by Allen Dvorak
Biblical Insights, 14(9), September 2014

There is no uncertainty about the compassion of Jesus during His earthly ministry. Various individuals and groups were the objects of His compassion (e.g., Matthew 9:35-38; Luke 7:11-15). But Jesus was also frequently involved in controversy and sometimes handed out sharp rebukes.

One of His most scathing rebukes is found in Matthew 23. In the words recorded by Matthew, Jesus leveled seven "woes" against the religious leaders of His day. He referred to them as "serpents" and a "brood of vipers" (Matthew 23:33), and charged them with hypocrisy.

Some, however, argue that hypocrisy was not particularly a problem in Second Temple Judaism (the Judaism being practiced in Jesus' day). E. P. Sanders published his book Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977, asserting that Second Temple Judaism has been grossly misunderstood. His book has served as a foundation for the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), a reinterpretation of Paul and his writings. This viewpoint is popular in academic circles and has begun influencing our brethren. Consider Sanders' conclusions from his study concentrated principally on extrabiblical literature of the period:

Thus, in all this literature considered together one has Judaism as it spoke for itself during the period, not just Judaism as subsequent generations wanted it remembered (which is the case with Christianity). On the assumption that a religion should be understood on the basis of its own self-presentations, as long as these are not manifestly bowdlerized, and not on the basis of polemical attacks, we must say that the Judaism of before 70 kept grace and works in the right perspective, did not trivialize the commandments of God and was not especially marked by hypocrisy. The frequent Christian charge against Judaism, it must be recalled, is not that some individual Jews misunderstood, misapplied and abused their religion, but that Judaism necessarily tends towards petty legalism, self-serving and self-deceiving casuistry, and a mixture of arrogance and lack of confidence in God. But the surviving Jewish literature is as free of these characteristics as any I have ever read. [426-427; boldface emphasis mine- asd]

Jesus presented a view of the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23 that suggested they were especially marked by hypocrisy! Seven times, Jesus specifically referred to these religious leaders as "hypocrites" and gave specific examples of their hypocrisy (Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29; NKJV).

Matthew 23 is not the only passage that emphasizes the presence of hypocrisy among the Jews. In His mountain sermon, Jesus warned extensively against hypocrisy in benevolence, prayer, and fasting (Matthew 6:1-16).

In Matthew 22, the Pharisees, in company with the Herodians, came to Jesus with a question about paying taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22). Jesus recognized their words as empty flattery as they set up their "test" (Matthew 22:16). He knew that they were not asking for information's sake, and so He identified them as hypocrites (Matthew 22:18).

Jesus referred to the scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites when these religious leaders criticized His disciples for not washing their hands according to the traditions of the elders before they ate (Matthew 15:1-9).

I don't believe that Jesus' words necessarily imply that every Jew of His day was guilty of hypocrisy. On the other hand, there is no doubt that those who were recognized religious leaders, the scribes and the Pharisees, were characterized by Jesus as having a serious "hypocrisy problem." It also doesn't seem reasonable to conclude that every scribe and every Pharisee was a hypocrite. However, for Sanders to suggest that Second Temple Judaism was "not especially marked by hypocrisy" is a denial of the clear import of the rebukes of Jesus. Of the two, Jesus and E. P. Sanders, who has mischaracterized the general nature of Second Temple Judaism? I, for one, am unwilling to discount the words of Jesus because Sanders believes that the characterization of Matthew 23 is inconclusive.

The use of others' scholarship in our efforts to understand the Word of God is certainly legitimate, but we must never allow the opinions and theories of men to cause us to abandon the inspired text of the Bible. Too many preaching brethren are simply reading the popular writings of denominational authors and parroting their ideas without adequate investigation to determine their truthfulness. The writings of men should be examined against the truth of God's Word rather than the evaluation of God's Word by the uninspired opinions of men.

Back to the Word!