Dan Trabue: "You don't find Jesus strongly rebuking whores, adulterers, "the gays," the "lazy poor," the homeless bums, the beggars on the streets... the target of so much attention in churches today (and with the Pharisees, as well, it seems). No, Jesus only has words of compassion and concern for these."
Wow! I gotta say, you have experience with some really odd sorts of churches. I am not aware of any churches today that are targeting "the 'lazy poor,' the homeless bums, the beggars on the streets". Man, that would be some church to avoid, eh? I've never seen one of those and I hope to never see one.
On the other hand, I'm baffled by what appears to be the intention of this statement. Is it your view that Jesus was "encouraging" to these folks? (I'm going to leave off "the 'lazy poor,' the homeless bums, the beggars on the streets" because I don't know anyone that thinks those things are sins.) When Jesus encountered prostitutes or adulterers, for instance, is it your perspective that He was warm and caring -- "It's okay; you're just fine. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise"? Because what I read was that Jesus's message was "repent and believe". Now, no matter who you ask, if my message is "repent", they will likely tell you "That is not a word of compassion and concern." (I don't agree with that assessment, but that is the common view.) I cannot imagine that Jesus was telling sinners that everything was just fine for them. By the same token, while genuine Christians might stand and say, "Homosexual behavior is a sin", that doesn't mean they are "targeting" them or even lacking in compassion. That is, if murder or theft or adultery or sin of whatever type is earning someone Hell, you want to warn them off ... don't you?
So, please tell me that you didn't mean to say that Jesus didn't call adultery a sin and ask adulterers to repent. Surely you didn't mean to say that recognizing sin and calling for repentance isn't "targeting" or lacking in compassion or concern. Or ... did you?
And to clarify, where you say...
I think your conclusion is based on a presupposition from today's world. "It's bad to kill heretics."
My conclusion is based upon a presupposition which I believe to be a GODLY one, not a worldly one, that "it's bad to kill those we think of as heretics." The world is FULL of people who gladly would kill our enemies. "It's for the best," they might say. "It's to protect the truth," they might say.
I believe killing our enemies, killing those we disagree with, that this is a WORLDLY solution. I reject that solution as worldly.
I am striving to walk in the steps of He who taught us to love our enemies. To NOT engage in the sins of the Pharisees - hypocrisy and a lack of grace (seems to me). But to live lives of grace.
Just to clarify, then.
To clarify again...
When Jesus encountered prostitutes or adulterers, for instance, is it your perspective that He was warm and caring -- "It's okay; you're just fine. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise"?
No, I meant just what I said. Jesus had no harsh words of rebuke for these types of "sinners." His harsh words of rebukes were exclusively (I believe) for the religious hypocrites and the rich and powerful. There are no harsh words of rebuke from Jesus towards the "normal" sexual sinner, for instance.
What he DID do was offer them grace. "Neither do I condemn you." and hope for a better Way: "Go and sin no more."
This gracious loving welcoming approach to "normal" sinners seems to me to be the best model for the church. Not the fire and brimstone sermons towards "the gays," "the loose," and, yes, "the lazy homeless," which in at least some religiousy circles, get criticized pretty harshly. Have you never heard of a sermons directed against "welfare queens," either in church or - probably even more commonly - online? I have.
So, to address your question, No, Jesus did not say "You're just fine living in your sin." But Jesus DID say (I think an apt paraphrase would be) "I love you just as you are. You don't have to change a thing for me to love you. And not only do I love you just as you are, I want the very best for you. I do not condemn you. Go and sin no more. Don't get caught up in that which hurts and drags you down. I hate to see that because I love you..."
Dan Trabue: "You don't think Paul repented of and regretted his killing of Christian 'heretics?'"
Well, first, we have no reason to believe that Paul ever killed a Christian. His task was arresting them. But beyond that, if Paul believed his persecution of the Church was something to repent of, in what possible sense could he call it "gain" in the passage I cited? Instead he should have written "Whatever I did that was horribly wrong I count as loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ" (which, of course, makes no sense at all).
Dan Trabue: "My conclusion is based upon a presupposition which I believe to be a GODLY one, not a worldly one, that 'it's bad to kill those we think of as heretics.'"
I didn't suggest "worldly" (in the sense that Christians usually intend -- you know, sinful), but "from today's world" as in "a modern perspective". You see, it was not some cruel person or some wild fanatic or even some questionable understanding of Paul that I referenced. It was Jesus who said that those who caused people to sin were better off dead.
Dan Trabue: "Jesus had no harsh words of rebuke for these types of 'sinners.'"
Seeking clarification here, because I'm not sure I understand (and, as you well know, it's easy for us to misunderstand each other). If Jesus said to a prostitute, "Repent", is that a harsh word of rebuke? In your paraphrase of what Jesus did say, it appears that there is nothing at all about "change" or "repent". It appears from what you said that there is now no condemnation ... at all. Jesus doesn't condemn anyone. It's all good. Not to worry. Jesus loves you just like you are. Don't sweat it. But you also appeared to deny that this is what you intended, so clearly I am not getting your point.
(And a side question, although, perhaps, closely related, why did you put "sinners" in quotes? The quotes suggests that someone might use the word "sinners", but that isn't actually what they were. You know, like if I referenced people who were "Christians", suggesting that they were Christian in name only. What did you intend by it?)
I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing on Paul. You said...
Well, first, we have no reason to believe that Paul ever killed a Christian. His task was arresting them. But beyond that, if Paul believed his persecution of the Church was something to repent of, in what possible sense could he call it "gain" in the passage I cited?
As to whether or not Paul actually killed the "heretics," fair enough. It's possible he only captured them and delivered them to their deaths, although Acts 22 has Paul saying he "persecuted [them] to their deaths."
Aside from that, are you suggesting that the Philippians 3 passage is suggesting that Paul was NOT wrong for persecuting Christians?? That he had no reason to repent for DELIVERING CHRISTIANS to be killed??
The passage in question..
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
I can't imagine that you really mean that, but as I've read and re-read your comments, that's what it sounds like. Could you clarify, please?
As to Paul needing to repent, I reference Acts 22 (Paul speaking)...
I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as also the high priest and all the Council can testify. I even obtained letters from them to their brothers in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.
"About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly a bright light from heaven flashed around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, 'Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?'
Saul was delivering Christians to their deaths. Jesus appears to Saul and asks why he is persecuting Him (for what you do to the least of these, you do to Jesus, right?) Persecuting Jesus would be something to repent of, right?
I think I must be misunderstanding you, so if you could clarify, I'd appreciate it.
Thanks.
Stan...
I didn't suggest "worldly" (in the sense that Christians usually intend -- you know, sinful), but "from today's world" as in "a modern perspective".
I used "worldly" to differentiate and clarify that I was not basing my conclusion on modern ideals, but upon biblical and Godly ideals as best as I can understand them.
Stan...
If Jesus said to a prostitute, "Repent", is that a harsh word of rebuke? In your paraphrase of what Jesus did say, it appears that there is nothing at all about "change" or "repent".
I don't think "repent" is a harsh word of rebuke. I don't think "Turn, and sin no more" is a harsh word of rebuke. One man's opinion.
In my paraphrase, I clearly have Jesus say "Go and sin no more." That would involve change. Fair enough?
My point is that in the Gospels, there are many harsh condemnations of sin. Ones that sound as if the person is speaking in anger (albeit righteous anger) moreso than love.
These harsh condemnations include...
"Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."
And he told them this parable: "The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.'
"Then he said, 'This is what I'll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I'll say to myself, "You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry." '
"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?'
"This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God..."
"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
~Luke 12
When [John the Baptist] saw that many of the Pharisees and Sadducees were stepping forward for this bath, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who told you to flee from the wrath to come?"
~Matt 3
For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
~Matt 5
The Pharisees saw this and complained to his disciples, "What reason can the Teacher have for eating with tax collectors and those who disregard the law?
Overhearing the remark, he said: "People who are in good health do not need a doctor; sick people do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘It is mercy I desire and not sacrifice.’ I have come to call, not the self-righteous, but sinners."
~Matt 9
Some of the scribes and Pharisees then spoke up, saying, "Teacher, we want to see you work some signs. 39 He answered: "An evil and unfaithful age is eager for a sign!
~Matt 12
"Do you realize the Pharisees were scandalized when they heard your pronouncement?" "Every planting not put down by my heavenly Father will be uprooted," he replied. "Let them go their way; they are blind leaders of the blind. If one blind man leads another, both will end in a pit."
~Matt 15
In addition to the "blind guides," "Snakes" and other harsh names he uses about the pharisees in Matt 23 and elsewhere.
All of that for starters.
But we both can probably agree that Jesus had multiple and on-going harsh rebukes for the Pharisees, yes?
About the scare quotes around "sinners:"
I use the scare quotes on "sinners" to differentiate between the more talked about and "obvious" - to churchy people - sins. The sins of sexuality, generally, but also the sins that might be associated with poverty often, drunkenness or drug use, for instance. In other words, I'm using it rather like the Bible does, in Mark 2 (at least in the NIV)...
While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"
I recognize that the quotes are probably not there in the original text, but that seems to make sense, in context.
That's why I used the quotes.
I'm sorry, I got distracted and don't think I finished my commentary about Jesus' harsh rebukes. I had said that you and I probably agree that Jesus had multiple harsh rebukes for the Pharisees. Beyond that, though, I don't think there are any harsh, scathing rebukes of "normal" "sinners."
The sick folk like the woman with the issue of blood and the paralytic man (and in that day, in that context, the sick were often considered sinful and unclean)? No harsh rebukes, just gentle loving healings.
The woman caught in adultery? "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
The woman of ill repute whom Jesus let wash his feet (scandalizing a Pharisee, you'll recall)? She uses her as a model of righteous living and contrasts it with Simon the Zealots ungracious behavior.
The sinners and prostitutes and drunkards with whom Jesus associated (at least that I can recall)? No harsh rebukes recorded, just loving acceptance as they were.
I can think of no direct harsh rebukes to some "sinners" other than the rich and pharisaical. Can you?
Now, allow me to clarify once more: That Jesus was gentle and loving and gracious towards "sinners," telling them "neither do I condemn you," and similar words of comfort, does not mean that he didn't want them to NOT sin. Because God loves us, God wants us to give up that which weighs us down and which oppresses and harms ourselves and others.
But God, as demonstrated by Jesus, our role model and teacher, tends to do this in soft and loving ways. The harsh words are for the rich and powerful and self-assured and lacking in grace and modesty. At least in the gospels and life of Jesus.
I suspect that it's we religious and certain of ourselves-types who NEED the harsh rebukes, because we too often tend to be the most blinded by our "assurance" and sanctimonious-ness.
That's my hunch, anyway.
I wrote...
we religious and certain of ourselves-types...
WHAT in the world was I trying to say there??? That's what happens when you write stuff at 2am.
Dan Trabue: "'Go and sin no more'"
This is mostly an aside, but I have a hard time with the "conventional" take on that whole story. People have abused it to suggest that Jesus has no condemnation for people who sin. Since the Bible is abundantly clear that God is the Judge of all, that Jesus will be doing that judging (see, for instance, Matt 7:21-23) and that sin merits condemnation, I cannot fathom the notion that Jesus doesn't condemn sin. It has always been interesting to me that in that story in John 8 that this woman who was supposedly "caught in adultery" was brought alone to Jesus. Now, the law was quite clear. Both the man and the woman were to be stoned to death. So ... where was the man? Was it a genuine case of "caught in adultery", or was it a false charge intended to trap Jesus? Regardless, since the Bible is more than clear that sin is worthy of condemnation and that Jesus will do it, I'd be careful about making "Neither do I condemn you" a theme song for sinners.
Dan Trabue: "Are you suggesting that the Philippians 3 passage is suggesting that Paul was NOT wrong for persecuting Christians?"
Here's the thing. Early on you said, "Like Paul, they could go so far as to kill those whom they found to be 'heretics.' Mere rebukes weren't enough. Merely acknowledging that they had a difference of opinion wasn't enough." The suggestion is that people who kill heretics are overzealous. But Paul counted his zeal, which included persecuting Christians, as a positive. Now, when he discovered that he was persecuting Christ (in a personal notification from Christ), that was worthy of repentance. But it wasn't that he was overzealous. It was that he was wrong in his direction. Now, of course, you disagree. So, in what possible sense could Paul consider it as "gain" in that Philippians passage? Or was he saying that knowing Christ was much more valuable than all the loss he endured in sinning?
Dan Trabue: "Jesus, in Matt 15, basically telling them to 'lighten up, Francis.'"
Now, I don't know who Francis is (humor), but that's not what Jesus was telling them. He was telling them, "In vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt 15:9). They had modified the commands (in the example at hand, they refused to honor mother and father by claiming to reserve it for God, violating a clear command in favor of a human idea) and taught them as commands from God. Being zealous for God's commands is good. Being zealous for human constructs that violate God's commands is bad.
We agree, however, that the main problem with the Pharisees was hypocrisy. Hypocrisy seems to be largely misunderstood today. It is not when someone says, "This is wrong" and they violate it themselves. Genuine hypocrisy is putting on a mask (that's the origin of the word). It's saying, "I do these things right and don't do those things wrong" when you actually do neither. It's claiming a level of godliness you don't have. To say, for instance, "This is wrong" and violate it simply says, "I'm doing something wrong." To say, "This is wrong", violate it, and then claim to have done nothing wrong is hypocrisy. The claim of Christ was that the Pharisees "tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger" (Matt 23:4). That is, it isn't necessarily the "heavy burden" that is the problem; it is the refusal to take it up yourself. Kind of like Al Gore who says, "We're all gonna die from global warming if you don't change your ways" and then does nothing to change his ways. That's hypocrisy. It's not hypocritical to say, "It's wrong to do x" accompanied by "I do x and I'm working to stop." So it wasn't their lack of grace. It was their hypocrisy.
So it wasn't their lack of grace. It was their hypocrisy.
We agree that their hypocrisy was wrong. I think they had an abundant lack of grace, as well, and this was part and parcel of their hypocrisy.
Different take on it, I guess.
We agree, I imagine, that
1. The Pharisees aren't quite the bad guys that we may have understood them to be - they were often genuinely seeking faithful reform.
2. That nonetheless, Jesus seemed to just about solely single them out for strong rebukes. I think this was because both their sometimes hypocrisy and because of their lack of grace.
3. Regardless, we probably agree that we have much to learn from Jesus' criticisms of the sins of the pharisees and that, as religious folk ourselves, we ought to take their frequent rebukes as warnings for ourselves.
Dan Trabue: "WHAT in the world was I trying to say there?"
Let's see if I can help. I think punctuation will make a difference.
Your version: "I suspect that it's we religious and certain of ourselves-types ..."
Your intent: "I suspect that it's we religious and 'certain-of-ourselves' types ..."
I think I translated it well enough. ;)
(Now, is it wrong to be certain of yourself? Is that what Jesus rebukes?)
Is it wrong to be certain of ourselves (and yes, that is what I meant - thanks!)? Well, I guess that depends on whether or not we're right.
As Dr King says: When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be conservative...
Given our failings and imperfections, on matters that are less consequential and less critical, I think a bit of conservatism and humility serves us well.
On matters of great importance, we ought to stand as strongly as we can on what we think is right.
On matters of clarity, it serves us well to stand strong.
No one at all doubts that we are to love our neighbors. We ought to stand rock solid on that point. Very few Christians would argue that we are to even love our enemies. We ought to stand strong on that point. Living lives of grace and mercy? Stand strong.
But on specifics? In order to best love our neighbors, ought we have a set of rules and regulations on how to do that?
I think on this, we ought to fall back to grace and humility.
One man's opinion.
Post a Comment