(Editor's Note: The following article
consists of the remarks made by Brother James Adams in a sermon
delivered at Allen, Texas January 29, 1973. Allen is near Dallas. Since
many in the church are misusing the term "pharisaism " today, Brother
Adams' remarks are particularly now needful. He intended that the sermon
'be, published as three articles, but I think to so dissect it would
impair its usefulness. Thus, this longer than usual article is now being
published for your careful consideration. Brother Foy Vinson had asked
Brother Adams to speak upon this subject.-Cecil Willis)
All of my preaching life I have been hearing
and using the expressions, Pharisaism and pharisaical, yet is the first
time in all these years that I have spoken exclusively upon this
subject. My research. in making preparation for this lesson has been
enlightening and rewarding. I have been. somewhat shocked to learn that
I have often misused, or to say the least, carelessly used these terms
in a far too limited sense.
There are only two terms in my subject which
need definition; namely, "Pharisaism" and "the church." According to
Webster (Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Second Edition),
"Pharisaism" means: "The doctrines, ceremonies, etc. of the Pharisees;
hence . a pharisaical attitude, temper or spirit." In assigning me this
topic, Brother Vinson had in mind for me to discuss "the pharisaical
attitude or spirit." However, it will be necessary for me to discuss the
Pharisees, their origin, history, doctrines, and practices in order that
I may make clear what actually constitutes a pharisaical attitude,
temper, or spirit.
The word, "church," is also found in my
subject. Since attitudes belong to individuals, I am confident it is
intended that I discuss the pharisaical attitude as it is manifested
distributively among the saints. Yet, as God's people distributively
manifest a pharisaical attitude, temper, or spirit, so will the
congregations which they collectively compose in various localities.
Primarily, however, I employ the term, "church," in the sense of saved
persons, those who have been called out of the world by the gospel (2
Thess. 2:13, 14) and into Jesus Christ through their obedient faith
(Gal. 3:26, 27), hence who constitute his redeemed body, the
church (2 Tim. 2:10; Eph. 2:13-16; Col. 1:18). With these
definitions before us, let us now address ourselves to the question:
Who and What Were the
Pharisees?
This is a question that must be answered
before we can identify a pharisaical attitude among the people of God
today. The chief sources of information concerning these people are:
First, the New Testament; second, the writings of Josephus, who was
himself a Pharisee, but whose writings are colored with Greek ideas,
hence are less than satisfactory with reference to certain points. The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says: "The account given of
the doctrines of the Pharisees by Josephus is clearly influenced by his
desire to parallel the Jewish sects with the Greek philosophical
schools" (Vol ; IV, p. 2362). Smith's Bible Dictionary says, "The value
of Josephus's accounts would be much greater, if he had not
accommodated them, more or less, to Greek ideas" (S.S. Scranton and Co.
edition, 1899, one volume, p. 732). The third source of information is
the first portion of the Talmud called the Mishna, or "second law."
Smith's Bible Dictionary asserts: "It is nearly impossible to have
adequate conceptions respecting the (the Pharisees-JWA), without
consulting that work" (loc. cit.).
In order that this speech not be a boresome
recitation of lengthy excerpts from the writings of Josephus and the
Rabbis of Judaism, I have consulted a number of recognized authorities
in connection with what the New Testament has to say about the
Pharisees, and I will detail in as brief and interesting a manner as
possible the facts concerning this ancient sect. In addition to the
authorities already named, I have consulted: The Life and Times of Jesus
the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim and his Sketches of Jewish Social Life
in the Days of Christ; The Life of Christ. by Fredric Farrar, The Life
of Jesus by ,rnest Renan; Horne's Introduction by Thomas Hartwell.
Horne; History of the Christian Church by Philip Sehaff; and Hours With
The Bible, New Testament Series, by, Cunningham Geikie. That which
follows constitutes as clear a picture of the Pharisees of our Lord's
time upon this earth as I have been able, with the help of the .
authorities cited, to reconstruct. Attention is called to the fact that
the Pharisees were:
A Sect Within the
Jewish Community
Both Luke and Paul refer to the Pharisees as
a sect (Acts 15:5; 26:5). Paul emphasized the fact that the sect
was an integral part of Judaism when he declared in his speech before
King Agrippa, "My manner of life from my youth, which was. at the first
among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; which knew me
from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest
sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee" (Acts 26:4,5).
There were at this time three important
sects within the bosom of the Jewish community: the Pharisees, the
Sadducees, and the Herodians. There was a fourth party among the Jews
called, "The Essenes," but it cannot be correctly affirmed that they
were within the religious community of the Jews. They were in fact
separatists. They practiced a communal form of society and were ascetic
fanatics. The "Dead Sea Scrolls" which have received. so much publicity
in recent years are regarded by a great many scholars #o be relics
belonging to a commune of Essenes, the Qumran community, which was
located about eight miles south of Jericho at the Northwestern corner of
the Dead Sea, and which dates back to the beginning or slightly before
the beginning of the so-called "Christian era."
We are concerned in this lecture only with
the Pharisees, and your attention is directed to some facts concerning
this particular sect among the Jews. It probably originated about 260
years before Christ and is thought to have descended from the Assomeans
who kept Judaism alive during the terrible years when Antiochus
Epiphanes, the brutal Syrian monarch, ruled Judea. The Pharisees
themselves probably originated about the time of or during the reign of
the Maccabees and, of course, continued as a prominent and influential
sect in Judaism until our Lord's time. For the purposes of our study,
however, the characteristics of the Pharisees are more important than
their origin and history, hence we shall note their leading
characteristics.
Characteristics of the
Pharisees
As a preface to a delineation of these
attributes, it should be observed that, contrary to popular opinion, the
Pharisees were not strict conformists to the law of Moses (the
Pentateuch), and the prophets. There is a distinction to be made here
that is extremely important. It is never wrong anywhere, at any time, or
under any circumstances to contend for an exact application of the will
of God revealed to us in His inspired word. Too many, in our day, equate
such application of the will of God with Pharisaism or "legalism."
(1) The Pharisees were characterized by a
partisan attachment to and rigid practice of the "traditional law."
There existed among the Jews the concept that there were two laws, the
written law and the oral law. The written law consisted of the ten
commandments written on the tables of stone and the other statutes and
judgments written down by Moses. This embraced the Pentateuch, or the
first five books of your Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy.
The "oral law" consisted of traditions
purportedly descending from Moses through Joshua and the fathers by word
of mouth. Added to these were opinions on disputed applications of
Moses' law which resulted from majority vote of the fathers or elders.
In addition to these were decrees made by wise men and men who were
recognized by the people as prophets in different ages, particularly in
the four hundred years period between the testaments. Still another
source of the oral law consisted of legal decisions of proper
ecclesiastical authority; namely, the Sanhedrin.
The legal decisions of the Sanhedrin were of
three kinds: (a) those properly deduced from admitted principles; (b)
those superfluously particularized; (c) those which were superstitious
and puerile. With respect to the oral law, the Pharisees were
exceedingly zealous. In fact, any apparent conflict between the written
law of Moses and the traditions was always settled by a Pharisee in
favor of tradition. Note the following statements from Smith's Bible
Dictionary:
"The fundamental principle of the Pharisees
common to them with all orthodox modern Jews Is, that, by the side of
the written law regarded as a summary of the principles and general law
of the Hebrew people, there was an oral law to complete and to explain
the written law. It was an article of faith that in the Pentateuch there
was no precept, and no regulation, ceremonial, d6ctrinal, or legal, of
which God had not given to Moses all explanations necessary for their
application, with the order to transmit them by word of mouth. The
classical passage in the Mishna on this subject is the following --
Moses received the (oral) law from Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua,
and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the
prophets to the men of the Great Synagogue: " (p. 732.)
Smith goes on to show that these were not
the only "traditions" recognized as binding by the Pharisees, but notes
the others which we have previously mentioned. He comments concerning
the sum of these binding traditions:
"Viewed as a whole, they treated men like
children, formalizing and defining the minutest particulars of ritual
observances. The expressions of 'bondage,' of 'weak and beggarly
elements,' and of 'burdens too heavy for men to bear; faithfully
represent the impression produced by their multiplicity." (loc. cit.).
Smith's quotations are, of course,
recognized by ,you as statements made by Jesus and by his inspired
apostles concerning the law and the traditions which attached themselves
thereto.
It is a fact well known to every Bible
student that Jesus soundly condemned the Pharisees and other Jews of New
Testament times for their. slavish devotion to "traditions" and for
their perversion of God's law that their traditions might be observed.
Note the following incident in the life of Jesus:
"Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees,
which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the
tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat
bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the
commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honor
thy father and thy mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let
him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his
mother, It is a gift (or Is given to God ASV), by whatsoever thou
mightest be profited by me; and honor not his father or his mother, he
shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect
by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you,
saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth
me with their Ups; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they
worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Mt.
15:1-9).
Here is a notable example of the pharisaic
attitude. Though the law of Moses was explicit relative to the attitude
a Jew should manifest toward his father. and mother, they hesitated not
to qualify God's plain commandment by their traditional law. For this
they were condemned by the Lord and their worship pronounced "vain." In
the following chapter of Matthew, chapter 16, verses. 6, 11, 12,
Jesus further said, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
. . ." and by way of explanation, "I spake it not to you concerning
bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees . . . but of
the doctrine of the Pharisees . . . ."
It follows, therefore, for a child of God to
be pharisaical today, among other things, he would have to bind human
tradition upon others as law or to modify Divine law through the
exaltation of human, traditional interpretation. A great many brethren
are guilty of justifying religious practice on the grounds that "the
brethren have been doing this or that for the past fifty years or for as
long as I can remember."
A church in East Texas inserted in the deed
of their building, for the purposes of protecting the property, that
"should the church cease to worship, the building would become the
property of the nearest church of Christ which conformed in teaching and
practice to the teaching and practice of the majority of the churches of
Christ in Texas." Though I introduce this as a quotation, I vouch only
for the substantial accuracy of the quotation, not its exactness since I
do not have a copy of the deed before me as I write. What B. W. Johnson,
J. W. McGarvey, Alexander Campbell, David Lipscomb, B. C. Goodpasture,
Reuel Lemmons, or James W. Adams may have to say about spiritual matters
or as Jesus said it, "The things of my father" (Lk. 2:49), may be
worthy of consideration and reflection, but they do not of necessity
reflect the mind and will of God, hence should never become the standard
of any person in religion, nor should they be used to modify the
application of Divine law to any situation: Such is unmitigated
Pharisaism.
(2) The Pharisees were characterized by
an inordinate reverence for learning and human reason. They
hesitated not to employ learning and purely human reason in making
wholly subjective judgments relative to that which was or was not sinful
in the sight of God. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia makes
the following comments concerning this fact:
"The grew defeat of Pharisaism was that it
made sin so purely eternal. An act was right or wrong according as some
external condition was present or absent; thus there was a difference in
bestowing alms on the Sabbath whether the beggar put his hand within the
door of the donor or the donor stretched his hand beyond his own
threshold as may be seen in the first Mishma. . ." (Vol. IV, p. 2363).
It would appear, therefore, that the
Pharisees were probably the original practitioners of "Situation
Ethics." This no doubt accounts for the conflict between Jesus and the
Pharisees because. he healed a diseased man on the Sabbath and the blind
man who washed in the pool of Siloam (John 7:22,23; 9:1-16).
Jesus pointed out their inconsistency and purely subjective treatment of
Divine law in that they circumcised a man on the Sabbath day that the
law of Moses might not be broken but condemned him because he made a
sick man well on the Sabbath. They gave precedence to circumcision over
the Sabbath but made Sabbath keeping (as interpreted by their
traditions) more important than the health and life of a child of God.
The law provided that a sheep which fell into a pit might be taken out
on the Sabbath and they practiced doing so when the occasion demanded
it, but condemned Jesus because he healed a man with a withered hand.
Jesus replied to them by saying, "How much then is a man better than a
sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days" (Mt.
12:10-12).
Brethren today, therefore, are Pharisaical
when they justify religious practice by "sanctified common sense" or, as
some call it, "the law of expediency." Like the Pharisees also, brethren
today apply this rule in a wholly subjective and inconsistent manner.
The rule, with them, justifies a "sponsoring church arrangement" for
cooperative evangelism without the necessity of scriptural authority but
will not permit a "missionary society arrangement" for cooperative
evangelism among the churches. It will justify a chorus but not a choir.
It will justify another organization in the realm of benevolence but
will not justify another kind of music in the realm of worship; a human,
benevolent organization in addition to the local congregation, but not a
playing upon a mechanical instrument in addition to singing. Among our
non-class brethren, it will justify two glasses on the Lord's table but
not individual cups; uninspired comments in Bible teaching in the church
but not uninspired written comments, or human literature as they call
it, and church sponsored recreation in the church building but no Bible
classes. Among conservative brethren, it will justify a human
organization existing and selling Bible teaching in the form of books,
tracts, and papers, and repudiate a human organization selling the same
teaching in a classroom.
(3) The Pharisees were conservative
traditionalists. They were characterized by what has been called
"excessive meticulosity." Ernest Renan in his Life of Jesus makes some
interesting observations along this line. He says:
"The conflicts of Jesus with official
hypocrisy were continual. The ordinary tactics of the reformers who
appeared in the religious state which we have just described, and which
might be called 'traditional formalism,' were to opposes the 'text' of
the sacred books to 'traditions.' Religious zeal is always an innovator,
even when it pretends to be in the highest degree conservative. Just as
the neo-Catholics of our days become more and more remote from the
Gospel, so the Pharisees left the Bible at each step more and more."
(pp. 237, 238).
Brethren among the churches, yes, even
conservative churches, are Pharisaical in this respect. Incidentals are
often converted into essentials. They bend over backwards trying to
stand straight. Trying to avoid and fleeing desperately from Rome, they
bypass Jerusalem and plunge into Babylon. The word "Babylon" means
"confusion" and that is exactly where they are to be found-in a state of
utter chaos. Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of so-called
"Christian living." Every man becomes a law unto himself. Each seeks to
bind his own, uninspired, unnecessary, and often completely erroneous
deductions and inferences upon every other person. The result is
universal confusion. A necessary deduction or inference from Scripture,
I accept wholeheartedly as the word of God. A mere uninspired inference
or deduction based upon the prejudice of him who gives it birth, I
regard simply and only as the word of matt. I refuse to allow any man to
bind such upon my conscience. The practice is Pharisaical to the core.
(4) The Pharisees were characterized by
militant partyism. They were, in the true sense of the word, a
"sect." The word sect derives from the Greek term "hairesis." In this
lecture, time will not permit a lengthy discussion of this term. My
research indicates that the word I means a "party." True heresy is
"partyism." The party may be formed on the basis of overt error, that
is, the belief, teaching, and practice of error. It may be formed on the
basis of an over-emphasis of some aspect of truth. It may be formed on
the basis of matters purely in the realm of human judgment which have
been exalted to equality with law. It may be founded upon an undue
exaltation of and attachment to men and their ambitions. It is always
coupled with a militant proselyting spirit, and a spirit of contempt for
all who disagree with its aims, teaching, and practice. Jesus recognized
this tendency when he said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when
he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves"
(Mt. 23:15).
When brethren make the acceptance of and
compliance with human arrangements in the realms of evangelism,
benevolence, and edification tests of fellowship among Christians, they
are creators of a party and guilty of Pharisaism. When they hold in
contempt as "antis" and "obstructionists" those who disagree with their
views and practices, they are pharisaical.
When conservative brethren create parties
around the artificial covering question, the war question, the college
question and such like, they are guilty of Pharisaism. When brethren
make opposition to orphan homes and the Herald of Truth the sole
standard of soundness for Christians and churches while ignoring
pernicious error in other realms which characterizes them, they are
Pharisaical. When we manifest toward those from who we differ a spirit
of contempt rather than a spirit of correcting and chastening love, we
are pharisaical. The prayer of the Pharisee in Lk. 18 is a
classic example of what I am talking about. "I thank God that I am not
as other men are or even this publican."
One of the outstanding attributes of the
Pharisees was a confined party fellowship. Those who belonged to their
party were the elite. Those who did not were beneath contempt. It does
not take a genius to recognize the fact that such is often our attitude.
If and when such is true, we are unquestionably pharisaical.
(5) The Pharisees were lovers of
ostentation, position, preeminence, and adulation. Jesus said of
them: "They make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of
their garments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief
seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called
of men, Rabbi, Rabbi." (Mt. 23:5-7).
Ostentation, pride, and carnal ambition are
all pharisaical when found in the kingdom of God. Ornate meeting houses,
political maneuvering among preachers and churches, the love of
high-sounding tides, inordinate pride in institutional achievements are
all evidences of Pharisaism.
(6) Inconsistent teaching and practice
was another characteristic of the Pharisees. Jesus said, "Then spake
Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and
Pharisees sit in Moses seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you
observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they
say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne,
and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them
with one of their fingers" (Mt. 23:1-4).
Many of our so-called "liberal" brethren,
especially the "middle-of-the-road" variety, preach New Testament
principles relative to church organization and work as clearly as do any
so-called "conservatives" or "antis," as they would call them, but in
their practice, they endorse and participate in all of the arrangements
of the most liberal of the brethren in these realms. For instance, there
are thousands who take the position of the Firm Foundation 'relative to
human institutions under institutional boards in the realm of
benevolence. That is, they repudiate the scripturalness of such, yet
they continue to support, aid, and abet such institutions. This is
pharisaism in its rankest manifestation.
Conservatives can be guilty and are guilty
of the same sort of Pharisaism when they preach that the local
congregation should take care of its own poor and preach the gospel in
the regions beyond, yet do nothing tangible in either of these realms.
Conservative churches are guilty of Pharisaism as are a goodly number of
preachers and elders who preach congregational autonomy, yet continually
stick their officious noses into the affairs of congregations of which
they are not a part. Some very prominent conservative churches have made
an all-out effort to bind their disciplinary pronouncements upon
churches of an entire district. Some have even gone so far as to
withdraw their fellowship from churches which have not accepted and
respected their dictum in this regard. This is Pharisaism gone to seed.
(7) The Pharisees exalted the external
and ceremonial above the inward and spiritual. They were not
satisfied to contend for strict observance of the law. All of God's
faithful prophets in Israel did this. Jesus himself did this as His
cleansing of the temple abundantly demonstrates as well as many other of
His statements. In righteous anger, with a scourge of small cords, He
drove sellers of animals and the money changers out of the temple of God
(John 2:13-17). After healing ten lepers, He said, in keeping
with the law's requirement, "Go shew yourselves unto the priests."
(Lk. 17:11-14). The Pharisees went beyond the law in ceremonial
observance and neglected the weightier matters of the law. Jesus said,
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widow's
houses, and for a pretense make long prayers . . . ye pay tithe of mint,
and anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the
law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to
leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and
swallow a camel . . . ye make clean the outside of the cup and platter,
but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee,
cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside
of them may be clean also . . . ye are like unto whited sepulchres,
which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's
bones, and of all uncleanness." (Mt. 23:14, 23-27).
Whenever we make the outward and ceremonial
aspects of religious service ends within themselves to the neglect of
the inward and spiritual which they are intended to enhance and by which
they are given efficacy and acceptability with God, we are pharisaical.
To insist on baptism and the Lord's supper and neglect to demonstrate
the risen life is pharisaical. To insist on scriptural organization and
neglect evangelism and benevolence is Pharisaism.
(8) Finally, the Pharisees were rabid
persecutors of all who differed from them. They were inveterate
enemies of Jesus and participated with the Sadducees in the demand to
put him to death, the contention of modern Jews to the contrary
notwithstanding. The International Bible Encyclopedia correctly states:
"Outside the Sanhedrin the Pharisees are
ubiquitous, in Jerusalem, in Galilee, In Peraea, and in the Decapolis,
always coming In contact with Jesus. The attempts made by certain recent
Jewish writers to exonerate them from the guilt of the condemnation of
our Lord has no foundation; it is contradicted by the New Testament
records, and the attitude of the Talmud to Jesus." (Vol. IV, p. 2362.)
Several years ago, I heard a prominent Rabbi
at the Religious Emphasis Week exercises at Stephen F. Austin State
University in Nacogdoches, Texas attempt to prove that the Zealots were
responsible for the death of Jesus and not the Pharisees, Sadducees and
other elements of the Jewish nation.
Let it be admitted that the Pharisees
occasionally displayed sympathy toward New Testament apostles by reason
of their antipathy toward the Sadducees and their materialistic denial
of the resurrection, angels, and spirits. In the final analysis,
however, they were enemies and militant persecutors both of Jesus and
the disciples who followed him.
Whenever, we are unable to meet an issue
with Scripture and logic and turn to persecution as a means of
suppression of views with which we do not agree, we are pharisaical.
That such an attitude prevails today among professed New Testament
Christians, no informed person would think of denying, hence is an
evidence of Pharisaism in the church.
Conclusion
I do not profess to have been exhaustive in
this presentation. You may think of many other ways in which Christians
may be Pharisaical. In fact, anytime we trust in our own works or
goodness for salvation instead of the grace of God and the blood of
Jesus, we are pharisaical. In closing may I impress you with the solemn
fact that a pharisaical believer, even those maintaining connection with
professed churches of Christ, is one thing and a New Testament Christian
is another. May God help us not to be Pharisees!
Truth Magazine - April 3, 1975
Other Articles by
James W. Adams
Who Selects Your
Ties?
The Remission
of Sins
Source of Wisdom
Guilty, So What?
Facing West
Red Sails in
the Sunset
Splendid
Discontent
Rascals
are Always Sociable
- Caffin,
B.C. (1950), II Peter – Pulpit Commentary, H.D.M. Spence
and Joseph Exell, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
|
For Past Auburn Beacons go to:
www.aubeacon.com/Bulletins.htm
|
Anyone can join the mailing list for the Auburn Beacon! Send
your request to:
larryrouse@aubeacon.com |
