Modern day Pharisees versus the ones in the Bible

[Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4]

Modern day Phariasies are mostly preachers who preach prosperity gospel.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Modern day Phariasies are mostly preachers who preach prosperity gospel.

I wish the number were that few. Modern day Pharisees however, surely abound. The danger in pointing fingers at people and proclaiming them Pharisees is that by so doing I might find that I may be one myself. Nonetheless, I will gladly repent Tuesday for a small Pharisaical rant today. I believe I may see many more neo Pharisees in the mainstream non prosperity preaching arena preaching about love and forgiveness while showing hatred and holding grudges than I see prosperity gospel preachers. I see a situation in some parts of Christendom where the poor are deified and the rich are demonized by some in the same way the reverse was the situation of the clergy in Jesus time. We are to love all of our neighbors not just the groups we consider more worthy. Modern Pharisee may think that berating the opposite group from the group the Pharisees berated makes them holy.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

"Don't do as I do. Do as I say."
Don't parents have at least one hypocritical Pharisee moment with their kids?
Maybe we're all Pharisees, on a continuum from slightly to highly.

 

[Adstar]

My current obsession is not to become a hypocrite. The whole of Chapter 23 Matthew is Jesus railing against Pharisees. I get the impression that God has these sinners particularly under the microscope. He really loathes them ,it appears.
As we advance our faith journey, I think Pharisee sins become more of an issue. I mean when I was living a Prodigal Son life, I may have been an outrageous sinner but I don't think I was hypocrite. Now, as I take more and more responsibility of being a Christian, I am more liable. I set myself up as a target, the minute someone knows I am of the faith. I am now in the hot seat, with all you other Christians. "They'll know we are Christians by our.........." ( hypocrisy, argumentativeness, dogmatic style of speaking, the number of times we say Praise the Lord' , our tendency to be judgemental or .... love) choose one of the above.
And may I ask how were the Pharisees different to todays Pharisees?

The only way one can be a hypocrite is if they fail to live up to their own standards....
Now if we are failing to live up to Someone else s standards that we admire are we hypocrites?

Should a Christian be attacked and called a hypocrite for failing to live up to the standards of a Perfect God?

The point of Christians expressing Gods perfect standards is to reveal to the listeners that no one can perform up to the level of those same standards.. It's not like we are saying, here are the standards you must perform to and have a perfect record of keeping..

We are saying Here is Gods standards so if you cannot perform up to His level of perfection, please feel free to avail yourself of His free gift of total forgiveness for all your failings to perform to His perfect standards.

The truth of the Message of God is not based on the ability of Christians to perform them. They are true and good irrespective of how badly those who believe in them adhere to them..

 

[JackRT]

My current obsession is not to become a hypocrite. The whole of Chapter 23 Matthew is Jesus railing against Pharisees. I get the impression that God has these sinners particularly under the microscope. He really loathes them ,it appears.
As we advance our faith journey, I think Pharisee sins become more of an issue. I mean when I was living a Prodigal Son life, I may have been an outrageous sinner but I don't think I was hypocrite. Now, as I take more and more responsibility of being a Christian, I am more liable. I set myself up as a target, the minute someone knows I am of the faith. I am now in the hot seat, with all you other Christians. "They'll know we are Christians by our.........." ( hypocrisy, argumentativeness, dogmatic style of speaking, the number of times we say Praise the Lord' , our tendency to be judgemental or .... love) choose one of the above.
And may I ask how were the Pharisees different to todays Pharisees?

You mention above Jesus railing against the Pharisees in Matthew 23. I am convinced that these are the words of Matthew placed in Jesus' mouth. We have to remember that Matthew wrote his gospel about AD 90 at the time when the Jews, led by the Pharisee rabbis, finally drove the Christians from the synagogues. There was much bitterness on both sides.

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.

The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.

In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.

This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

 

[Steve Petersen]

You mention above Jesus railing against the Pharisees in Matthew 23. I am convinced that these are the words of Matthew placed in Jesus' mouth. We have to remember that Matthew wrote his gospel about AD 90 at the time when the Jews, led by the Pharisee rabbis, finally drove the Christians from the synagogues. There was much bitterness on both sides.

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.

The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.

In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.

This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.

Josephus noted the tendency after the Revolt against Rome for historians to laud the Romans and vilify the Jews. We find this same thing in the NT, especially the Gospel of John. It seems to be an attempt to curry favor with the winners.

 

[Ken Rank]

My current obsession is not to become a hypocrite. The whole of Chapter 23 Matthew is Jesus railing against Pharisees. I get the impression that God has these sinners particularly under the microscope. He really loathes them ,it appears.
As we advance our faith journey, I think Pharisee sins become more of an issue. I mean when I was living a Prodigal Son life, I may have been an outrageous sinner but I don't think I was hypocrite. Now, as I take more and more responsibility of being a Christian, I am more liable. I set myself up as a target, the minute someone knows I am of the faith. I am now in the hot seat, with all you other Christians. "They'll know we are Christians by our.........." ( hypocrisy, argumentativeness, dogmatic style of speaking, the number of times we say Praise the Lord' , our tendency to be judgemental or .... love) choose one of the above.
And may I ask how were the Pharisees different to todays Pharisees?

Well, first of all, to answer this we have to have an understanding. There were TWO sects of Pharisees, not one. Basically Christianity sees a rebuke on Pharisees and assumes it means ALL Pharisees and yet once you understand the difference between the two schools you realize that ALL BUT ONE rebuke was against one school. Let me explain...

Beit (school or house) of Shammai was a Pharisaical school that taught "Letter of the Law." Beit Hillel (which by the way, is where Paul went) taught "Spirit of the Law." What is the difference? Those that adhered to the letter were stricter, less merciful, and went letter by letter with no ability to factor in intent. The Spirit of the law factors in intent. For example... to commit adultery is not just the physical "act" because Yeshua plainly showed us that to lust in the heart is just like doing the act itself. The Letter of the law group would not have made this connection. Moreover, the letter of the law crowd were more apt to trying to make the community adhere to their understanding and their interpretation. This is legalism... when we try to make others adhere to our beliefs or we reject them... that is legalism.

I felt the need to make that distinction because one could be a Pharisee and a servant of the Lord. This is why it was OK for Paul, making his defense for his LIFE, said, "I am a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6) not "I was." So the Pharisees TODAY would be those who pass decrees or make bylaws that create a small group that rejects any and all who are outside of their belief system. Those would be the legalistic ones, the ones who need to be corrected.

 

[dqhall]

My current obsession is not to become a hypocrite. The whole of Chapter 23 Matthew is Jesus railing against Pharisees. I get the impression that God has these sinners particularly under the microscope. He really loathes them ,it appears.
As we advance our faith journey, I think Pharisee sins become more of an issue. I mean when I was living a Prodigal Son life, I may have been an outrageous sinner but I don't think I was hypocrite. Now, as I take more and more responsibility of being a Christian, I am more liable. I set myself up as a target, the minute someone knows I am of the faith. I am now in the hot seat, with all you other Christians. "They'll know we are Christians by our.........." ( hypocrisy, argumentativeness, dogmatic style of speaking, the number of times we say Praise the Lord' , our tendency to be judgemental or .... love) choose one of the above.
And may I ask how were the Pharisees different to todays Pharisees?

In Jesus day the Pharisees had a majority in the Sanhedrin (Jeremias Joachim, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus). The Pharisees were militant. They called for the execution of Christ, the stoning of Stephen, the arrest of Paul and persecuted Christians in general.

How can you live a life that is better than the way the Pharisees lived? You would have to learn to be non-judgemental and more merciful. If the Pharisees had turned the other cheek, they would not have rebelled against the Romans in 66 AD and lost Jerusalem in 70 AD. The Pharisees thought the Torah was inerrant and sought to carry out its sentences. Jesus opposed them.

 

[JackRT]

The comparative response to the challenge of a Gentile who asked that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot, illustrates the character differences between Shammai and Hillel. Shammai dismissed the man. Hillel accepted the question but gently chastised the man:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn"[8]

Hillel recognized brotherly love, also known as "the Golden Rule", as the fundamental principle of Jewish moral law. (Lev. xix. 18).

Hillel stated the Golden Rule in a negative way whereas Jesus presented it in a positive sense.

 

[JackRT]

In Jesus day the Pharisees had a majority in the Sanhedrin (Jeremias Joachim, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus). The Pharisees were militant. They called for the execution of Christ, the stoning of Stephen, the arrest of Paul and persecuted Christians in general.

Let us now look ahead in time to Palm Sunday. Jesus, together with his Galilean disciples, enters Jerusalem in precisely the manner foretold in the ancient scriptures. Some scholars are convinced that this entry was timed deliberately to coincide with the entry of Pontius Pilate and a cohort of troops moving up from Caesarea as they did each year at this time. There Jesus is greeted by the joyous population who acclaim him as the messiah. I am not completely convinced that Jesus ever claimed the title of messiah for himself, but his disciples and the gospel writers certainly did. Before we can proceed further, I must pause to examine the meaning of the word "messiah" itself.

Messiah means literally "anointed one" and was the common way in which the Jews referred to kings of the dynasty of David. "Anointed" refers of course to the method of coronation of the Jewish kings. It translated into the Greek as "Christos". The Jews regarded themselves as a "theocracy"... a kingdom ruled by God. The Jews also envisaged a (metaphorical) throne room in which there were three thrones. God occupied the central throne. At "the right hand of God" was the throne of the "king messiah" who was the reigning king of the house and family of David. At "the left hand of God" was the throne of the "priest messiah" who was the high priest of the house and family of Zadok. Ideally there were always two messiahs who were known collectively as the "sons of God". All these terms, "messiah", "kingdom of God", "at the right hand of God" and "son of God" were political rather than religious statements. It was a later generation of gentile Christians who re-interpreted these phrases in a very different religious sense. Both before and after the death of Jesus the early Christians, who were, after all, practicing Jews, understood these terms in their traditional sense. Jesus in claiming to be the messiah had not committed any blasphemy... there was no religious crime that the high priest could legitimately charge him with. That is why he went to the Romans to do the job.

Keep in mind as well that our gospels were written by practicing Jews for a primarily Jewish audience. The early Christians were not expelled from the synagogues until about the year AD 90. They were familiar with the terminology just mentioned. Unlike the average reader today they knew that a term like "son of God" carried the meaning mentioned above and did not infer in any way that the person so described was in any way divine. As a matter of fact the inference of divinity would have been profoundly shocking to them, indeed they would have called it blasphemy. Thousands of Jews and later Christians went to their deaths for refusing to admit that the emperor was divine. It was only later, when the Jewish influence on the early church had diminished to the point of non-existence, that Christian believers in their ignorance of these terms began to take them at face value. Whenever we read a document we should always ask ourselves "How were these words intended by the author and how were they understood by the reader?" We must never try to impose a modern understanding on words that are almost 2,000 years old.

He was, however posing a direct challenge to Roman political authority. As we have already seen, the Romans responded very vigorously to any such challenge. The fact that they did not respond immediately on his entry into Jerusalem can be attributed in the first place to surprise, but more importantly to the fact that the high holy season was at hand. Jerusalem was crowded with perhaps a many as a million pilgrims and any military intervention at the time could trigger a full scale riot or possibly a major insurrection. The Romans chose to bide their time, but from Palm Sunday onward the fate of Jesus was sealed.

Two days later Jesus and his disciples enter the temple and forcefully eject the merchants and money changers. Now he has the full attention of the high priest Joseph Caiaphas. Notice that Jesus still has not committed a religious crime (blasphemy). The notoriously brutal temple guards did not act against Jesus at this time probably for the same reason that the Romans did not act on Palm Sunday.

Two days later Jesus is caught away from the crowds in the garden of Gethsemane. One gospel informs us that the arrest was carried out by a Roman cohort plus a detachment of temple guards. A Roman cohort at full strength consists of six hundred heavily armed legionnaires. Even if it were only part of a cohort, say, a century of one hundred soldiers, it seems obvious that they were not taking any chances with Jesus fighting his way out of the trap that they had sprung on him.

He is now dragged before the high priest and the “elders’. It is quite unlikely that there was any kind of formal trial at this time. To begin with there was no substantive religious charge that could be brought against him. It was not blasphemy to claim to be the "messiah" or a "son of God". If there was a blasphemy, a trial before the Sanhedrin would have brought that out and a sentence of death by stoning could have been brought down. The Sanhedrin did not lose the right to impose the death penalty until the year AD 39. The execution would have to be ratified by the Roman governor. This was just a rubber stamp procedure, after all what did the Romans care about Jews stoning one of their own to death for some obscure religious crime?

We also must take into account the nature of the Sanhedrin itself. It was a very dignified body of seventy elders somewhat in the nature of a supreme court. The high priest chaired but did not control the Sanhedrin, the majority of whose members were Pharisees. The Pharisees opposed the high priest at just about every turn. The high priest was in fact perhaps the most hated man in Judea. Under Roman administration, the high priest was personally appointed by the Roman governor. Caiaphas was the personal choice of Roman procurator Valerius Gratus. The Pharisees regarded Caiaphas as a collaborator and a traitor. The Sanhedrin was not likely to respond to a sudden midnight summons from the high priest. As a matter of fact, it was explicitly forbidden for the Sanhedrin to meet at night or on a religious holiday. They were also not to meet in any place but the Chamber of Hewn Stone on Temple Mount.

You might recall from the Acts of the Apostles that Peter and some of the disciples were actually charged with blasphemy and brought to trial before the Sanhedrin. They were dismissed after being defended by Rabbi Gamaliel who was himself a member of the Sanhedrin and a prominent Pharisee. If Jesus appeared before the high priest at all it was simply to be remanded over to Pontius Pilate. The Romans wanted him for a lot more than disturbing the peace in the temple. They wanted him for sedition and treason.

 

[rockytopva]

Don't leave out the modern day Sadducees..

Sad-you-see

 

[HighCherub]

Meh.

Who stood up against the Crucifixion when the day came, though?

I hear people talk about only a particular sect of the rabbis went after Jesus, but if they were so contrary to how the rest felt, the rest wouldn't have sat by and let it happen.

They all wanted Jesus dead, simply put, because Jesus declared himself over them.

 

[amariselle]

I see some suggestions being made here that perhaps Jesus was not Who He said He was in Scripture, because perhaps words were put in His mouth by the Gospel writers. Well, if that's true, and the Gospel writers were just writing literature to serve some earthly agenda and support their narrative, then the Gospels are not the inspired word of God. If that is true, then we cannot trust anything they say, including the Gospel itself. Also, as the Gospels are part of the Bible for some reason, the entire thing becomes suspect if the Gospels are simply man-made documents, uninspired.

If this is true, how then do we know that anything in the Bible is correct? Personally I wouldn't start pulling at that thread or the whole entire thing comes unraveled and we're left with nothing but a mess where nothing is certain.

 

[Korean-American Christian]

"They'll know we are Christians by our.........." ( hypocrisy, argumentativeness, dogmatic style of speaking, the number of times we say Praise the Lord' , our tendency to be judgemental or .... love) choose one of the above.
And may I ask how were the Pharisees different to todays Pharisees?

Authentic followers of Jesus Christ will be known by their love and by their striving to actively show the love of Jesus Christ to everyone around them in very tangible ways (feeding the hungry, finding shelter for the homeless, building long-term relationships with orphans).

Modern day Pharisees will be known by their judgmental behavior.

Modern day Pharisees ask their church members to buy them a 65 million dollar private jet.

Modern day Pharisees live in homes that cost millions of dollars

Modern day Pharisees drive around in luxury cars while their church members are struggling financially.

Modern day Pharisees fall asleep in church every Sunday

Modern day Pharisees use corporal punishment on their children because their children were a tiny bit fidgety in church

Modern day Pharisees study theology for 16 years, but do not show the love of Jesus Christ to anyone around them

Modern day Pharisees collect seminary degrees like children collect coins or stamps

Modern day Pharisees read the entire Bible every year, but do not show the love of Jesus to anyone

Modern day Pharisees use Bible verses to hurt other people.

Modern day Pharisees talk the talk, but do not walk the walk

 

[JackRT]

Meh.

Who stood up against the Crucifixion when the day came, though?

I hear people talk about only a particular sect of the rabbis went after Jesus, but if they were so contrary to how the rest felt, the rest wouldn't have sat by and let it happen.

They all wanted Jesus dead, simply put, because Jesus declared himself over them.

Remember that the arrest of Jesus happened in the middle of the night. He was taken to the High Priest's house where he had a hearing before Ciaphas and his Sadducee cronies (I doubt any of the Pharisee Sanhedrin members were even present). He was then sent to Herod and then over to Pilate for trial. Most of this was at night and more or less secretly. Remember that the arrest of Jesus happened in the middle of the night. He was taken to the High Priest's house where he had a hearing before Ciaphas and his Sadducee cronies (I doubt any of the Pharisee Sanhedrin members were even present). He was then sent to Herod and then over to Pilate for trial. Most of this was at night and more or less secretly. There was almost no opportunity for any intervention by any sympathizers. I suspect it was planned to happen in this manner to avoid such a possibility.

 

[AlexDTX]

My current obsession is not to become a hypocrite. The whole of Chapter 23 Matthew is Jesus railing against Pharisees. I get the impression that God has these sinners particularly under the microscope. He really loathes them ,it appears.
As we advance our faith journey, I think Pharisee sins become more of an issue. I mean when I was living a Prodigal Son life, I may have been an outrageous sinner but I don't think I was hypocrite. Now, as I take more and more responsibility of being a Christian, I am more liable. I set myself up as a target, the minute someone knows I am of the faith. I am now in the hot seat, with all you other Christians. "They'll know we are Christians by our.........." ( hypocrisy, argumentativeness, dogmatic style of speaking, the number of times we say Praise the Lord' , our tendency to be judgemental or .... love) choose one of the above.
And may I ask how were the Pharisees different to todays Pharisees?

Religion is the sinful nature. I define religion as trying to earn our own salvation. It began with Adam and Eve covering themselves with fig leaves. They tried to cover their sin.

When a person is born again that religious nature dies and we become new creatures. Although the nature is dead and we are partakers of the divine nature, that is only in our spirits since we become one with the Lord (1 Corinthians 6:17). But the old man remains in our minds which is why our minds need to be renewed. So the struggle remains for all believers to judge themselves in their thoughts and actions to resist the old nature of self justification.

When a believer is in a congregation where works are promoted as part of their salvation, that struggle becomes harder. Genuine Christian living is transparent. That means letting people see your warts and sins. But a works atmosphere encourages hypocrisy. People want to be accepted by others so if that means pretending to be a certain religious way, then the spectre of the Pharisee looms larger.

A works atmosphere also fosters self justification. Self justification creates pride. And pride develops into judgmentalism. This is why we are saved by grace through faith alone so no man can boast.

We all have to be on guard against Phariseeism. We all need periodic pharisectomies. God wants us to judge, but He wants us to judge ourselves first before we judge others. Judgment that is discernment is needed, but judgment that is condemnation is to be refused.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

I felt the need to make that distinction because one could be a Pharisee and a servant of the Lord. This is why it was OK for Paul, making his defense for his LIFE, said, "I am a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6) not "I was." So the Pharisees TODAY would be those who pass decrees or make bylaws that create a small group that rejects any and all who are outside of their belief system. Those would be the legalistic ones, the ones who need to be corrected.

I think Paul was identifying himself as a Pharisee to make a point of the difference between beliefs the Sadducee and the Pharisees held on resurrection. I do not think was calling himself a corrupt religious leader.

This leads me to the core of the issue. Jesus was rebuking corrupt religous leaders whom used their position to exploit people for personal gain and power. John the Baptist did the same. This notion of having a Pharisee "spirit" of someone who comes off as holier than though is really an issue of pride, not a Pharisee. Pharisee's stand behind pulpits and sit on boards. They enrich themselves off the gospel, they abuse power for personal gain and most importantly when someone brings correction in the words of Jesus they call for their crucifixion. They slander character and murder fellowship.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

My current obsession is not to become a hypocrite. The whole of Chapter 23 Matthew is Jesus railing against Pharisees. I get the impression that God has these sinners particularly under the microscope. He really loathes them ,it appears.
As we advance our faith journey, I think Pharisee sins become more of an issue. I mean when I was living a Prodigal Son life, I may have been an outrageous sinner but I don't think I was hypocrite. Now, as I take more and more responsibility of being a Christian, I am more liable. I set myself up as a target, the minute someone knows I am of the faith. I am now in the hot seat, with all you other Christians. "They'll know we are Christians by our.........." ( hypocrisy, argumentativeness, dogmatic style of speaking, the number of times we say Praise the Lord' , our tendency to be judgemental or .... love) choose one of the above.
And may I ask how were the Pharisees different to todays Pharisees?

Any Christian that has pride, has a cold heart, and is hypocritical and kills the truth... maybe just not literally today though like the ones in the Bible did with Jesus

 

[Halbhh]

My current obsession is not to become a hypocrite. The whole of Chapter 23 Matthew is Jesus railing against Pharisees. I get the impression that God has these sinners particularly under the microscope. He really loathes them ,it appears.
As we advance our faith journey, I think Pharisee sins become more of an issue. I mean when I was living a Prodigal Son life, I may have been an outrageous sinner but I don't think I was hypocrite. Now, as I take more and more responsibility of being a Christian, I am more liable. I set myself up as a target, the minute someone knows I am of the faith. I am now in the hot seat, with all you other Christians. "They'll know we are Christians by our.........." ( hypocrisy, argumentativeness, dogmatic style of speaking, the number of times we say Praise the Lord' , our tendency to be judgemental or .... love) choose one of the above.
And may I ask how were the Pharisees different to todays Pharisees?

I also want to be sure I'm avoiding falling into being like a Pharisee, because we all have at times in ways in our lives, and so I'd like to list the ways I've learned are being a Pharisee, and also learn from others what they have seen about this.

1. Focus on particular details or forms or fine points or non essential bits of doctrine instead the deeper essential message, thus removing the deeper message from their preaching.

2. Focus on being eminent and having status, importance in the eyes of others, instead of humbly seeking God. Outward appearances given more importance than inner real relation to God.

3. Feeling they already know all important things to learn from Christ.

Examples:

Judging someone as a person on how they are dressed.

Judging someone as a person on if they agree on some fine point of doctrine, or other non-saving details, and then getting high handed over such.

Reading scripture not to learn but instead to try to find verses to support their version of doctrine. Put in other words, thinking they themselves are the Teacher, instead of Christ being the Teacher (the only) as in Matthew 23.

Instead of seeking to learn from Him, they want others to look up to themselves.

 

[Peter J Barban]

It's a mistake calling modern Christians as Pharisees. The modern equivalent of the ancient Jewish Pharisee is the Muslim Taliban.

Calling Christians that you don't like Pharisees is probably sin.