If you argue that we need to follow Scripture in our daily living, you will likely get a label. If you argue that certain popular sins are indeed sins, you will likely get a label. If you call people to holiness and godliness and push against cultural definitions of just what that does and doesn't mean, you will likely get a label. It is not a pleasant label. No one who gets it is pleased. "Oh, my, really?! How nice of you to say so!" No, it is universally understood as a bad thing. Speak up long enough about what the Bible calls "sin" and you are bound to be termed "pharisaical". In case you aren't clear, that is not a compliment. It means that you are legalistic, hypocritical, self-righteous ... really bad things. The way you earn that epithet is by pointing to Scripture that says "Your pet sin is sin" or claiming "The Bible is clear on this point" or "I urge repentance for transgressions against God's Word." Very bad. And I'd like to question that.
What do we know about the Pharisees? Well, historically the Pharisees were a sect that started up somewhere between the end of Malachi and the beginning of Matthew right after the Maccabean Revolt. They believed that the Bible (the Old Testament for them) was true and authoritative. Their name meant "separatist" because they believed that true believers needed to be separate from sin and impurity. While the culture of their day was absorbing more and more of the world around them, the Pharisees called for purity. So they set about making the very first "life application Bible". They pointed out how "Scripture says this which means that we should do this." Eventually their applications of Scripture became religious law itself and they became political leaders as well as religious leaders. While the Pharisees had a diversity of beliefs in the details, they did share some common positions. One, interestingly enough, was that they differed with the Sadducees on the issue of free will. The Sadducees argued for Libertarian Free Will and the Pharisees believed that humans had the freedom to choose but God knew all choices. (In that view, while humans did indeed choose and were, therefore, culpable for their choices, all choices were "predestined" if only by the fact that God already knew what they would be.)
Biblically, we know other things about the Pharisees. We know that they were righteous. Yes, righteous. Jesus told His disciples, "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:20). You know He wasn't saying something like "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of Hitler ...", so it can only be inferred that Jesus was saying, "See them? Do you see now righteous they are? You see how hard that is? Well, you're going to have to exceed that!" We know, for instance, that they were avid pray-ers and meticulous tithers (Matt 23:23). They fasted and gave to the poor. And they searched the Scriptures (John 5:39). Not merely scanned it. They weren't nearly as bad as so many of us who barely have time for God's Word. They searched the Scriptures. Even in Christ's assault on them in Matthew 23, He had high praise for them. They preached. They did good deeds. They were revered as rabbis. They made long prayers and were missionaries. Did you know that? They would "travel across the sea and land to make one convert" (Matt 23:15). Some of us won't cross the street to speak to someone about Christ. They tithed carefully, cleaned "the outside of the cup", worked at appearing righteous, and revered the prophets.
By now I hope I've managed to shake up your understanding of "pharisaical". You see, the Pharisees had a lot to commend them. Jesus had a lot of good things to say about them. Even history offers a lot of positives about them. To suggest that someone was "pharisaical" in Jesus's day would have been high praise.
What was wrong with the Pharisees, then? Jesus reserved His harshest words for them. He commended them in a lot of ways, but pointed out their hypocrisy. "You say one thing but do another." They preached (good), but did not practice (Matt 23:3). They required others to do things they wouldn't do (Matt 23:4). They loved honor over God (Matt 23:5-12). They used righteousness as a pretense for self-serving (Matt 23:13-14). Hypocrites. That was the problem.
So, when someone tells me I'm "pharisaical", what should I conclude? Maybe I'll be generous. "Oh, really? How kind! I don't know that I really think of myself as someone whose righteousness exceeds most, but I do appreciate the kind thought." Or, "Oh, my, you shouldn't say so! Sure, I'm diligent about searching the Scriptures, but shouldn't we all?" Maybe, "Yes, I do believe that Scripture is applicable to today and, no, I don't believe we should assimilate our society's sin rather than remain pure. Thanks for noticing." Maybe I'll be careful. "You know, I do not want to be a hypocrite that requires of others what I'm not willing to do for God. Could you point out exactly what it is I'm doing like that?" "I really hope that I'm not the self-righteous type. I know that the only righteousness I have comes from God. It would be beneficial to me if you could point out how I'm being self-righteous rather than pointing to Him." But it is my suspicion that when people call me "pharisaical", they are not accusing me of being godly or of being hypocritical. It is my suspicion that they don't like me pointing to Scripture and calling it the genuine "Word of God", urging repentance, and calling on me and you and everyone else to live by it. And that, dear readers, is not actually "pharisaical".
4 comments:
Can you think of a time when Jesus went to the Pharisees and picked a fight? Casting out money changers perhaps? No, it is telling that they seemed to come to him and were generally very concerned about authority; and I think that is key. Good and righteous movements have a way of devolving into man centeredness I think. We can see this today with just about every denomination, and for sure with the IV league schools. Somehow the movement gets diluted as it is passed down from generation to generation. Very few are able to escape it. I look for Focus on the Family, for example, an organization once hated by Atheists and liberal "Christians", to one day trumpet their very cause.
We might infer that the same thing happened with the Pharisaical order. By the time of Jesus they were cloaking their real worldly lusts in obedience to scripture.
I have long seen liberal Christianity as the modern day version of the Pharisee. Jesus was faced with a situation similar to what we today are faced with as we are challenged by perfidy dressed in loyal-to-Jesus clothing. How do you call Homosexuality a sin, for example, without being accused of evil? You can't. And that's just one example.
At stake for the Pharisees, once one peered beyond the veil of righteousness, was carnal lust for wealth and power, and an unholy alliance with Cesar from whence that power was derived. It was Rome that held the hammer that drove the nails into Jesus' hands.
If we look behind the cloak of the modern day liberal Christian we will see the same thing, an unholy alliance with the Democrat Party and anti-Christianity. Dan is a great example of this. He is an accuser of the brethren who has much in common with the militant atheist, and very little in common with Christianity as it has been historically constituted. I wonder at the hours that are spent accusing true Christians of their pernicious ways, while leaving the lost to the flames of Hell. But then again, since their Christianity seems to be derived more from the dictates of their own hearts, regulated more by personal wishes than substance, who's to say that there even is a Hell? Who's to make any confident claim at all?
Yet, one could make a good case in arguing that to live as they preach, not as they live, would make for a much better world. You see, the Pharisaical order never receded into history. They are alive and well today, and you my friend, are not amongst them.
I was once accused of being "dogmatic" like it was a bad thing, and I thought to myself, "Thank you. I'm glad you see me holding strongly to my beliefs as truth." And these were Christians who for the most part seem to agree with me. It is interesting how words like pharisaical and dogmatic have become bad words when they are truly good things.
Look at you, Danny. "Perfidy"? All that reading is giving you quite a vocabulary.
I see a common thread ... throughout history. Mankind could do what God said. Or he could do "what was right in his own eyes". The first option is clear, logical, and coherent. The second is anarchy. Americans today are embracing anarchy (in the form of moral relativism, etc.). Evidence the congressman who suddenly changed his stance on "gay marriage" because his son announced he was gay ... as if that determines what is either true or right.
David, I can think of more of those same things. "Puritanical" once referred to a group of people who held themselves holy and now is an insult. A "prude" once referred to a "wise woman", but today refers to foolishly modest. "Marriage" once meant ... well, you see how this is going.
The Pharisees did have serious problems and Jesus warned His disciples to "beware the leaven". But when "tolerant" no longer means to tolerate even if you disagree and when "hypocrite" used to mean someone who pretends to be righteous but isn't and no longer means that and being convinced is an evil thing, the idea is almost swallowed in its errors.
Post a Comment