The Pharisees and the Law

[Guest shiloh357]

It all ties into your silly notion that you are the beacon of righteousness and the rest of us are a bunch of godless pagans.

That is YOUR comment shiloh, not mine. I have not addressed you personally, yet seemingly you take it as though I have.

Maybe you should examine why you are so bothered, personally?

In His Love,

Suzanne

No, its just like Cobalt said. My remarks are based on a historic pattern and yes, in the past you did imply that I embrace sin. You have a consistent pattern of starting threads about how you think the church is goibng to hell in a handbasket. You of course are soooo holy and perfect and according to you are the only ones living right. You put the rest of us in another category and yes it is offensive especially because it is for the most not true. All of your threads are nothing but more of the same.

For all of your critcism of the pharisees you are more closely resembling the enemies of Jesus than almost anyone else on this board.

[chirpy]

hey guys, time for group hug

not sure what the fuss is about, if Jesus was speaking to all or just to specific group, it does not change what or how we should live.

We all know rules are not the answer. We all know Jesus gave us but one commandment, That we love the Lord our God with all our hearts, soul and mind. If we do that, all the rest will follow..... and don't forget to love your neighbor as yourself. seems like a simple message to understand, lets not get side tracked by issues that don't really take us closer to each other or to God.

[tsth]

I agree chirpy.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[tsth]

Hello Suzanne,

I think I see where both you and Shiloh are coming from. Jesus did mention the Pharisees, and you are right, did not say some were good and some were bad, but at the same time, Shiloh is correct in stating that Jesus was not saying that every single person that happened to be a Pharisee was bad. Let me give you an example. As a general rule, I talk about how evil the Democrats are. In my mind, for the most part Democrats are evil, but that doesn't mean that every single person who happens to be a registered Democrat is evil. The majority of the Pharisees rejected the diety of Christ and were doing things that made them hypocrites. Jesus wasn't attacking the position the Pharisees held, but the sinful behavior most exhibited. Notice what Jesus says in Matthew 23:2,3

2 The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Common sense would dictate that not every Pharisee was a hypocrite, but at the same time, the Pharisees as a whole were hypocrites. The Apostle Paul was a Pharisee, and he did his best to live what he taught. In Philippians 3, he says the following about himself beginning in verse 5.

5 Circumcised the eight day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Paul was a Pharisee who really believed in what he stood for. He didn't believe Jesus was the Christ, and therefore persecuted those he believed were heretics. Once he came to know the truth, he was just a zealous in preaching the gospel he originally rejected.

What I have a problem with is those who try to compare people who are "legalistic" to the Pharisees as though that was Jesus' problem with them, because clearly it was not. Jesus' woes against the Pharisees were over things like hypocrisy and doing things to be seen of men, as well as creating loopholes to avoid having to obey the law. It had nothing to do with them being strict adherants to the law, because at the time Jesus was teaching, the people were still under the entire law. It would make no sense that he would attack someone who was sincerely instructing people in the law, as some claim.

I agree Butero, and i might also add that Jesus DID make the distinctions for Nicodemus, clearly as one who was willing to listen, as was Paul, thus there was repentance. They were signified BY NAME. The rest were listed as a "whole". Common sense directs us to know that not EVERY single one was a hypocrite, but the clear implication was that as a WHOLE, the group had fallen short of what they were supposed to be doing and teaching. There hearts were not right before God. But, this is nothing new. All the books of the prophets were stories of one standing against a "group/those that were supposed to be believers", and they became angry at the instruction and rebuke.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[Guest shiloh357]

Common sense directs us to know that not EVERY single one was a hypocrite, but the clear implication was that as a WHOLE, the group had fallen short of what they were supposed to be doing and teaching. There hearts were not right before God. But, this is nothing new. All the books of the prophets were stories of one standing against a "group/those that were supposed to be believers", and they became angry at the instruction and rebuke.

There were nine different orders of Pharisees, comprising tens of thousands of them. You cannot say the majority of them were hypocrites. You really don't know what you are talking about. Its just that plugging them all into your little "hypocrite" mold makes it easier for you to compare other Christians with them.

You have a lot to learn but you are too full of pride and condemnation to learn.

The problem with people like you Suzanne is that you prefer your ignorance and preconceived notions to anything especially historical fact that blows your preconceived notions out of the water.

All the books of the prophets were stories of one standing against a "group/those that were supposed to be believers", and they became angry at the instruction and rebuke.

Don't even try to compare yourself to God's prophets. You don't have the qualifications or the knowledge to make the claims you make, most of which are not true, in the first place. You don't even come close to being like one of God's prophets.

[EricH]

Saints,

I am going to point you to the TOS:

Debate the subject, not the person. It is possible to disagree about a doctrine or subject under discussion without insulting the person with whom you are debating. Also remember that the fact that a person disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you as a person. Respect each other in the love of God! This is the main reason that threads get stopped, shut down, and even deleted! Users that cannot respect others will be banned. (Lev. 19:18)

Attributing motives and impugning the character of the people with whom we are having discussion does not make our position the correct one. It is simply an attack. If you cant make your case from the facts alone, you don't have a case to begin with.

Let us make sure that in debating how the pharisees behaved and if they were breaking Jesus' commands, we do not break His commands ourselves in how we treat each other.

The Lord's slave must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness. Perhaps God will grant them repentance to know the truth.

Please feel free to state your position and defend it. But don't hack at each other in the process

2 Timothy 2:24-25 HCSB

Love in Christ

EricH for the mod team

[nanasimmons]

There were nine different orders of Pharisees, comprising tens of thousands of them. You cannot say the majority of them were hypocrites.

I have always believed that Ezek. 34 was a prophecy that would find it's anti-type fulfillment in the days of Christ's first and second comings..... That is my understanding of the reason that Christ came when He did because the majority of the teachers were false shepherds, eating the fat while starving the flock.... Pretend shepherds, only using the flock to feed themselves and dress themselves up well(clothing/positions), while neglecting the hungry, the diseased, the sick/broken, and the lost strays which were left valnerable to prey...

Eze 34:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Eze 34:2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?

Eze 34:3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.

Eze 34:4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.

Eze 34:5 And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered.

Eze 34:6 My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them.

Eze 34:7 Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD;

Eze 34:8 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;

Eze 34:9 Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the LORD;

Eze 34:10 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

Eze 34:11 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.

Eze 34:12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.

Eze 34:13 And I will bring them out from the people, and gather them from the countries, and will bring them to their own land, and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited places of the country.

Eze 34:14 I will feed them in a good pasture, and upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in a good fold, and in a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel.

Eze 34:15 I will feed my flock, and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord GOD.

Eze 34:16 I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment.

Eze 34:17 And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I judge between cattle and cattle, between the rams and the he goats.

Eze 34:18 Seemeth it a small thing unto you to have eaten up the good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the residue of your pastures? and to have drunk of the deep waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet?

Eze 34:19 And as for my flock, they eat that which ye have trodden with your feet; and they drink that which ye have fouled with your feet.

Eze 34:20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD unto them; Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat cattle and between the lean cattle.

Eze 34:21 Because ye have thrust with side and with shoulder, and pushed all the diseased with your horns, till ye have scattered them abroad;

Eze 34:22 Therefore will I save my flock, and they shall no more be a prey; and I will judge between cattle and cattle.

Eze 34:23 And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd

And again it may also depend on one's defination of hypocrisy........another example is...Mar 12:14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

Mar 12:15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.

.....These were pretending outwardly that they believed and respected who He was in front of the crowd, while inside and privitely, they were only looking to snare Him in a trap...

Webster...

Hypocrisy

HYPOC'RISY, n. [L. hypocrisis; Gr. simulation; to feign; to separate, discern or judge.]

1. Simulation; a feigning to be what one is not; or dissimulation, a concealment of one's real character or motives. More generally, hypocrisy is simulation, or the assuming of a false appearance of virtue or religion; a deceitful show of a good character, in morals or religion; a counterfeiting of religion.

Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Luke 12.

2. Simulation; deceitful appearance; false pretence.

Hypocrisy is the necessary burden of villainy.

Mat 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

Mat 6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Mat 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

Mat 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

Mat 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Mat 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Mat 6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of,

[Guest shiloh357]

I have always believed that Ezek. 34 was a prophecy that would find it's anti-type fulfillment in the days of Christ's first and second comings..... That is my understanding of the reason that Christ came when He did because the majority of the teachers were false shepherds, eating the fat while starving the flock.... Pretend shepherds, only using the flock to feed themselves and dress themselves up well(clothing/positions), while neglecting the hungry, the diseased, the sick/broken, and the lost strays which were left valnerable to prey...

Every group has those members who are less than ideal. They do not represent the best of that particular group. It is unfortunate that Christians seek to judge an entire group of people by the lowest common denominator. It is the product of centuries of misinformation not to mention the current trend in the media such as we see in movies about the life of Christ where all Jews are vilified as the villains of the New Testament.

The fact is you cannot claim that the majority of Pharisees were hypocrites any more than you can make a similar claim about Christians. Secularists and unbelievers seek to label all Christians in the same standard and we rightfully resist such labels but rather prefer to be judged on our own merits as opposed to being stereotyped and forced to submit to blanket labels most which are unfavorable to us.

Yet that is the very thing we do to groups like the Pharisees most of whom did not agree with each other. There were nine orders of Pharisees and they each represented different views, and they bitterly debated among themselves and thus cannot be considered monolithic in either their views or their "hypocrisy."

The fact remains that Jesus' audience did not understand Jesus to be labeling the majority of the Pharisees as hypocrites. It is nothing more than modern Christians and their stigma against the Pharisees that causes them to pencil such views into the Bible and attempt to mold the Bible around their antagonistic views against the Pharisees.

[nanasimmons]

I have always believed that Ezek. 34 was a prophecy that would find it's anti-type fulfillment in the days of Christ's first and second comings..... That is my understanding of the reason that Christ came when He did because the majority of the teachers were false shepherds, eating the fat while starving the flock.... Pretend shepherds, only using the flock to feed themselves and dress themselves up well(clothing/positions), while neglecting the hungry, the diseased, the sick/broken, and the lost strays which were left valnerable to prey...

Every group has those members who are less than ideal. They do not represent the best of that particular group. It is unfortunate that Christians seek to judge an entire group of people by the lowest common denominator. It is the product of centuries of misinformation not to mention the current trend in the media such as we see in movies about the life of Christ where all Jews are vilified as the villains of the New Testament.

I'm sure that is true....The problem is the the Bible only records for Christians, Jesus' words and feelings towards the Pharisees of His day that were practicing hypocrisy in self righteousness... In the historical sense, yes they we Jews but I tend to look at some things in the spiritual sense of of the meaning...People who strain gnats and swallow camels, regaurdless of their racial back ground.... I know you will disagree with my view point, but that is how I view it... Even though you see it as 'Pharisee' = 'Jew'.... Not everyone else equates it in those terms... It is not always as personal as you feel it is... God declared us ALL unrighteous sinners....

Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Rom 3:13 Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

Rom 3:14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

Rom 3:15 Their feet are swift to shed blood:

Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:

Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

The fact is you cannot claim that the majority of Pharisees were hypocrites any more than you can make a similar claim about Christians. Secularists and unbelievers seek to label all Christians in the same standard and we rightfully resist such labels but rather prefer to be judged on our own merits as opposed to being stereotyped and forced to submit to blanket labels most which are unfavorable to us.

Like I said, all Christians have to go by biblically, is the Lord's words, so even a goodwilled, honest Christian could come to the conclusion that He was, historically, referring to the majority (atleast in the area He was in) and could easily be mistaken, if it is a mistake.... I don't believe we can in all honestly, claim as a matter of fact either way...

The fact remains that Jesus' audience did not understand Jesus to be labeling the majority of the Pharisees as hypocrites. It is nothing more than modern Christians and their stigma against the Pharisees that causes them to pencil such views into the Bible and attempt to mold the Bible around their antagonistic views against the Pharisees.

But, is there any scriptures to support that fact?

Quote...............

Fausset

Pharisees

From perishin Aramaic, perashim, "separated." To which Paul alludes, Rom_1:1; Gal_1:15, "separated unto the gospel of God"; once "separated" unto legal self righteousness. In contrast to "mingling" with Grecian and other heathen customs, which Antiochus Epiphanes partially effected, breaking down the barrier of God's law which separated Israel from pagandom, however refined. The Pharisees were successors of the Assideans or Chasidim, i.e. godly men "voluntarily devoted unto the law." On the return from Babylon the Jews became more exclusive than ever. In Antiochus' time this narrowness became intensified in opposition to the rationalistic compromises of many. The Sadducees succeeded to the latter, the Pharisees to the former (1Ma_1:13-15; 1Ma_1:41-49; 1Ma_1:62-63; 1Ma_2:42; 1Ma_7:13-17; 2Ma_14:6-38). They "resolved fully not to eat any unclean thing, choosing rather to die that they might not be defiled: and profame the holy covenant." in opposition to the Hellenizing faction.

So the beginning of the Pharisees was patriotism and faithfulness to the covenant. Jesus, the meek and loving One, so wholly free from harsh judgments, denounces with unusual severity their hypocrisy as a class. (Mat_15:7-8; Mat_23:5; Mat_23:13-33), their ostentatious phylacteries and hems, their real love of preeminence; their pretended long prayers, while covetously defrauding the widow. They by their "traditions" made God's word of none effect; opposed bitterly the Lord Jesus, compassed His death, provoking Him to some "hasty words" (apostomatizein) which they might catch at and accuse Him; and hired Judas to betray Him; "strained out gnats, while swallowing camels" (image from filtrating wine); painfully punctilious about legal trifles and casuistries, while reckless of truth, righteousness, and the fear of God; cleansing the exterior man while full of iniquity within, like "whited sepulchres" (Mar_7:6-13; Luk_11:42-44; Luk_11:53-54; Luk_16:14-15); lading men with grievous burdens, while themselves not touching them with one of their fingers. (See CORBAN.)

Paul's remembrance of his former bondage as a rigid Pharisee produced that reaction in his mind, upon his embracing the gospel, that led to his uncompromising maintenance, under the Spirit of God, of Christian liberty and justification by faith only, in opposition to the yoke of ceremonialism and the righteousness which is of the law (Galatians 4; 5). The Mishna or "second law," the first portion of the Talmud, is a digest of Jewish traditions and ritual, put in writing by rabbi Jehudah the Holy in the second century. The Gemara is a "supplement," or commentary on it; it is twofold, that of Jerusalem not later than the first half of the fourth century, and that of Babylon A.D. 500. The Mishna has six divisions (on seeds, feasts, women's marriage, etc., decreases and compacts, holy things, clean and unclean), and an introduction on blessings. Hillel and Shammai were leaders of two schools of the Pharisees, differing on slight points; the Mishna refers to both (living before Christ) and to Hillel's grandson, Paul's' teacher, Gamaliel.

An undesigned coincidence confirming genuineness is the fact that throughout the Gospels hostility to Christianity shows itself mainly from the Pharisees; but throughout Acts from the Sadducees. Doubtless because after Christ's resurrection the resurrection of the dead was a leading doctrine of Christians, which it was not before (Mar_9:10; Act_1:22; Act_2:32; Act_4:10; Act_5:31; Act_10:40). The Pharisees therefore regarded Christians in this as their allies against the Sadducees, and so the less opposed Christianity (Joh_11:57; Joh_18:3; Act_4:1; Act_5:17; Act_23:6-9). The Mishna lays down the fundamental principle of the Pharisees. "Moses received the oral law from Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and these to the prophets, and these to the men of the great synagogue" (Pirke Aboth ("The Sayings of the [Jewish] Fathers"), 1). The absence of directions for prayer, and of mention of a future life, in the Pentateuch probably gave a pretext for the figment of a traditional oral law.

The great synagogue said, "make a fence for the law," i.e. carry the prohibitions beyond the written law to protect men from temptations to sin; so Exo_23:19 was by oral law made further to mean that no flesh was to be mixed with milk for food. The oral law defined the time before which in the evening a Jew must repeat the Shema, i.e. "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the Lord," etc. (Deu_6:4-9.) So it defines the kind of wick and oil to be used for lighting the lamps which every Jew must burn on the Sabbath eve. An egg laid on a festival may be eaten according to the school of Shammai, but not according to that of Hillel; for Jehovah says in Exo_16:5, "on the sixth day they shall prepare that which, they bring in," therefore one must not prepare for the Sabbath on a feast day nor for a feast day on the Sabbath. An egg laid on a feast following the Sabbath was "prepared" the day before, and so involves a breach of the Sabbath (!); and though all feasts do not immediately follow the Sabbath yet "as a fence to the law" an egg laid on any feast must not be eaten.

Contrast Mic_6:8. A member of the society of Pharisees was called chaber; those not members were called "the people of the land"; compare Joh_7:49, "this people who knoweth not the law are cursed"; also the Pharisee standing and praying with himself, self righteous and despising the publican (Luk_18:9-14). Isaiah (Isa_65:5) foretells their characteristic formalism, pride of sanctimony, and hypocritical exclusiveness (Jud_1:18). Their scrupulous tithing (Mat_23:23; Luk_18:12) was based on the Mishna, "he who undertakes to be trustworthy (a pharisaic phrase) tithes whatever he eats, sells, buys, and does not eat and drink with the people of the land." The produce (tithes) reserved for the Levites and priests was "holy," and for anyone. else to eat it was deadly sin. So the Pharisee took all pains to know that his purchases had been duly tithed, and therefore shrank from "eating with" (Mat_9:11) those whose food might not be so. The treatise Cholin in the Mishna lays down a regulation as to "clean and unclean" (Lev_20:25; Lev_22:4-7; Num_19:20) which severs the Jews socially from other peoples; "anything slaughtered by a pagan is unfit to be eaten, like the carcass of an animal that died of itself, and pollutes him who carries it."

An orthodox Jew still may not eat meat of any animal unless killed by a Jewish butcher; the latter searches for a blemish, and attaches to the approved a leaden seal stamped kashar, "lawful." (Disraeli, Genius. of Judaism.) The Mishna abounds in precepts illustrating Col_2:21, "touch not, taste not, handle not" (contrast Mat_15:11). Also it (6:480) has a separate treatise on washing of hands (Yadayim). Translated Mar_7:8, "except they wash their hands with the fist" (pugmee); the Mishna ordaining to pour water over the dosed hands raised so that it should flow down to the elbows, and then over the arms so as to flow over the fingers. Jesus, to confute the notion of its having moral value, did not wash before eating (Luk_11:37-40). Josephus (Ant. 18:1, section 3, 13:10, section 5) says the Pharisees lived frugally, like the Stoics, and hence had so much weight with the multitude that if they said aught against the king or the high-priest it was immediately believed, whereas the Sadducees could gain only the rich.

The defect in the Pharisees which Christ stigmatized by the parable of the two debtors was not immorality but want of love, from unconsciousness of forgiveness or of the need of it. Christ recognizes Simon's superiority to the woman in the relative amounts of sin needing forgiveness, but shows both were on a level in inability to cancel their sin as a debt. Had he realized this, he would not have thought Jesus no prophet for suffering her to touch Him with her kisses of adoring love for His forgiveness of her, realized by her (Luk_7:36-50; Luk_15:2). Tradition set aside moral duties, as a child's to his parents by" Corban"; a debtor's to his creditors by the Mishna treatise, Avodah Zarah (1:1) which forbade payment to a pagan three days before any pagan festival; a man's duty of humanity to his fellow man by the Avodah Zarah (2:1) which forbids a Hebrew midwife assisting a pagan mother in childbirth (contrast Lev_19:18; Luk_10:27-29).

Juvenal (14:102-104) alleges a Jew would not show the road or a spring to a traveler of a different creed. Josephus (B.J. 2:8, section 14; 3:8, section 5; Ant. 18:1, section 3) says: "the Pharisees say that the soul of good men only passes over into another body, while the soul of bad men is chastised by eternal punishment." Compare Mat_14:2; Joh_9:2, "who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" compare Joh_9:34, "thou wast altogether born in sins." The rabbis believed in the pre-existence of souls. The Jews' question merely took for granted that some sin had caused the blindness, without defining whose sin, "this man" or (as that is out of the question) "his parents."

Paul: regarded the Pharisees as holding our view of the resurrection of the dead (Act_23:6-8). The phrase "the world to come" (Mar_10:30; Luk_18:30; compare Isa_65:17-22; Isa_26:19) often occurs in the Mishna (Avoth, 2:7; 4:16): this world may be likened to a courtyard in comparison of the world to come, therefore prepare thyself in the antechamber that thou mayest enter into the dining room"; "those born are doomed to die, the dead to live, and the quick to be judged," etc. (3:16) But the actions to be so judged were in reference to the ceremonial points as much as the moral duties. The Essenes apparently recognized Providence as overruling everything (Mat_6:25-34; Mat_10:29-30). The Sadducees, the wealthy aristocrats, originally in political and practical dealings with the Syrians relied more on worldly prudence, the Pharisees more insisted on considerations of legal righteousness, leaving events to God.

The Pharisees were notorious for proselytizing zeal (Mat_23:15), and seem to have been the first who regularly organized missions for conversions (compare Josephus, Ant. 20:2, section 3): The synagogues in the various cities of the world, as well as of Judaea, were thus by the proselytizing spirit of the Pharisees imbued with a thirst for inquiry, and were prepared for the gospel ministered by the apostles, and especially Paul, a Hebrew in race, a Pharisee by training, a Greek in language, and a Roman citizen in birth and privilege. In many respects their doctrine was right, so that Christ desires conformity to their precepts as from "Moses' seat," but not to their practice (Mat_23:2-3). But while pressing the letter of the law they ignored the spirit (Mat_5:21-22; Mat_5:27; Mat_5:38; Mat_5:31-32). Among even the Pharisees some accepted the truth, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, and Joh_12:42 and Act_15:5.

End quote.............

[Guest shiloh357]

I'm sure that is true....The problem is the the Bible only records for Christians, Jesus' words and feelings towards the Pharisees of His day that were practicing hypocrisy in self righteousness... In the historical sense, yes they we Jews but I tend to look at some things in the spiritual sense of of the meaning...People who strain gnats and swallow camels, regaurdless of their racial back ground.... I know you will disagree with my view point, but that is how I view it... Even though you see it as 'Pharisee' = 'Jew'.... Not everyone else equates it in those terms... It is not always as personal as you feel it is... God declared us ALL unrighteous sinners....

The Bible is a book of history among other things. There are a lot of things, culturally speaking, that the Bible does not explain to us. The writers of the Bible do not explain a lot of the culture, historical settings and contemporary events that flavor what the writers knew about and how that knowledge of those events and settings flavored what they wrote. They assumed their readership would know.

For example, the Bible does not explain to us in the 20th century what the "eye of the needle" was. Without studying and understanding the cultural setting, the ONLY point of reference we would have would be the eye of a sewing needle. We would not have any knowledge of a city gate nicknamed as the "eye of an needle." The Bible assumes you know what the "eye of the needle" is. It offers no explanation. Likewise it is assumed you would know the difference between the various types of Pharisees.

In Jesus' sermon on the mount, in Matthew 5, he begins refuting certain teachings. "You have heard it said..." "but I say unto you..." The people would have understood Jesus' refutation of the Pharisaic teachings, and they would have known WHICH school of Pharisaic thought He was referring to in each reference.

When you examine the context of Jesus condemnation of Pharisaic hypocrisy, they always occur wiithin the context of Jesus conflict with those among the Pharisees who were his detractors. Jesus did not call all Pharisees the children of Satan, but only those who were among His enemies and the context bears that out in John 8. The biblical text bears out what I am saying, and it is clear from the text to anyone who approaches the text without in a nondiscriminatory fashion.

QUOTE

The fact is you cannot claim that the majority of Pharisees were hypocrites any more than you can make a similar claim about Christians. Secularists and unbelievers seek to label all Christians in the same standard and we rightfully resist such labels but rather prefer to be judged on our own merits as opposed to being stereotyped and forced to submit to blanket labels most which are unfavorable to us.

Like I said, all Christians have to go by biblically, is the Lord's words, so even a goodwilled, honest Christian could come to the conclusion that He was, historically, referring to the majority (atleast in the area He was in) and could easily be mistaken, if it is a mistake.... I don't believe we can in all honestly, claim as a matter of fact either way...

But that won't stop you from believing that the majority were hypocrites even if you think you can't base it on fact??

Again, it is universally true in just about every religious group you are talking about, that the "bad apples" are always outnumbered by the true adherants. Why would you decide to abandon that when it it comes to the Pharisees?

Would you want to lumped in with the Branch Davidians, or the Westboro "God hates fags" Baptists, or some other "Christians" white supremist group? Would you want nonChristians assuming such represents the majority of Christians?

Yes, goodwilled Christians could arrive at the conclusion that the majority of Pharisees were hypocrites, but goodwill does not make up for a lack knowledge due to insufficient study in this area. The fact that the Bible does not launch into extra explanation is irrelevant. For someone claim that they will not believe beyond what is written in the text, and refuse to understand the historical cultural context of the Bible is simply lazy. It is not spiritual or is it a credible approach and will only lead to false teachings, like what we have over in the thread on the "Function of the Law in Salvation."

Even though you see it as 'Pharisee' = 'Jew'.... Not everyone else equates it in those terms... It is not always as personal as you feel it is... God declared us ALL unrighteous sinners....

That is why Christians who don't know Jews, project their antagonism toward the Pharisees on to the Jewish people. It is why the Jews are singled out as THE people who rejected Christ, although no other people, as a people have accpepted Christ. The Jews are singled out for special condemnation for that sin. People on this board, constantly take Jesus criticism of his enemies to be a condemnation of the Jews in toto. You may not see it, but it is there and it happens quite frequently not only here, but in pulpits all across the country.

It is easier to just believe the worst about someone and that is true where this issue is concerned. There is absolutely no biblical justification for this mass, blanket condemnation of the Pharisees. There is absolutely no reason for it either. One can easily and reasonably acknowledge the sins of Jesus' enemies without unfairly indicting an entire group of people. To offer these blanket condemnations is both unfair and is not in keeping with Christian character.

But, is there any scriptures to support that fact?

Quote...............

Fausset

Funny how Fausset makes historic claims about the Pharisees that cannot be verified by the Bible, but you quote him as a source without requiring any Scriptural evidence of his claims. Seems to be a double standard. As long as one is critical of the Pharisees, you will accept their word without any corroboration.