The difference between a "Heresy hunter" and a "Pharisee hunter"

probinson said:

The difference between a “Pharisee Hunter” and a “Heresy Hunter” - 4/2/10


Recently, the idea has been presented in this forum that there is no difference between a “Pharisee hunter” and a “Heresy hunter”. Indeed, the idea has been put forth that it is hypocritical to call someone a “Pharisee”. Normally, it goes something like this; “If you think it's wrong to judge, then who are you to judge me?” That is a valid question, and one which I hope to answer from a scriptural perspective, using Jesus as the example in this post.

So we all know Jesus said this;

Matthew 7:1-2 (NIV)
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
​

Most of the time, that's where we stop. But there's more;

Matthew 7:3-5 (NIV)
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
​

The part of this verse we often miss is the last part. We all have heard someone say “worry about the plank in your eye instead of worrying about the speck in mine!”, and this is true. But Jesus goes on to tell us to take the plank out of our own eye first, so that we can then see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. In other words, once we deal with our own hypocrisy, we will be able to see clearly to help remove the specks in our brother's eye.

Also, we know that Jesus said “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” Also, He said this;

Luke 6:37 (NIV)
"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
​

Now we've established that Jesus very clearly told us not to judge. However, we know that Jesus judged the Pharisees, repeatedly and very publicly, as I'll illustrate throughout this post.

So is Jesus a hypocrite? How can He say in one breath, “Do not judge” and then turn around and judge the Pharisees in such a public manner? Good question.

So what's the difference?

* Jesus never “hunted” Pharisees.
The Pharisees were always watching Jesus. Jesus never had to “hunt” them. Contrarily, the Pharisees were always nearby, always testing Him, always questioning Him and His authority, always trying to say He was working by some authority other than God, always “hunting” Him, sometimes quite literally. Here is, I believe, a fairly comprehensive list of every recorded interaction Jesus had with the Pharisees;

Matthew 9:9-11 (NIV) (also see Mark 2:16, Luke 5:30)
As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

Matthew 9:32-34 (NIV)
While they were going out, a man who was demon-possessed and could not talk was brought to Jesus. When the demon was driven out, the man who had been mute spoke. The crowd was amazed and said, "Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel." But the Pharisees said, "It is by the prince of demons that he drives out demons."

Matthew 12:1-2 (NIV) (also see Mark 2:24)
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."

Matthew 12:22-24 (NIV)
Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?" But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

Matthew 12:28 (NIV)
Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."

Matthew 15:1-2 (NIV) (also see Mark 7:5, Luke 11:38)
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!"

Matthew 16:1 (NIV) (also see Mark 8:11)
The Pharisees and Sadducees came to Jesus and tested him by asking him to show them a sign from heaven.

Matthew 19:3 (NIV) (also see Mark 10:2)
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

Matthew 22:15 (NIV) (also see Mark 12:13)
Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.

Matthew 22:34-35 (NIV)
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

Luke 5:21 (NIV)
The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Luke 6:7 (NIV)
The Pharisees and the teachers of the law were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal on the Sabbath.

Luke 7:39 (NIV)
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."

Luke 14:1 (NIV)
One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched.

John 7:32 (NIV)
The Pharisees heard the crowd whispering such things about him. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees sent temple guards to arrest him.

John 8:13 (NIV)
The Pharisees challenged him, "Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid

John 11:53 (NIV)
So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

​

That’s a lot of scripture, but I hope it illustrates something quite vividly; Jesus NEVER sought out or “hunted” the Pharisees. They ALWAYS were the ones hunting Him.

* Jesus warned VERY STRONGLY against the “yeast of the Pharisees”.
In Matthew 23 and Luke 11, Jesus pronounced multiple “woes” upon the Pharisees. These were some pretty “judgmental” statements against the Pharisees.

* Pharisees are “sons of hell”, and they make their converts “twice the sons of hell”.
Pharisees find comfort in numbers. They seek to make people conform to their opinions and ideas. But Jesus said this;

Matthew 23:15 (NIV)
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
​

Not only were the Pharisees “hunting” Jesus, but they were also hunting “converts”.

* The Pharisees concerns were primarily with peripheral, non-essential outward appearances and behaviors.
If you’ll look back at the scriptures I posted earlier, you’ll see that the Pharisees were NEVER concerned with things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. They were concerned with remarkably minor things; Did you wash your hands before you ate? Are you hanging out with the right people? Did you follow the right procedure according to the law to heal someone?

The Pharisees sought to impose their own idea of what the law entailed and their traditions on people. Jesus said;

Matthew 23:4 (NIV)
They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
​

The Pharisees were constantly imposing rules and regulations on people, and would do NOTHING to help them live up to their man-made expectations. Jesus goes on to say how everything they do is done for men to see. In other words, they want people to acknowledge them and recognize them. They want you to know that they’re better than you.

None of these things carried any real importance. They were simply man-made rules to impose upon other’s freedoms.

* The Pharisees attributed the works of Jesus to Satan.

Matthew 12:24 (NIV)
But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

John 9:16 (NIV)
Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath."

John 9:24 (NIV)
A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. "Give glory to God," they said. "We know this man is a sinner."
​

The Pharisees tried to discredit Jesus by saying that He was working by the power of Beelzebub, claiming that He was not from God, and even calling Him a sinner. Incidentally, John 9:16 shows that they conclude Jesus is a sinner because “he does not keep the Sabbath”, and they concluded He did not keep the Sabbath because He had the audacity to restore sight to a blind man on the Sabbath.

But the point remains; The Pharisees clearly sought to quench what Jesus was doing by the power of God by saying that He was doing things by the power of Satan.

Continued in next post...

Click to expand...

Can you give us the condensed version of this?

~Jim

probinson said:

However, we know that Jesus judged the Pharisees, repeatedly and very publicly, as I'll illustrate throughout this post.

Click to expand...

You appear to be unaware that Our Lord was himself a Pharisee.

Pharisee is not synonymous with 'hypocrite'. It is the name of a first century Jewish sect, whose theology is identical to that of the Lord. The reason the Lord has so much to say about the Pharisees is the same reason I would have a lot to say about Anglicans, but would not concern myself with, say, Calvinists. In other words, he was addressing his brothers and sisters in faith.

Given that knowledge, perhaps you would care to re-evaluate your thesis, because as it stands it is somewhat lacking.

As for 'Pharisee Hunters', whoever they might be; they would do well to remember that whatever list they make, has Our Lord's name on it. 'Whatever you do unto the least of these little ones, you do unto me.' So be careful.

probinson said:

Unfortunately, I can not. When I've tried to do that, I am accused of hypocrisy and the like. So, I spent almost 5 hours last night reading, researching and typing. This is the result for anyone who wants to see the scriptural basis for my position.

Click to expand...

Okay then, I will read it. But first, I'm off on an errand.

~Jim

probinson said:

Unfortunately, I can not. When I've tried to do that, I am accused of hypocrisy and the like. So, I spent almost 5 hours last night reading, researching and typing. This is the result for anyone who wants to see the scriptural basis for my position.

Click to expand...

I thought it was very well to the point and it didn't stray off the single purpose you were expressing, "The difference between a 'Heresy hunter' and a 'Pharisee hunter'". I believe it would lose its' impact if you shortened it dramatically.

Thankyou very much for the effort you put in.

Norbert

Catherineanne said:

You appear to be unaware that Our Lord was himself a Pharisee.

Pharisee is not synonymous with 'hypocrite'. It is the name of a first century Jewish sect, whose theology is identical to that of the Lord. The reason the Lord has so much to say about the Pharisees is the same reason I would have a lot to say about Anglicans, but would not concern myself with, say, Calvinists. In other words, he was addressing his brothers and sisters in faith.

Given that knowledge, perhaps you would care to re-evaluate your thesis, because as it stands it is somewhat lacking.

As for 'Pharisee Hunters', whoever they might be; they would do well to remember that whatever list they make, has Our Lord's name on it. 'Whatever you do unto the least of these little ones, you do unto me.' So be careful.

Click to expand...

Really good point....

probinson said:

In conclusion, this is the difference between a “Heresy Hunter” and a “Pharisee Hunter”; “Heresy hunters” actively seek to find things that are wrong with others according to their own ideas, opinions and traditions. “Pharisee hunters” don’t have to hunt a thing. But they should respond when the Heresy hunter comes along and puts them in their sights.

Click to expand...

Walking with the Master meant experiencing continuous harrassment by a brood of vipers.

probinson said:

Oh yes, I forgot to mention that Pharisees also like to quarrel about words;

1 Timothy 6:4 (AMP)
He is puffed up with pride and stupefied with conceit, [although he is] woefully ignorant. He has a morbid fondness for controversy and disputes and strife about words, which result in (produce) envy and jealousy, quarrels and dissension, abuse and insults and slander, and base suspicions,
​

Click to expand...

Paul liked a good debate but he was a bit more short and to the point.

Galatians 5:12-13 (New International Version) 12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! 13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love.

Click to expand...

I think that the OP makes a really good point.....

Jesus was a PHARISEE?????????????

Thanks for the work you put into this PR.
One of the dangers I see cropping up in the HH crowd is that they very often lack the logical skills to see the obvious things you have pointed out here. Also, they very often lack the basic knowledge of scriptures that would be essential if one were to set themselves up as a doctrinal policeman.
I often find myself reading one of their harangues wondering where this person got the idea they were qualified to do what they were attempting to do? Anyone can copy and paste from HH websites.. but that is a poor substitute for actually reading and having understanding of the scriptures. I try not to be rude to them... but seriuosly... Spend a few years in the Book before you set up shop as a "watchman."

disciple-ofjesus said:

Jesus was a PHARISEE?????????????

Click to expand...

Jesus was jewish. He also was a rabbi. There is some debate as to which sect he belonged to. But he was likely very close to being a Pharisee if he wasn't literally one. Remember that he kept the jewish law and not half heartedly.

disciple-ofjesus said:

Jesus was a PHARISEE?????????????

Click to expand...

Matt. 9:14 seems to distinguish Jesus from the Pharisees.

"Then John's disciples came and asked him, "How is it that we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?"

If Jesus was a Pharisee, then why weren't His disciples fasting as well? Jesus seems to be distinguished from the Pharisees by the way the question is asked.

If Jesus was a pharisee, He was the most lousy one who ever lived. He never once, not ever took a sin offering up to the temple to cover His sins. No wonder the Pharisees hated Him so. They must have thought, "who does he think he is?"

Which is pretty much what they were after Jesus about all the time.

I would submit that the historical Pharisees cannot be equated to "hypocrite" (though no doubt there were hypocrites within them). Josephus is a great source for understanding the Pharisees:

Ant XIII.5 said:

9. At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essens. Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essens affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly. However, I have given a more exact account of these opinions in the second book of the Jewish War.

Click to expand...

Here Josephus mentions some of the beliefs of the Pharisees. They believed that some things were pre-ordained, but some were the result of human action (I might place a bet that this aligns with what many evangelicals believe), in contrast to the Sadducees and Essenes. The Pharisees were sort of the "middle ground" belief on this one.

The Pharisees were supporters of John Hyrcanus (Ant. 13.10). They, contrary to the desires of Hyrcanus, were more lenient in their sentencing of Eleazar, who wanted Hyrcanus to step aside as High Priest because Hyrcanus' mother was a captive of Antiochus (Ant 13.10.5-6). The Pharisees had oral traditions, passed down to them by their predecessors, that were not written in the Law of Moses; these traditions were rejected by the Sadducees (Ant 13.10.6, 17.2.4). Josephus tells us that in the first century, the Sadducees were the rich ruling elite and upper priestly class in Jerusalem, while the Pharisees had the support of the masses of the people (Ant 13.10.6). That had not always been the case since there were times when the king or high priest who was in power was sympathetic to the Pharisees over the Sadducees (Ant 13.16, War 1.5.1-3). Josephus tells us that when the Jews in Palestine swore allegiance to Caesar, it was only the Pharisees who refused (Ant 17.2.4). Herod, however, promised allegiance to Rome to which the Pharisees in turn spoke out publically against him. The result for this bold move was that Herod slaughtered many of them (Ant 17.2.4). So, at times, being a Pharisee came with a heafty price. The Pharisees also differed from Sadducees and Essenes over very important things like calendar, ritual, and biblical interpretation. Pharisees did have messianic expectations and speculation as well.

The Pharisees were the majority of people in Judea. They were a political-religious group of people who followed strict observance of the Torah as interpreted through their traditions that had been handed down to them by their predecessors. It is probably a very good conclusion to say that many of these traditions of the Pharisees go back to Nehemiah, Ezra, Zerubbabel and Joshua, and other returning exiles from Babylon. The Pharisees believed in a resurrection of the dead, life after death, angels, demons, and souls. This was in contrast to the Sadducees who rejected all of that. Having the support of the masses, the Pharisees would have held sway in the local synagogues in Galilee and Judea, but this is not to say they had power in these areas - Herod and the Romans had power. Jesus would no doubt have been very familiar with Pharisees in and around Galilee. He would have been familiar with their teachings, and the fact that He is able to debate them on matters shows that not only was He familiar with their teachings, but there was a great deal of overlap between Jesus' beliefs and the beliefs of the Pharisees. The one encounter of Jesus with the Sadducees (in the Temple) seems as a rather nasty encounter; interestingly this is their only encounter. The Pharisees all believed in resurrection, angels, demons, souls, life after death, adhering to the Law of Moses, etc.. But, Jesus didn't agree with all Pharisees on everything, nor did the Pharisees agree among each other about everything. Jesus seemed to differ from many of them over itmes of table fellowship - Jesus is constantly accused of eating and fellowshiping with tax collectors, sinners, gentiles, prostitutes, etc. They disagreed over certain rituals - Jesus' and His disciples did fasting and handwashig differently that the traditions of the elders. They disagreed over sabbath observance - Jesus thought things of necessity, like eating food, were OK things to do (though many Pharisees like Hillel's school wouldn't have a problem with this). Jesus taught that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. Some of them would agree with Jesus' teachings, some wouldn't. Jesus would often eat with Pharisees (Luke 7:36, 11:37) and the Pharisees readily help warn Jesus of impending danger (Luke 13:31). Some Pharisees, like Gamilel, are lenient with Jesus' followers. Other Pharisees readily become followers of Jesus, appearantly without feeling the need to give up identifying themselves as Pharisees (Acts 15:5). Jesus held much of what the Pharisees teach in very high regard (Matthew 5, 23:1-3), but Jesus is definitely against the hypocrisy of some of them as well (Matthew 23) wanting them to show charity, justice, and mercy to those who didn't receive any - to the poor, widows, outcasts, the unclean, the tax collectors, the gentiles, the sinners, etc... And Jesus wanted them to do all of this out of a change of heart rather than mere obligation or force and He wanted them to go above and beyond the minimum requirements. The point, the spirit of the law, to Jesus, seems to be loving God and one's neighbor which should be the primary motives for all action.

Jesus also seems to have more problems with Pharisees in and around Jerusalem than He does in Galilee. There is probably a good reason for this too. One, Pharisees in Galilee don't really hold power (Herod does) and so even if they really didn't like Jesus, there wasn't too much they could do about it. Jesus' teaching, while offensive or at least confusing to some Pharisees, isn't near as controversial as what Jesus was doing around the Temple. The reason Jesus drew fire from the authorities in Jerusalem is that He was openly challenging their authority with His own claimed authority. This all begins with His riding into Jerusalem near Passover, on a donkey, and with palm branches waiving. Anyone watching at that time couldn't have missed what He was implying. Such a scene looks messianic in character and parts of it (like the palm branches) are strikingly reminscient of the, then, not too distant past actions of the Maccabees in cleansing the Temple after it's defilement. Jesus immediately (or very soon) goes into the Temple and wrecks house then tells cryptic parables about the Temple's (and Israel's by connection) impending doom and about how the Kingdom of God was right at the door with Jesus thinking He was the focus of it. Of course the authorities are going to have a problem with this and of course Jesus will have more problems with authorities (scribes, chief priests, elders, pharisees, sadducees) in Jerusalem, He's acting like He's some sort of king and He's openly speaking against them!

It's not accurate to equate and stereotype Pharisees with "hypocrite", since not all of them were hypocrites. Many of them were simply pious Jews trying to live out their faith the way they knew how. Many of them, like in the days of Herod's allegiance with Rome, would rather have died than to serve pagan Rome. The Pharisees weren't "heresey hunters" either, but they did try to keep people in line with their traditions, mainly because they seemed to think that deviating from the Torah and their traditions regarding the Torah was dangerous. After all, it was the shunning of the Torah and following of other god's that they believed led to the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles.

To the question, "was Jesus a Pharisee", I would say yes and no. They agreed enough over broad beliefs (resurrection, life after death, etc) that Jesus would be a Pharisee over and above and Sadducee or Essene. But Jesus differed from many, if not most, of the Pharisees over some things as well, especially concerning beliefs about items of crucial importance like the Kingdom of God, eschatoloy, election, Torah, Temple, food laws, clean/unclean, and family. On this, Jesus appears to be a Jewish sect of His own making, though still within the context of 1st century Judaism, with Himself being the focal point of these most important matters.

So my answer to the question would be that Jesus could, very broadly and initially, be seen as a type of Pharisee, but when you start getting into the details He appears not to be conforming to typical Pharisaism, but He is forming His own splinter group around and focused on Himself.