Deconstructing the Pharisees

[Pavel Mosko]

Anything in the bible to support this?

I do not believe Jesus was an actual Pharisee of Hillel, but it does seem that he was very familiar with Hillel. Most people attribute the notion of the "Spirit of the Law" vs. "the Letter of the Law" as a notion from Jesus and saint Paul but that sort of philosophical difference of how to apply the word of God actually came from the decades that actually preceded the New Testament where there was conflict between the Pharisees of the letter of the law, house of Shammai, differed from the "spirit of the Law", house of Hillel.

But that being said, the House of Hillel is not in perfect sync with Jesus and Paul. They were more permissive on divorce for example. There also was a practice of getting around the forgiveness of debts the prozbul (to obtain loans) that might not have been condoned etc. since that was part of the Mosaic covenant.

 

[Resha Caner]

Evangelicals especially of the Charismatic variety, often assume that Jesus made everything in the Gospels up on the spot (his teaching was based purely on his unique revelation knowledge etc.), while that story and a parallel saying in the Deutero-canonical books shows that Jesus preaching on "the Golden rule" was expanding on stuff out of the Jewish Tradition actually going back to a saying in the Pentateuch.

First, I would admit to sometimes thinking along those lines myself. In my case it didn't come from denying Jesus' Jewish heritage, but simply from not knowing the connection to OT scripture. Once I learned the connection, my reaction was, "Cool!" What troubles me, though, is the KJV only attitude that seems to think Jesus was the son of a Baptist minister born in Mobile, Alabama who votes Republican and says the Pledge of Allegiance like all good Christian boys do.

If you take a second, it's sorta odd to think of Jesus preaching new doctrine on the spot. It would negate his maximal knowledge and in some cases it comes across as if God is contradicting himself.

For people like me, it's merely a matter of education. For those in the second group, I'm not sure what to do. Having now been an engineer for 30 years, and seeing people make the same mistakes over and over and over again, I've begun to ponder a philosophical question about it all. Do these tropes continue to pop up because old tropes never die or because they resonate with our broken nature, and so people will forever have what they think are new ideas that aren't really new?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

If you take a second, it's sorta odd to think of Jesus preaching new doctrine on the spot. It would negate his maximal knowledge and in some cases it comes across as if God is contradicting himself.

Yes and there actually is a kind of Cristological problem at work. Years ago I had many conversations with a retired Christian philosophy professor on a Theology Board and Blog that is now defunct. This person was more liberal than myself on areas like Biblical Higher Criticism etc. he was raised Assembly of God and seemed to go more into that stuff once he came of age.

Anyway we had these Cristological conversations from time to time. While I disagreed with him on some things he raised some good issues. Probably the best notion I recall was him complaining that many Christians especially conservative ones, see Jesus as essentially "God in a man suit". Basically they get so into his Divinity that they often inadvertently negate his humanity. While I really hate a lot of the Higher Criticism stuff of the Jesus Seminar etc. I have been noticing the opposite problem more and more and it does get to be something of a real theological issue at times.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

For people like me, it's merely a matter of education. For those in the second group, I'm not sure what to do. Having now been an engineer for 30 years, and seeing people make the same mistakes over and over and over again, I've begun to ponder a philosophical question about it all.

There is a great Jewish article I read 17 years ago that disappeared off the web. I stumbled on it accidentally doing a key word search. At the time I was in a church that came from the Syriac heritage and was looking for Aramaic articles etc. and stumbled on it. The article focused on the Jewish passover liturgy and the lines talking about Abraham, "My father was a wandering Aramean" which is probably why I discovered it.

The article made a very passionate advocacy on the importance of history and heritage when it comes to identity. In Judaism, you received your identity from specific tribal heritage. And that was also the source of your hope, because your inheritance was tied to your your specific tribe. Slavery, however had a great undermining effect of such hope; because slavery had a tendency to erase your knowledge of your ancestry etc. and with that comes lots of Existential issues that come with the loss of identity (if you have read Victor Frankel, Martin Buber etc.).


Besides this I also have seen some relationship between the study of history and the Joehari Window model of communication (a model of communication between two people). One of the big lessons you learn from the Joehari is how cutting off communication with people increases your personal blind spot. And well similar things happen for people who do not study the context of the Bible, Church History etc. People begin to make all kinds of assumptions about things (based on a modern viewpoint) that aren't really true, much like the joke "What happens when we assume?"

Johari window - Wikipedia

 

[Andrewn]

-

 

[Not David]

I believe Christ needed to be Jewish since He was the Messiah, that does not mean we should accept "Judaism" as some affirm. He came first for the sons but after his Death and Resurrection, He came for the Gentiles too.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I believe Christ needed to be Jewish since He was the Messiah, that does not mean we should accept "Judaism" as some affirm. He came first for the sons but after his Death and Resurrection, He came for the Gentiles too.

I think it was only one person who posted a bit along those lines, but even he I doubt would deny that Jesus came for the gentiles. Actually much of my interest in Judaism came from Orthodox Christian Apologetics. It's always nice when people make baseless claims against icons, liturgy etc. that they are pagan in origin etc. to counter and quote actual facts from Judaism and Church history that refute their claims.


example quoting people into this book
https://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christianity-Exploring-Church-Practices/dp/1414364555

stuff from this web site etc.
LiturgicaMusic.com

 

[Soyeong]

I was going to have a thread called something like "Christian Tropes and the Meta-gospel", but I thought it would be too abstract and metaphysical for most folks. Tropes are story telling devices and conventions. Tropes are a lot of fun to use for analyzing pieces of fiction, and sometimes they have other applications (They frequently appear in the news we watch on TV etc.) Anyway I thought the best way to introduce the topic of tropes for use in discussions here is to start with something specific, and I've been planning on doing something on the pharisees for a long time.

View attachment 264277

When people talk about the Pharisees, preach on them etc. the above figure is always what seems to come to mind. The above figure is Dastardly Whiplash the prototypical villain of melodrama.

"In personality, he is a one-dimensional, over-the-top, openly evil villain of limited intelligence who comes up with (sometimes absurdly) elaborate schemes for the hero to foil — kidnapping a helpless female and tying her up to either a railroad track or a Conveyor Belt o' Doom, in an attempt to coerce her into "marrying" him or relinquishing the deed to her property, is the old standard. He can usually be expected to go to great lengths to cheat at things he could easily win legitimately, For the Evulz of course."


Dastardly Whiplash - TV Tropes


So what do you think?

Jesus lived in sinless obedience to the Mosaic Law, so he was much more zealous for obedience to it than the Pharisees were. They were also the people that Jesus spent the bulk of his ministry interacting, so they were the people that he thought that he could work with, and a number of them became his followers, such as Paul and Nicodemus. Paul never stopped identifying as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6). Pharisees have criticized other Pharisees for their hypocrisy, so Jesus was not alone in His criticism of what some of them were doing. Jesus never criticized the Pharisees for obeying the Mosaic Law, but he did criticize them for not obeying it. For example, in Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that tithing was something that they ought to be doing while not neglecting weightier matters of the Law of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, so he was not coming against the Mosaic Law, but rather he was fulfilling it by teaching how to correctly understand and obey it. In Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus recognized their authority and instructed his disciples to do what they told them to do.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

After God took pity on me I started reading the Bible. It appeared the Pharisee leadership were portrayed as useful idiots, dupes or foils for Jesus' teachings, a somewhat comical bunch of one-eyed try-hards, constantly digging ditches and proceeding to fall in. When the Pharisees wafted on to the set, you knew it was a cue for Jesus to reveal something astounding. So, like the devil's role in Job, they're a handy divine plot device.

They then develop into more sinister characters, especially in John's Gospel, culminating in the betrayal of the entire Hebrew culture and history by proclaiming 'We have no king but Caesar', and obviously by the crime of deicide, for which they are yet to repent.

Still, we're given some hope for their redemption, notably in the form of Saul's conversion, Gamaliel's sage words and Nicodemus' sense of righteousness.

At the time, I wasn't aware of the Hebraic OT context of the exchanges, so had quite a 2-dimensional and impressionistic view. But it shows how the greatest story ever told can convey the spirit without the need for a depth of scriptural knowledge.

 

[Soyeong]

They then develop into more sinister characters, especially in John's Gospel, culminating in the betrayal of the entire Hebrew culture and history by proclaiming 'We have no king but Caesar', and obviously by the crime of deicide, for which they are yet to repent.

For more in regard to how Jews are portrayed in the Gospel of John, I'd recommend reading the Jewish Gospel of John:

https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Gospel-John-Discovering-Israel/dp/1514392836

 

[Resha Caner]

The article made a very passionate advocacy on the importance of history and heritage when it comes to identity.

Absolutely! Now you're in my wheelhouse. The focus of my history M.A. was the intersection of church, education, and culture. I specifically looked at the Lutheran church in the U.S. For a time I struggled with the question, "What identifies someone as Lutheran?" For a long time I focused on Lutheran theology and it wasn't working. Things didn't start to click until I grasped the meaning of historical events such as posting the 95 Theses.

There is an excellent episode of Star Trek where Captain Picard can't communicate with an alien because their language is based exclusively on historical context. He can translate the words, but has to learn the meaning the alien attaches to those words before they can communicate.

The problem with Lutheran identity, then, is the way it is always looking backward to the Reformation ... and further the way it skips 500 years of history and only looks at the Reformation (maybe a few people throw Walther into the mix). Sadly, it feels like that cultural framework is getting very creaky and starting to crumble - maybe for that reason. Is a new paradigm on the way?

And well similar things happen for people who do not study the context of the Bible, Church History etc.

Yep. What bothers me about the American Evangelical flavor of sola scriptura is the way it strips away context. The 21st century dictionary definition of words is supposed to be sufficient for understanding and denies the context of those definitions. There also seems to be a mystical belief that reading the words of Scripture in and of itself will invoke the Spirit and convey understanding.

Context is extremely important.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

But that being said, the House of Hillel is not in perfect sync with Jesus and Paul. They were more permissive on divorce for example. There also was a practice of getting around the forgiveness of debts the prozbul (to obtain loans) that might not have been condoned etc. since that was part of the Mosaic covenant.

I remember talking to a Jewish coworker about that a man can divorce his wife for even something like burning his dinner. His comment is that, if that's the reason, then there really isnt a marriage there to begin with.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

There is an excellent episode of Star Trek where Captain Picard can't communicate with an alien because their language is based exclusively on historical context.

Ah the famous Darmock episode. I don't know the actual name for the episode is but that was the alien version for a Gilgamesh like epic. When I was studying graduate psychology counseling that episode was used as an example of "getting into the clients language" since people mean multiple things with words. Saying you had a bad day for some is just a mild day, while for others it is a polite way of saying they are on the verge of suicide.

"What identifies someone as Lutheran?" For a long time I focused on Lutheran theology and it wasn't working. Things didn't start to click until I grasped the meaning of historical events such as posting the 95 Theses.

Well that is really good and that definitely does work as a legitimate "denominational distinctive" given that what most people claim as such is not that distinct.

Yep. What bothers me about the American Evangelical flavor of sola scriptura is the way it strips away context. The 21st century dictionary definition of words is supposed to be sufficient for understanding and denies the context of those definitions. There also seems to be a mystical belief that reading the words of Scripture in and of itself will invoke the Spirit and convey understanding.

Yes I have seen that too. Especially with charismatics and baptists. Unfortunately, there are some proof texts that can be manipulated in that direction. What people forget is Sola Scriptura is suppose to be about "everything needed for Salvation". While there has been some kind of doctrinal creep, much like feature creep in computer and software development where they have extended that to all pertinent areas of the Faith.

Now frankly I'm a Scripture Primist (which can fit some definitions of SS for very high church Anglicans and maybe a few Lutherans) but I have found this one Calvinist guy useful for conversing with some radical SS folks. He has some pithy, succinct quotable explanations why Solo Scriptura / Naked Scripture viewpoint is insufficient.

A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura

 

[Resha Caner]

Ah the famous Domock episode. I don't know the actual name for the episode is but that was the alien version for a Gilgamesh like epic. When I was studying graduate psychology counseling that episode was used as an example of "getting into the clients language" since people mean multiple things with words.

The episode is used in psychology classes? That's awesome.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The episode is used in psychology classes? That's awesome.

One professor used it, he was of course a big Trek fan. But it was part of a homework / class assignment to watch it in the video part of the school library to prepare for a lecture. So yes the first time I saw that episode was for school. And I notice it tends to be used as an example for similar things by folks on the web. On a postmodern evangelical message board I used to on someone used it for something similar etc. and its referenced on Science Fiction Blog posts and articles as one of the top episodes as far as teaching an Aesop type message.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is a great Jewish article I read 17 years ago that disappeared off the web. I stumbled on it accidentally doing a key word search. At the time I was in a church that came from the Syriac heritage and was looking for Aramaic articles etc. and stumbled on it. The article focused on the Jewish passover liturgy and the lines talking about Abraham, "My father was a wandering Aramean" which is probably why I discovered it.

The article made a very passionate advocacy on the importance of history and heritage when it comes to identity. In Judaism, you received your identity from specific tribal heritage. And that was also the source of your hope, because your inheritance was tied to your your specific tribe. Slavery, however had a great undermining effect of such hope; because slavery had a tendency to erase your knowledge of your ancestry etc. and with that comes lots of Existential issues that come with the loss of identity (if you have read Victor Frankel, Martin Buber etc.).


Besides this I also have seen some relationship between the study of history and the Joehari Window model of communication (a model of communication between two people). One of the big lessons you learn from the Joehari is how cutting off communication with people increases your personal blind spot. And well similar things happen for people who do not study the context of the Bible, Church History etc. People begin to make all kinds of assumptions about things (based on a modern viewpoint) that aren't really true, much like the joke "What happens when we assume?"

Johari window - Wikipedia

I like the direction you've taken in this discussion, Pavel. This is Well done! But with the bit above you've stated regarding the possibility that "cutting off communication with people increases your personal blind spots," might we also keep in mind the admonition that Titus 3:10-11 provides us. I'm thinking that between it and other verses elsewhere in Scripture, such as those where Jesus told His disciples when and why to "shake off the dust of their sandals against those who reject the truth," there must surely be some limit and some potential "cut-off" point for when we must deal with certain kinds of recalcitrant individuals.

On the other hand, I think you're quite right that we should be mindful that we don't want to jump to all kinds of conclusions about some other person, especially when it may turn out that those "things" we were thinking about that person weren't, and shall not be, really true ...

Anyway, great thread, bro! ... I'm just going to continue to listen in on all you guys! Good stuff!

 

[Pavel Mosko]

This is Well done! But with the bit above you've stated regarding the possibility that "cutting off communication with people increases your personal blind spots," might we also keep in mind the admonition that Titus 3:10-11 provides us.

Yes I've had to do that sort of thing too. A lot of it just for personal peace reasons.

Anyway, great thread, bro!

Well thank you!

 

[ewq1938]

The bible presents some Pharisees as having been the first shown to commit the unforgivable sin.

Mat 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Mat 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Mat 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Mat 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Mat 12:29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
Mat 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

 

[straykat]

When people talk about the Pharisees, preach on them etc. the above figure is always what seems to come to mind. The above figure is Dastardly Whiplash the prototypical villain of melodrama.

"In personality, he is a one-dimensional, over-the-top, openly evil villain of limited intelligence who comes up with (sometimes absurdly) elaborate schemes for the hero to foil — kidnapping a helpless female and tying her up to either a railroad track or a Conveyor Belt o' Doom, in an attempt to coerce her into "marrying" him or relinquishing the deed to her property, is the old standard. He can usually be expected to go to great lengths to cheat at things he could easily win legitimately, For the Evulz of course."


Dastardly Whiplash - TV Tropes


So what do you think?

I sometimes think of them that way, but now I realize more often that they are actually probably like me, at my worst moments. More human than over the top villains. Except I guess they made a habit out of it, sadly. Religious men who got a little too zealous, and forgot love and sadness for one's own sins. There's a place to call out wrongs as they did, but as St. Paul says, "without love", we're like a clanging symbol.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Without being any sort of expert on the Pharisees, I remember a Bible study about four or five years ago in which our Archbishop was the main speaker. It was a one-off event held at the local branch of the ACU (Australian Catholic University). If I remember rightly, he's got a doctorate specialising in the Gospel of Luke. I've heard others say he's got a gift for languages.

He did use his own personal experience to explain why some New Testament books are written in different standards of Greek. He said he was fluent in Italian, having lived in Rome for some time, and then just rattled off a couple of sentences, with hand movements to boot. It seems you can't learn Italian in Italy without talking with your hands like the natives. He then added "But I write in schoolboy Italian ... I haven't had the training" (to write more polished Italian).

I assume it was a bit like that with some of the NT writers. They were probably fluent in Greek, since it was the lingua fraca of the day, like English is now. But some of them probably wrote in schoolboy Greek, as "... they hadn't had the training".

Getting back on track, he mentioned the Pharisees, and commented the New Testament gave them a bad press. Then he said "But don't be fooled! The Pharisees were the closest in belief and practice to Christianity in Judaism of that time" (or words to that effect).

When they originally formed following the growing corruption after the Maccabean revolt, they were held in high regard by the Jewish people. But as time went by and the privileges of high office set in, I suppose their vision became somewhat clouded.

I don't know if Christ would necessarily have been a Pharisee simply because he was called "Rabbi", as another contributor has claimed. But I've long thought that when he was still an idealistic young chap, He may have considered becoming a Pharisee at some stage.

In the end though, there was obviously a falling out, fatal to Him.