Pharisaism in the Way

by Frank Jamerson
(Lecture: Florida College 1990 Lectureship; reprinted with the permission of the author)
via Sentry Magazine, Vol 16 No. 1, March 31, 1990

The practice of "bashing" Pharisees has become a fad. If you dislike how someone teaches, call him a Pharisee. If you do not like his doctrine, call it Pharisaism. The sad fact is that many who engage in this have misconceptions about who the Pharisees were and why Jesus condemned them.

The accusation that the Pharisees were a group of self-righteous hypocrites who made little effort to do right while they handed out dictums for others misrepresents the vast majority of them. Failure to understand their true nature and why they made mistakes may lead to our making the same mistakes. Therefore, we need to clearly understand who these people were and what they did that brought them into conflict with the Lord.

The word "Pharisee" means "separated one," but scholars differ on whether the word referred to a religious-political schism among the Hellenists or a purely religious emphasis on purity. They also disagree on whether the name was a self-designation or a derogatory label applied by their opponents.

The movement's roots seem to have been in the "Hasidim" (pious ones) of the second century B.C., whose loyalty to Jehovah compelled them to resist the pressure toward Hellenization. The Hasidim were devoted to preserving the old paths against cultural changes brought about by the interaction of the Jews with other cultures and religions. Some of the Jews were living little differently from their Gentile neighbors, and this concerned these "pious ones." Pharisaism developed from this background, and though all Jewish sects had respect for the Law, these people placed a peculiar importance on the oral law. "For the Pharisees, the oral law came to be revered so highly that it was said to go back to Moses himself and to have been transmitted over the centuries orally, paralleling the written law that also derived from him" [Zondervan’s Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible]. Further, there were two primary schools of interpretation in the mainstream of Pharisaism. David Chadwell contrasts these schools thus:

"Shammai favored severe penalties for any infringement of the law and strict adherence to its harsh demands. Hillel was devoted to peace with a conviction that the law must deal with problems humanely. These two schools were in constant disagreement throughout most of the first century." (19)

The ideal of the Jewish rabbis was Ezra, who had "prepared his heart to seek the law of God, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments" (Ezra 7:10). Their attempt, however futile, was to bring every area of life into subjection to the law. For example, Jewish historians tell about a pagan who went to the great teacher Hillel and said, "If you can teach me the whole Law while I stand on one foot, you will make me a convert." Hillel made him a convert. He said, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; and what is hateful to you, you shall not do to others. This is the whole Law; everything else is application" [as quoted by Odeberg, Pharisaim 17]. Hence, the rabbis intended to assist men in conforming to the Law of God.

Nevertheless, the word "Pharisee" became a synonym for hypocrite, and "Pharisaic" became a synonym for formalism or self-righteousness, but if we do not have the proper understanding of how these terms came about, we may have a misconception of the fundamental problem of the Pharisees. As a whole, they were middle to lower-class workers who spent their spare time studying, memorizing, and trying to apply the law to everyday situations. Jacob Neusner said:

"All rabbis of this time supported themselves through business, farming, crafts, or as common laborers. The rabbinate was not a paid profession, but a lifelong calling ... It was forbidden to ’use the Torah as a spade to dig with.’ Teaching was not compensated" [First Century Judaism 59].

We need to understand that the Pharisees did not start out to be self-righteous hypocrites. The rabbis taught against pride and emphasized humility. "Even as man must be generous in his estimate of his neighbors, so must he be modest as regards himself. The Rabbis are never weary of attacking pride and of praising humility...they were conscious of the great need for these warnings both for themselves and their colleagues. They knew where the shoe pinched" [C.G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, eds., A Rabbinic Anthology 470]. Hillel is credited with transforming Pharisaism from a political party to a circle of pious sectarians. Pharisees "remained within the common society in accordance with the teaching of Hillel, ’Do not separate yourself from the community.’ The Pharisaic community, therefore, sought to rebuild society on its own ruins with its own mortar and brick. They differed among themselves. Some, called Zealots, accepted the Pharisaic interpretation of tradition but thought to restore the fortune of Israel through war. Others focused their efforts in the spiritual reform of the nation. The Pharisees actively fostered their opinions on tradition and religion among the whole people" [Neuser 35]. They were sometimes known as "the fellowship" because of their meticulous observance of their laws on tithing and ritual purity.

Were they hypocrites? Certainly, Jesus called them that (Matthew 15; 22; 23), but in what sense were they "hypocrites?" One author said, "The Pharisee was assuredly not a conscious hypocrite. In the Pharisees there is not to be found any conscious contradiction between doctrine and life. The Pharisees consciously condemn hypocrisy as the basest sin" [Neuser 63]. I want to emphasize that they were not shallow and insincere in their commitment to God; they believed that their interpretations of the law were right and that they were pursuing the "safe" course. As a whole, I am convinced that the Pharisees had a good idea, but it went bad. If we cannot see the personal application and danger in their example, we are not looking very closely!

The Pharisees were "hypocrites" because they were holding and defending their distorted interpretations of the Law. Saul could commit fellow Jews to prison and death and yet have a good conscience because of his distorted values. Hatred made it expedient for the Jewish leaders to seek false witnesses and to crucify one who said he was "the Son of God." Some of their interpretations actually circumvented the very purpose of the Law. Jesus said that when the Pharisees told their parents, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban (that is, dedicated to the temple)," they were "making the word of God of no effect" through their tradition (Mark 7:11-13). They were hypocrites because their actions were contrary to the real teaching of the Law.

Traditionalism

Traditionalism was one of the greatest mistakes of the Pharisees and one of the greatest dangers for us. The Pharisees believed their "oral law" was from the same source as the written law. They intended to define and apply the written law, but in their zeal to build a hedge around God's commandments, they often contradicted or nullified the Law.

These interpretations and explanations were handed down orally until about A.D. 200, and they were written in the Mishnah, which is divided into six Orders. Those Orders are:

1. Zara’im ("Seeds") deals with the laws of agriculture.
2. Mo’ed ("Appointed Time"), dealing with the laws of the Sabbath and the festivals.
3. Nashim ("Women") deals with the laws about marriage, divorce, and family relationships.
4. Nezikin ("Damages") deals with civil and criminal statutes and court procedures.
5. Kodashim ("Sacred Matters") deals with laws of sacrifice and the Temple cult.
6. Tohorot ("Purities") deals with laws of ritual uncleanness.

In addition to the Mishnah, there were commentaries explaining the meaning of their explanations. The shorter "Gemara" was compiled in Palestine about the fourth century. Combined with the Mishnah, this shorter commentary is known as the Palestine or Jerusalem Talmud. A longer commentary was written about a century later in Babylon, and that, plus the Mishnah, is known as the Babylonia Talmud. The Mishnah was intended as a "hedge about the law" and was used as some today use the expression "the infallibly safe course.״ It may not be what the Law requires, but if you will follow it, you will not anger God. Phil Roberts wrote:

"The only trouble was, the Jews soon forgot that their traditional interpretations were only human opinions...Their hedge was no longer just a hedge. It was law, and they would condemn any who broke it. They even began to claim that their oral traditions had been delivered at Mt. Sinai right along with the written Law. One rabbi even declared that it was more important and blessed to keep the oral law than the written law. The lesson for us is obvious" ["The Plano Provoker," 7-7-77].

To illustrate the point and show the danger, we will notice some of the "hedges" built around the Sabbath as recorded in the Mishnah's Second Order (Mo’ed). The Law said:

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work; you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates" (Exodus 20:8-10).

To define what "work" was, the Pharisees had a list of permissible things and things that were not.

• A tailor "should not go out (on Friday) with his needle close to nightfall ... nor a scribe with his pen" because those were tools of their trade, and they could not have them on the Sabbath. A schoolteacher ״may look in where children are reading but he himself must not read" (1:3).
• The school of Shammai said that "they may not sell to a non-Jew (on Friday) or help him load up or assist to load him unless there be time for him to reach a place near by; but the School of Hillel permit it" (1:7).
• Under some conditions, extinguishing a fire was work, and under others, it was not. "If one extinguish the light for fear of non-Jews, or of robbers, or of melancholia (depression), or to enable a sick person to sleep, he is absolved. But if his intention is to spare the lamp, or to save the oil, or to preserve the wick, he is guilty" (2:5).
• "If anyone removed (on the Sabbath) his fingernails with his teeth, and similarly, also, the hair of his head, and likewise, too, his moustache, and so, also, his beard; and also if a woman dressed her hair, or painted her eyelids," some rabbis said it was wrong. Others said that if the acts were performed ״by the hand," such action is right, but if they were done "by any tool or instrument," a sin-offering must be made (10:6).
• "Anyone who ploughs however little, or weeds or cuts off dry twigs or trims away young shoots is culpable. Whoever gathers any quantity of wood whatever to put in order, and if to burn, if sufficient to cook the smallest egg, is culpable (12:2).
• If a deer came into a house, and someone shut it in, he is culpable; but if two shut it in, they are exempt (because neither completed the whole act by himself)” (13:6).
• The next rule explains that "if one sat in the doorway, but did not block it, and another sat down and blocked it, the other is culpable (because the animal was captured through his act)" (13:7).
• The law about the "stranger" applied to any Gentile who would help a Jew on the Sabbath. If a Gentile saw a Jew’s house on fire and came to extinguish it, "they must not say to him, ’Put it out’ or ’Do not put it out’ because his abstention from labor on the Sabbath is no concern of theirs" (16:6).

We could use many other examples of such laws, but these are sufficient to show the design of the "oral laws." The Pharisees believed that Scripture applied to every aspect of life, as do we, but they blurred the distinction between Scripture and interpretation. We must interpret and apply Scripture, but the Pharisaic attitude says, "My interpretation is the law, yours is opinion.”

Do not misunderstand. Jesus never condemned the application of statements and the implications of Scripture. He quoted and applied Scripture to His situation. When he was tempted to jump from the pinnacle of the temple (Matthew 4), He quoted the statement, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Deuteronomy 6:16). When the Sadducees tested Him about the resurrection of the dead, He quoted God’s words to Moses, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Matthew 22:23-33). The necessary implication of this scripture (Exodus 3:6) was that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still existed; therefore, the Sadducees were wrong about the existence of spirits and the resurrection. The apostle Paul, who left Pharisaism, used explicit statements and implications to teach the Galatians. In warning them against returning to the Old Law, he quoted Deuteronomy 21:23. He said, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Galatians 3:13). In Galatians 3:11-12, he used the "law of exclusion" when he said, "The righteous live by faith," but "the law is not of faith;" therefore, the righteous do not live by the Law. He also used indirect exegesis (necessary inference) when he said that the Scripture "preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed" (Galatians 3:8). The conclusion necessarily follows, "So then they that are of faith (in all the nations) are blessed with the faithful Abraham" (Galatians 3:9). In Galatians 3:16, he made an argument on the number of a noun, "Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not unto seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." In the next chapter, Paul used an allegory (a series of examples) to prove that Christians are not under the Law of Moses (Galatians 4:21-31).

When we appeal to statements (or commands), examples, and necessary implications, we are not being legalistic or Pharisaic, as some would charge. Instead, we are using the teaching methods of Jesus and all Spirit-guided men. We recognize that Paul’s conclusions were inspired, and ours are not, but our point is that "pattern authority" is not Pharisaic.

Earlier, we mentioned "the infallibly safe course" as the primary objective of the Pharisees. Does that mean that we should not strive for the safe course? Certainly not, but we must recognize the difference between God’s word and our interpretation. By "safe course," some brethren mean exactly what the Pharisee meant by their "Mishnah"- it was the only course. When we equate our interpretation of the law with the law itself, we become the source rather than the object of the law.

Again, to avoid being misunderstood, I emphasize that interpretation and application of the word of God are not wrong. The law is useless unless interpreted and applied, but some brethren want every personal application to become law for everyone. They would not write it in a book, as the Pharisees did, but the teaching in the Mishnah was wrong before it was written!

We may illustrate the point by the Lord’s teaching on modesty. Paul wrote, "In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment" (I Timothy 2:9). That is the law, but exactly what is "modest?" We must decide to apply the passage, but suppose my conclusion is "two inches above the knee." Is that God’s law, or is it mine? Paul wore a "toga," which looked more like a skirt than a suit. Did his custom become God’s law? Principles of truth do not change, and we must apply them to everyday situations, but our applications are human, and our interpretations are not the infallible law.

Self-Righteousness

Jesus did not condemn the meticulous keeping of the law, but the Pharisees had things out of perspective when they "tithed mint and anise and cummin" but left undone the weightier matters of the law, "justice, and mercy, and faith." Jesus said, "These you ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone" (Matthew 23:23). The next verse likens their problem to "straining out gnats and swallowing camels."

We must "contend earnestly for the faith," but do we become Pharisaical in our moral purity and doctrinal soundness? The Pharisees excluded the "sinners" and anyone else who disagreed with their traditions. Publicans were especially repulsive to them. Jacob Neusner said, "Pharisaic law explicitly excludes tax collectors from the Pharisaic table-fellowship" [From Politics to Piety 73]. Because of this, it is interesting that Luke mentions "publicans" six times in his gospel, always in a commendable way. Early in the ministry of John, publicans came to be baptized and were told to "extort no more than is appointed you" (Luke 3:12-13). While Levi (Matthew) was "sitting at his place of toll," he was called to follow Jesus and become an apostle. Jesus then went to Levi’s house and ate with many publicans. This brought the condemnation of the Pharisees and Jesus’ response. "They that are in health have no need of a physician; but they that are sick. I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:27-32). In the seventh chapter, Luke records that "the publicans justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John" (Luke 5:29). The great parables on God’s attitude toward the lost were brought forth because "the publicans and sinners were drawing near" to hear Jesus, and "the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them" (Luke 15:1-2). In the eighteenth chapter, Jesus rebuked the self-righteous by telling them about a Pharisee and a publican who went into the temple to pray (Luke 18:9-14). The sixth mention of publicans is the record of Zachaeus, who was "a chief publican." He probably had other tax collectors under him and was especially detestable to those not interested in "sinners" coming to Jesus (Luke 19:1-10).

Pharisaic "righteousness" is dangerous to those with a conservative attitude toward doctrine and morals. In our "righteousness," we can become unmerciful, unloving, and contentious. We can see the church as a "resort hotel for saints״ rather than a "hospital for the sick.״ How many ״real sinners״ are we converting? How willing are we to forgive our brethren who have wallowed in the ״pig pen״ of sin? How long-suffering are we toward the ״weak״ brother?

Conclusion

In conclusion, first notice that traditionalism resulted in the oral laws being accepted as God’s law. Its interpretations degenerated into a set of legalistic regulations that could be obeyed mindlessly. There is still a danger in accepting the conclusions and applications of others without understanding the biblical principles ourselves. Some Christians want others, especially preachers, to tell them "what is right.״ The Pharisee wants to know ״exactly where to draw the line״ in every issue so that he can״learn the rules and keep them." William Coleman expressed it well when he said:

"While most Christians abhor the name Pharisee, in essence they want very much what thefatemity had to offer. They want someone to build fences so that they will know exactly where to stop. They want to be fenced in so that freedom will not upset them" [The Pharisees’ Guide 16].

Within our generation, we have heard brethren repeat the words, "Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent," yet have no concept of what those words really mean. Brethren have said that they are "opposed to institutionalism" without understanding the principles involved; therefore, while opposing "missionary societies," many have not scrupled to support the same things, in principle, as long as they were not called "missionary societies." If we learn the principles, we can make applications, but if we accept the applications of others without understanding biblical authority, we become traditionalists.

Second, we can hinder the restoration process by having our priorities misplaced. There is nothing wrong with "tithing mint, and anise and cummin," but if we ignore "justice, mercy and faithfulness," we have omitted the "weightier matters." Some have a problem with their equilibrium. If they do the "weightier matters," they want to ignore the "tithing." Others want to emphasize the "tithing" whether they exhibit any love and mercy or not! Jesus insisted, "These ye ought to have done, without leaving the others undone."

The arbitrary legalism of Pharisaism was, and is, a poor substitute for true inner commitment. Jesus likened external conformity to washing "the outside of the cup and of the platter" but ignoring the filth inside. He said, "Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside thereof may become clean also." External piety without internal righteousness was also likened to "whited sepulchers, which appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness" (Matthew 23:25-28).

Self-righteousness is as great a sin as any other, as William Coleman so ably expressed it: "Morality must have humility. Otherwise we lose contact with our own frality-indeed our own humanity. Once we believe that we are inherently different from the thief or the prostitute, we have lost touch with reality" (91). Those with Pharisaic self-righteousness looked down upon those whom they considered "the scum of the earth," but remember that Jesus said, "The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you" (Matthew 21:31).

Jewish Pharisaism arose in response to the need for answers to practical everyday situations. The intention of "hedging" the law so that man would not anger God was good, but their "good idea" went bad. Their "fence" became as important as the Law itself, and their desire for personal purity isolated them from any who disagreed with their traditions.

My "kindred spirit" with the ideals of Pharisaism frightens me! The plea of "restoring the ancient order" and of "abstaining from every form of evil" is a good plea, but we need to take heed of the dangers of Pharisaism. Paul has given us the ultimate solution:

"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. And be not fashioned according to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God" [Romans 12:1-2].

Works Cited

• Blackmon, Philip. Mishnayoth. The Judaica Press, Inc., 1963. Vol. 2.
• Chadwell, David W. Beware of the Leven of the Pharisees. N.p.: Quality Publication, 1985.
• Coleman, William L. The Pharisees' Guide to Total Holiness. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1977.
• Montefiore, C.G. and H. Loewe, eds. A Rabbinic Anthology. New York: Schocken Books, 1974.
• Nauser, Jackob. First Century Judaism in Crisis. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975.
• —. From Politics to Piety. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1973.
• Oderberg, Hugo. Pharisaism and Christianity. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1964.