On more than one occasion I've been called a pharisee. And not in a good way. It is typically an epithet, a term of abuse. No one means it as a compliment. But ... what do we know about the Pharisees?
The Pharisees were part of the Jewish religious elite. They are generally believed to have come about in the intertestamental time between Malachi and Matthew during Israel's 400 years of silence from God. They were devout and started with very good intentions. They wanted to make God's Word applicable to everyday life. "Sure," they might have said, "we're not supposed to do any work on the Sabbath, but just what does that mean?" And they'd try to make it plain. So they used their Scriptures to make rules like how many steps you could take on the Sabbath and so on. By the time Jesus started His ministry, they were at the top of their game. With the Sadducees, they were the religious rulers of Israel. Jesus had good things to say about them. "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:20). "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me" (John 5:39). "You tithe mint and dill and cummin" (Matt 23:23). They were more righteous than most, more diligent with Scripture than most, more earnest in their obedience than most. So how did they get such a bad reputation? Jesus also had some of His harshest words set aside for them. His primary complaint, of course, was their hypocrisy. They claimed to be holy while being sinners, "white-washed tombs" (Matt 23:23-35). They loaded people with requirements they weren't willing to meet (Matt 23:4). They were self-righteous (Luke 18:10-14). Bad things.
So, let's see how this goes. I am, they tell me, a pharisee. I'm just guessing here, but I'm pretty sure they're not saying I'm devout. They're not suggesting I'm serious about Scripture. They're not complaining that I try to make God's Word plain. They are not thinking that I am more righteous than most or that I'm serious about following God. I'm sure that's not what they mean. So, what, then?
I'm a pharisee because I believe Scripture teaches X and we ought to do it. They don't think we ought to do it, so I'm the pharisee. I'm a pharisee because I take Scripture seriously and they don't. I'm the pharisee because when God speaks, I intend to listen. They're not because when they speak, they listen intently. I'm the pharisee because they perceive an hypocrisy that isn't actually real. I don't deny that I fail to live up to God's standards and I fall completely into the hands of the Only One who can remedy that. They're not the pharisees because they're not hypocrites. They don't favor inclusion by being exclusive, don't counter perceived intolerance with intolerance, don't rail about being judgmental by being judgmental. Oh ... wait ... they do, don't they? I'm a pharisee because the only righteousness I possess is that provided by the Savior while theirs is secure and self-produced.
I get the biblical Pharisees. They claimed a godliness they didn't profess. They laid burdens on people's shoulders while they were unwilling to take them up themselves. They had the appearance of religion but denied the power of it. They served the Lord in lip service only. Their appearance of godliness was commendable; their failure to make it deeper than surface appearance was their downfall. But it seems to me that the people that are pointing fingers at me on this point ought to first examine themselves because it looks as if they more closely resemble that sad group of men than I do.
16 comments:
Since I read at least the first line of almost any comment I get before publishing or deleting it, I was treated to a single line comment from Feodor that read, simply, "You’re a Judaizer, not a Pharisee, you shallow cretin." This, dear reader, is what passes for cogent argument, for witty repartee, for friendly dialog. The fact that to be a Judaizer you would need to be Jewish and aim to turn people to Jewish practices eludes this commenter, but more to the point, the sheer hatred of all things "not me" is astounding. Kind of like the Pharisees with Jesus.
It’s almost like Jesus was suggesting that emulating the Pharisees in some areas was a good thing.
Part of the problem is that our sin nature renders us all hypocrites to some degree, as it’s impossible to live up to our ideals.
The difference is whether we acknowledge that, repent, and focus on God or just give in and celebrate our sin.
Yes, Craig. You don't qualify as a hypocrite when you agree that you don't live up to the standard you're supposed to. It is only when you claim you do when you don't that you qualify.
I get that, yet I still feel hypocritical at times.
Admitting that sometimes you don't correctly show that you aren't all you believe you should be makes you a poor hypocrite. :)
I'd say that the difference between the Pharisees and the ideal of most evangelical/fundamentalist types is that we have no desire to impose obedience to God's commands on anyone. The reality is that we'd hope that people follow God's commands out of love and commitment to God. We merely echo Jesus. "If you love Me, then you'll keep My commandments.". No more, no less.
Jesus didn't say "If you love Me, deny the existence of my commandments." or "If you love Me, ignore the commandments of Mine you don't like.".
The biggest falsehood of all is the "Bible is a rule book" nonsense. Clearly to equate the Bible to what you find in the Catan box, is absurd. To artificially limit the Bible to a "rule book" would be ridiculous.
Just as ridiculous is to deny the reality that the Bible does contain commands from God. It clearly and unarguably does. To deny the reality of the existence of commands and to deny the reality that most of them are not Israel specific, is to not take the Bible seriously.
The final point is that God's commands are for God's people. We don't expect that those who don't follow God will follow His commands. Jesus quote covers that quite nicely.
The effort that goes into building and maintaining this straw man argument is pretty impressive and could probably be put to better use.
I agree almost entirely. The only part that I'd modify is that God's commands are for God's people. God's commands are for everyone. We don't expect everyone to obey God, but the actual problem is that they don't obey the clear commands God intends them to. But coercing people to follow God's commands is outside of our marching orders. I believe with all the certainty I have that God's commands are for everyone and for the good of everyone. I would hope that everyone would follow them for their own good. I don't expect them to. I won't make them.
I'll split that hair a little further and agree that some of God's commands are for everyone, and some are for God's people. I do agree that putting it in terms of expecting people to obey God is probably a more accurate way to put it.
As far as the universal commands, I agree that I'd hope people follow them, but have no desire to force people to.
It's interesting that our current legal code isn't designed to prevent people from breaking the law, but to punish them after they do. Clearly the threat of punishment is a deterrent,but we don't actually do anything to people until after they commit the crime. (I realize that people are convicted of conspiracy to commit murder before the murder, but in that case the conspiracy IS the crime not murder)
The response to this post would be humorous if not so sadly wrong in its "correction" about the "sin of the Pharisee". Hard to believe one who seriously and prayerfully studied Scripture would fail to understand Christ's problem with the Pharisees. But then, revision is imperative for those who don't like all the "rules" of Scripture.
As to rules, I continue to be amazed that he who rejects Scripture as a "holy rule book" will at the same time insist upon his notions of what is important. Kinda seems like heaping a rule onto the rest of us to me.
Oh, there’s no doubt the progressive Pharisees have their own pet rules. The problem is that they say they aren’t rules, yet treat them as if they are.
To be clear, there might be some discussion about what commands Jesus meant when He said what He said, but you can’t get from Jesus statement to zero commands (rules).
I don't understand why I'm a pharisee because I say that Scripture calls such and such wrong but they're not a pharisee for calling me evil for saying it.
Ever notice how Dan always refers to himself in the plural when he’s pontificating?
It’s interesting that in his gracious attempt to tell us where they think we’re wrong, he misses the mistaken premise that undergirds his whole rant.
Dan aside (because it's not just Dan), I continue to be amazed that so many who are "anti" here are irate about judgmentalism and are judgmental doing so, are opposed to intolerance and are intolerant doing so, are opposed to exclusivism and are excluding doing so, are opposed to hate and being hateful doing so. They don't say, "Hey, I think you're mistaken on this point and here's why ..." They strike out with vitriol and then suggest that I'm being hateful. I really don't get it ... that they can't seem to see their own hypocrisy. "I'm not judgmental, intolerant, exclusive, or hateful." But ... they are.
The amount of judgement, intolerance, and hate is staggering.
Dan used to be more of a "You're just mistaken." kind of person, but could never give any reason besides his opinion to back that up. It wasn't a particularly effective tactic, so he's changed tactics. This new one isn't particularly effective either.
Let me get this straight. Jesus wasn’t being judgmental when He judged the actions of the Pharisees and was harsh with them. So it’s ok for random internet guy to be judgmental about other people and to engage in hate filled vitriolic attacks on people’s character, because Jesus.
A couple of thoughts, it’s ok to perceive Jesus as spewing expletives and vitriol at the Pharisees, but mention that Jesus got violent when he whipped a bunch of folx and you’ve crossed a line.
What’s interesting is that when Jesus uses harsh words and violent actions, He’s defending His territory. He’s defending the Temple, the holiest place in Israel, in a sense His home on earth. What else does he defend harshly? He defends the faith, the faith that was handed down directly from the Godhead to the Hebrews.
What doesn’t he get really worked up about? His personal safety. The poor and oppressed, (not denying that He spoke about them, but He didn’t verbally or physically attack anyone). The sick.
He obviously felt that certain things were important enough for strong words and physical violence, but it all centered around the faith.
Let’s also not forget, in a world where guilt by association and group politics are potent weapons, that it wasn’t all the Pharisees. Just a thought.
Post a Comment