When you hold conservative religious beliefs in the area of Christianity, as I do, you may find yourself labeled as a Pharisee. Since the Pharisees were often rebuked by Jesus, to call someone a Pharisee is no small matter. I want to briefly look at some things Jesus said about the Pharisees so we can come to a greater understanding of them and why the name Pharisee is now used to slander conservative believers.
To understand the Pharisees we ought to first understand their origins. I am not a scholar of religious history, nor have I ever claimed to be as much. Nor am I attempting to give every detail on the origin of the Pharisees. I only want to explain the most elementary principles of their beginnings. The Pharisees saw the world around them changing. They felt the Romans and others were polluting the Jewish religion. They saw their brethren giving up their original tongues for Greek. They saw other Jews accepting and assimilating to the new world order. They did not want to be like those who were accepting the changes. They wanted to be separate and to remain pure toward God, rather than to be like the world around them. In those ways they were to be applauded. God has always commanded that His people be different from the sinful world around them. Where they failed is when they went beyond the commandments God had already delivered for them.
In Matthew 23 Jesus said, “1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, 2saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.”
How often do we miss the first part of Jesus’ instructions? Jesus said to do all that they command. He recognized that the Pharisees in many ways were upholding the Law of Moses and that was a good thing. It is the second part of Jesus’ statement that gets so much attention, but we shouldn’t overlook any of His words. In some ways, to be like the Pharisees is commendable. They sought to follow God’s word and to teach it. In those ways, Jesus said to follow them.
The trouble the Pharisees ran into occurred not when they followed the Law, but when they went beyond it. In verses 5-12 we see that what they really loved were their religious titles and to be seen as righteous by men. In verses 23-28 Jesus alludes to some of the new commandments they had given – special rules of purification and the like never commanded by Moses. It wasn’t that they were trying to follow the law to the letter, it was that they thought they had the right to add to the law new commandments.
To be certain, in their attempts to follow the law they had forsaken the weightier matters thereof – justice, mercy and faithfulness (verse 23). But listen again to Jesus:
but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
We can, and should, attempt to follow God’s word to the best of our ability. There is nothing wrong with being conservative and trying to do only those things we are commanded. There is something wrong when we neglect the spirit of Jesus’ commandments – to be just, to show mercy and to be faithful. Jesus says that these things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, He insists that we do both.
I would submit that those who think they can go beyond the word of God and add innovations to worship and to the way we are to live are being like the Pharisees. I would submit that those who seek only to follow the letter of the law without justice, mercy and faithfulness are being like the Pharisees. We are to take the middle ground according to Jesus. Let us all strive to find that path and walk in it.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 13, 2008 at 10:44 pm
jasongoldtrap
Great thoughts, well written. God bless.
May 14, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Gail
Corey,
Isn’t binding people to things that aren’t written, such as no IM going beyond what is written as the Pharisees did?
May 14, 2008 at 7:48 pm
coreydavis
Gail,
Isn’t calling IM acceptable going beyond what is written? Singing is authorized, so why take chances on something that isn’t?
For me to say it is without a doubt sinful would be to go beyond the scriptures, and to be Pharisaic (in a bad way). The same can be said for those who say it is without doubt acceptable is also to go beyond scriptures. There is a safe road for those who are willing to travel it – to simply sing.
May 16, 2008 at 7:01 pm
churchesofchrist.wordpress.com
Hi Corey. I think there are some good arguments on both sides of the music/singing debate. Far as our CENI and “speak where the bible speaks” Im not so sure that is good enough. I don’t think saying scriptures are silent is enough to band something, seeing scripture is silent on many things, such as song leaders, PA systems, pitch pipes, and many other things. I know the “AID” arguments here too. To be honest, Paul wasnt even addressing our so-call worship service when he was talking about singing. It is almost funny saying we can play music at home, but dont dare bring it into the assembly, as if God only see’s worship inside our meeting places. What if I am with several of my friends at home playing a piano and singing> Is that sin? As you pointed out, no where is music ever called to be sin when played by a Christian. I do think the church has taken music into a worldly direction though and that scares me. I dont know the guide lines, so maybe the best bet is do like you said, maybe its safe to sing only…
May 16, 2008 at 7:26 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
Thanks for your comments. I think in many ways we come at things from the same perspective, even though we sometimes reach different conclusions. I like to think of myself as a Christian with a liberal heart but a conservative mind. Sometimes they clash.
I don’t think I can agree that when Paul was talking about singing he was never referring to the assembly. “Speaking to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” would appear to me that there is an assembly. This is different than James when he wrote, “is anyone happy? Let him sing…”. One appears to talk about an assembly, the other about our personal lives.
You can also read my article on instrumental music in songs of praise outside the worship services to see how I feel about that. In short, I wouldn’t use them in either place. I guess in some ways that makes me a “hyper-con of hyper-cons”, but I attempt to always be consistent if I can.
In the end, for me, it comes down to the last thing you said – there is a safe road and that is the only one I am willing to travel and teach. The problem for me is when people start saying they know it is a sin, or that they know that it isn’t. Both go beyond the word. We can know that there are principles and examples showing us that going beyond what is specifically authorized often brings about condemnation. We can know that at one time instruments were authorized and pleasing. The answer I believe lies in the middle – do what we know is acceptable and be content with it.
May 20, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Scott
Corey,
Amen! You make great points here. I’d add that the Pharisees were also liberal on marriage after divorce. This would not resemble me or the many others who are labeled “Pharisees”. I find those who most resemble the Pharisees are those who are progressive and denominational who are calling us “Pharisees”.
Those are strange words from Randy. I say that with all due respect and love in Christ. It seems as though he purposefully refuses to understand “not going beyond what is written” by taking the “arguments” out of context. It is not silence that forbids but what is written, and also what is not written includes. It doesn’t take much reading of the numerous articles from the teachers of excluding silence on specifics and generics to understand that. Along the same line, isn’t it odd how “speak where the Bible speaks”? It is only used one way to show that we should not bind where the Bible does not speak, while where the Bible does speak then this is ignored as binding and excluding alternatives. Looking again at Noah, it was not God’s silence of other types of wood that forbid them but what was specifically commanded, gopher wood, that excluded the other woods. Looking at baptism, it is not God’s silence of smoke, mist, sprinkles, and flowers that forbid baptism in them, but it is not even a command but an specific example of water that forbid these things.
I must also add that Paul was talking about the Assembly in 1 Cor. 14:15 and we’d be foolish to think that Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16 have nothing to do with that.
Corey also consider that “one another” in Col. 3:16 and Eph. 5:19 is plural for which from my study of Greek would be better translated “among ourselves”.
Thank you for Scriptural posts. I pray for grace and peace to you in our Savior.
May 20, 2008 at 1:35 pm
coreydavis
Scott,
Thanks for all you said there. I would add that it wasn’t just the Pharisees, but most of the Jews who had liberal views on divorce and remarriage. It is interesting to note that the Samaritans, who were rejected as a mixed race by the Jews, did not hold those liberal views on divorce and remarriage.
I, like you, have a problem with those who want to “speak where the Bible speaks”, yet refuse to be silent where there is silence. I can’t understand the need to go beyond what is written, when what we’ve been given is completely sufficient. I believe that attitude to be a dangerous road that tempts God. It is if to say, “we’re going to do this God, and You’re going to have to accept it because we’re sincere”.