The Pharisees stand out in the gospels as one of the few people that Jesus goes out of his way to condemn to their faces. Unlike other sinners that he encounters, he seems to be extremely willing to call out their evil and not hold back on the statements of judgment.
What exactly is the difference between the Pharisees and say, Matthew a tax-collector, or Mary Magdalene, who was traditionally a prostitute, or any of the other random followers of Jesus, all of whom had sin in their lives?
The thing about the Pharisees is that we have a tendency to read our own conflicts into the stories about the Pharisees, and it colors our interpretation and therefore our application of the lessons meant to be gleaned from those passages.
Against Religious Leaders
Luther famously used passages about the Pharisees as a cudgel with which to attack the Roman Catholics of his period. He had tried to work his way to God through very severe treatment of his body and constant confession of even the smallest sins. This, he believed, was what the church had taught him was the way to heaven.
The disillusionment came when he visited Rome and was scandalized by how vice-ridden the priests of Rome were. They made dirty jokes, dis-respected the communion ritual and were obvious phonies.
Something was rotten in his church and he decided that the lessons of Christ’s condemnation of the Pharisees was relevant to this circumstance and that he would approach Rome in a similar manner, writing fiery polemics against his opponents.
Was this an appropriate use of the lesson of Christ and the Pharisees? If so, what was the similarity between the Roman Catholics and the Pharisees that made it a correct application?
The way this is taught in modern churches tends to be that the reason that Christ is so harsh on the Pharisees and so kind to other sinners is that they were religious leaders. When a person is a religious person and is sinful, it is appropriate to condemn them and call out their evil.
This fits very well with trendy evangelical culture. We are very hard on “fundie” Christians who are so concerned with their own holiness, speaking out in harsh words to anyone who is overly “traditional” or fussy. But when it comes to the world around us with its greed, consumerism, sexual decadence and vile hateful rhetoric, we feel like we should just let all that slide. After all, Jesus ate with sinners!
But Not All The Pharisees…
But there are some oddities about this account. Why is Jesus kind to Nicodemus? (John 3) Why is Joseph of Arimathea accepted as a follower of Christ? (Luke 23:50-53) Why are Christians post-crucifixion still calling themselves Pharisees? (Acts 15:5)
It’s pretty obvious that the mere fact that they were Pharisees is not the deciding factor as to how Jesus approaches them about their sin. Nor is it the case that whatever the Pharisees were all about is enough to condemn them. If Christian believers could still be “of the party of the Pharisees”, then the ideology of the Pharisees itself could not be what was offensive to God.
Then what is it about them?
The Sick and the Well
One possibility comes from Luke 5:
Luke 5:30 And the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” 31 And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 32 I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”
The answer that Christ gives to them as to why he is associating in a kind fashion with sinners is that he is needed by those who are “sinners” and not by those who are “righteous”.
But of course, they are not righteous in God’s eyes.
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Matthew 23:27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.
So then what is Christ talking about?
The answer would appear to be that he is sitting with those who acknowledge their sin. Those who believe they are righteous are not going to submit to repentance. Likewise, a person who does not believe he is ill will not submit to be treated by a doctor.
In that case, the sin of the Pharisees is self-righteousness.
Say But Do Not Do
But further in Matthew 23, Christ calls out their sin more specifically. We’ve alluded to it in the above section, but here is Christ’s command to his followers:
Matthew 23:2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.
This is very interesting and revealing because it partially explains why believers can still be Pharisees. The issue clearly is not what the Pharisees were teaching. He is acknowledging their correctness in that respect. The issue is with what they are doing. The issue here is that they speak what is good and true and right for us to follow, but that they themselves do not practice it.
He goes on in that vein and that’s why his “woes” are usually followed by “hypocrites!”
In this case the sin of the Pharisees is hypocrisy.
To be continued…