Jesus and the Pharisees

[GiveMeSomeTruth]

In Mark 7:9-13 NASB Jesus says to the Pharisees and the scribes:

“You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘ Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘ He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Which is a clear reference to Leviticus 20:9 NASB:

“If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.”

Or Deuteronomy 21:18-21 NASB:

“If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.”

And there are others of a similar vein. By criticizing the Pharisees and scribes for not following this law, is Jesus advocating it?

 

[TimothyH]

Corban was money supposedly dedicated to God and placed in the treasury of the Temple in Jerusalem, but it would never actually be used for the Temple or for God. It was more like a safe deposit box. Instead of caring for their parents, people would declare their money to be “Corban” or dedicated to God and place it in the Temple. But when they needed some renovations on the beach house or 22" wheels for the donkey cart, they would withdraw the money and use it.

Corban was an invention or “Tradition” of men, a way to avoid obeying the fourth commandment to honor one’s mother and father and similar commandments in the levitical law to care for one’s parents in their old age.

Jesus is criticizing the pharisees who accused him and his followers of not following the tradtions of the elders by not purifing their hands first.

So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, “Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?” (Mark 7:5)*

Jesus calls them hypocrites. The word hypocrite in Greek means actor.

He responded, “Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me;
In vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines human precepts.’
You disregard God’s commandment but cling to human tradition.”
(Mark 7:6-8)

Jesus takes the accusation of the Pharisees about not obeying commandments of the levitical law to purify their hands before eating and throws it right back in their face on the issue of Corban, which has no basis in scripture and is nothing more than a ruse to try to get out of one’s requirement to care for his parents.

-Tim-

 

[tqualey]

iHi, GiveMeSomeTruth,

Welcome to CAF!

Now let me see if I understand your question: you are wondering why Jesus did not criticize the Pharisees for not having parents take their wayward children to the city gates to have them executed for failing to obey?

I honestly had not given any thought to this item. What I have thought about was how the leaders of the Jewish religion had grown farther and farther from God’s Love and Law - I think this is what Christ was pointing out. This drift away from God happened over many generations - the 1st Century Pharisees that Christ addressed were not the ones who made this change in the Law - rather, they walked into it as existing (and probably added an item or two themselves - further complicating the matter! But, this is just a guess on my part…)

All of these Jewish leaders read, memorized and studied the Law. They knew what it said. They also spent a lot of time reading and meorizing and studying the statements from earlier Teachers of the Law. It took quite a bit of mind power to get through this program! Unfortunately, these guys got so hung-up on legalism, they lost sight of the God Who Loved them and chose them as His People. That is a problem - and one that Christ did not ignore.

The biggest criticism that the Jewish leaders had for Christ was that He did not keep the Sabbath. Of course things like healing a man born blind or a man with a withered arm were never addressed prior to Chirst. These guys made up laws as they went along - and claiming that they were correct and Christ was wrong. As you will recall, Christ once asked them before He performed a miracle if it was legal to do so - and they refused to answer! (These leaders were duty bound to answer questions about applications of the Jewish Law to any Jew who asked.) And, sure enough - Christ performs an amazing miracle that should have brought them to their knees honoring God - and these guys plot to kill Christ (a clear violation of the Commandments).

In my view, Christ was giving them one of many ‘wake up calls’ - their practice of religion was not pleasing to God and they needed to change. The refused Christ’s instruction and went on to murder Christ by using the Roman Empire as their weapon.

I hope this answers your question.

God bless

In Mark 7:9-13 NASB Jesus says to the Pharisees and the scribes:

“You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘ Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘ He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Which is a clear reference to Leviticus 20:9 NASB:

“If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.”

Or Deuteronomy 21:18-21 NASB:

“If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.”

And there are others of a similar vein. By criticizing the Pharisees and scribes for not following this law, is Jesus advocating it?

 

[GiveMeSomeTruth]

Tim and Tom, I think I am with you: so the Pharisees would have been less hypocritical if they would have just been stoning their children when they curse their parents like the Law says. Thanks!

 

[patrick457]

In Mark 7:9-13 NASB Jesus says to the Pharisees and the scribes:

“You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘ Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘ He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

Which is a clear reference to Leviticus 20:9 NASB:

“If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him.”

Or Deuteronomy 21:18-21 NASB:

“If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.”

And there are others of a similar vein. By criticizing the Pharisees and scribes for not following this law, is Jesus advocating it?

I think the emphasis is not so much on “shall be put to death” but rather (as the other quotation makes clear), on “he who speaks evil of father or mother” - the point being that mother and father should be given proper honor, which the abuse of the custom of korban neglects.

What is qorban (‘offering’, ‘gift’)? In Judaism, it is the term applied for a variety of sacrificial offerings described and commanded in the Torah. Such sacrifices were offered in a variety of settings by the ancient Israelites, and later by the Jewish priesthood at the Temple in Jerusalem. A qorban was usually an animal sacrifice, such as a sheep or a bull that underwent shechita (ritual slaughter), and was often cooked and eaten by the offerer, with parts given to the priests and parts burned on the Temple altar. Qorbanot could also consist of turtle-doves, grain, incense, fruit, and a variety of other offerings.

Later in time, anything dedicated to the Temple, even if only in an ideal sense (the item might be nominally the Temple’s property but still remain in the possession of the person who made the vow), came to be also called qorban. Since a person’s offering may have been accompanied by a solemn oath, the offerer was no longer permitted from ever using the property offered to the Temple for the support of himself or anyone else even if the gift remained in his possession; so a son might be justified in not supporting his old parents simply because he designated his property or a part of it as a gift to the Temple, that is, as qorban.

There are instances of Aramaic inscriptions from around the first century that use the word to mean “gift,” one of which is found on an ossuary, which says, “All that a man may find to his profit in this ossuary [is] qorban to God from him who is within it.” Apparently, the word itself was also written on clay and metal pots to indicate that the container and its contents or simply the contents was a gift to the Temple. Thus to say that something is qorban is to say both that it is an offering and thus, is taboo for others. (Cf. Mishna, Nedarim 3.2: “May they [figs] be qorban to you.”)

In an honor-shame culture, such as 1st century Palestine, it was difficult if not impossible to repent of something said using an oath or a vow, even it was in haste or anger (which is the reason why Jesus warned against taking oaths at all in Matthew 5:33-37). The Torah itself contains solemn prescriptions on the observance of vows (Num. 30:1-2; Deut. 23:21-23); in addition, some early Jewish teachers taught that if one broke an oath, one’s life would be forfeited and indeed one would stand in danger of God’s judgment in the last day. Thus there is a conflict here of two solemn obligations: honoring one’s parents and observing vows.

 

[patrick457]

Now, who were the Pharisees?

It is commonly thought that the Pharisees and their rivals the Sadducees first existed during the Hasmonean period (140 BC-37 BC), when they primarily functioned as political parties. It would seem that the Pharisees are one of the successor groups to the so-called Hasideans (Ḥasidim) or the ‘pious’, a Jewish religious party which commenced to play an important role in political life during the time of the Maccabean wars (though they had apparently already existed for quite some time) because of their resistance to the influx of Hellenism during the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV.

They apparently supported the Maccabean revolt (1 Maccabees 2:42), at least at first; their alliance increasingly grew weaker as the Maccabees continued to fight for political autonomy and the advancement of their own family. Jonathan’s (aka Apphus, Judah Maccabee’s brother) acceptance of the high priesthood as a gift from Alexander Balas in 152 BC proved to be very controversial, since while the Maccabees were priests, they were not of the legitimate Zadokite line and thus had no claim to the office. Furthermore, the office was bequeathed to Jonathan by a pagan ruler whose questionable authority rested in claiming to be the son of the persecutor Antiochus Epiphanes. Most of the ḥasidim however seem to have acquiesced to this settlement when “the yoke of the gentiles was removed from Israel” (1 Maccabees 13:14) in 141 BC, and in the following year a national assembly confirmed the high priesthood and kingship of Simon (aka Thassi, Judah Maccabee’s other brother) and his family “till there should arise a faithful prophet” (1 Maccabees 14:41). For one, the main line of the former high-priestly family of Zadok had already gone to Egypt and installed themselves in a new temple in Leontopolis.

It was during the time of Simon’s son John Hyrcanus that relations between the ḥasidim and the ruling Hasmoneans became completely disrupted. Curiously, it is also the time when the Pharisees begin to appear in the historical record: one theory about the origin of the name Pharisee is that meant ‘separated’ in the sense of one who broke alliance with the Hasmoneans. The Talmud relates a legend about how John Hyrcanus, who once supported the Pharisees, was told off by a Pharisee named Eleazar that he cannot be king and high priest at once and demanded him to give up the office of high priesthood. Hyrcanus naturally took offence at this remark, and, goaded by a Sadducee named Jonathan, began to withdraw his favor away from the Pharisees.

The legend is most likely an over-simplification of the historical fact, but in any case, it is probably certain that until the death of Alexander Jannaeus (who was very anti-Pharisee, even hanging/crucifying 800 Pharisaic rebels at one point) in 76 BC, the Sadducees, who first appear in the records as the party supporting and advising the Hasmoneans, were the party in power and the Pharisees were in opposition. They seem to have enjoyed a miniature golden age during the reign of Jannaeus’ widow, Salome Alexandra, who favored their party. From her time onwards the Pharisees came to have a secure position within within the high council (synedrion in Greek, where we get the word ‘sanhedrin’ from).

When Herod became King of the Judaeans, both the high priest and his council of advisors lost most of their authority, though the Pharisees’ popular prestige increased, because they did not shrink from opposing Herod publicly when the situation called for it. When Herod’s kingdom was broken up among his sons and the tetrarchy of Judaea became a Roman province in AD 6 (after Archelaus, whose share the area formerly was, was deposed for being incompetent), high priest and council resumed control of internal affairs - since Rome preferred an indirect way of rule - though they were directly responsible to the prefect. During the next sixty years the high priests were regularly selected from the wealthy Sadducean families, and these families dominated the high priest’s council. The Pharisees were officially back in the minority, though this time they enjoyed huge popularity among the masses.

Most of the Pharisees were lay teachers (though some were priests), while a good number of the Sadducees were priests (though there would have been some lay members). We do know that some ordinary priests were Pharisees and some aristocratic priests were Sadducees, but for the most part priests and Levites, like much of the population, did not have a specific party affiliation and simply belonged to ‘common’ Judaism.

 

[patrick457]

All of these Jewish leaders read, memorized and studied the Law. They knew what it said. They also spent a lot of time reading and meorizing and studying the statements from earlier Teachers of the Law. It took quite a bit of mind power to get through this program! Unfortunately, these guys got so hung-up on legalism, they lost sight of the God Who Loved them and chose them as His People. That is a problem - and one that Christ did not ignore.

The biggest criticism that the Jewish leaders had for Christ was that He did not keep the Sabbath. Of course things like healing a man born blind or a man with a withered arm were never addressed prior to Chirst. These guys made up laws as they went along - and claiming that they were correct and Christ was wrong. As you will recall, Christ once asked them before He performed a miracle if it was legal to do so - and they refused to answer! (These leaders were duty bound to answer questions about applications of the Jewish Law to any Jew who asked.) And, sure enough - Christ performs an amazing miracle that should have brought them to their knees honoring God - and these guys plot to kill Christ (a clear violation of the Commandments).

Which is kind of funny, since legal interpreters at the time themselves disagreed on what exactly constitutes a violation of the sabbath rest. The Law only says that one should do no “work”: what exactly would fit under this rubric the text never says. The ambiguousness could lend itself to different intepretations: Jesus could very well justify His actions even if others criticize His interpretation of the Text, and He did.

Now I might say that attempting to ‘kill’ Jesus because of His having a different interpretation of the Law is a bit of an overreaction on Pharisees’ part: under normal circumstances disagreements were perfectly natural - in fact, they were in ways welcomed, since they were an occasion for highly-prized scholarly debate - and people did not suddenly try to kill each other for that. I mean really, did the folks whom Jesus encounter have such short tempers and huge egos?

During the sabbath, Jeremiah forbade Jews to carry burdens out of their houses (Jeremiah 17:19-27), which made festive dining very difficult. (Sabbaths were the only days when people could freely socialize, since the demands of daily work were so heavy, and the easiest way for friends and their households to dine together was for each family to bring a cooked dish.) The Pharisees decided that, when several houses were next to each other along an alley or around a court, they could make them all into one ‘house’ by joining them with a series of doorposts and lintels (an eruv). They could then carry pots and dishes from one part of the ‘house’ to another without any worry of breaking the law.

It may all sound like a huge cop-out to us (indeed, some Jews at the time who insisted on a stricter interpretation of the Law would have found this rather lax Pharisaic interpretation to be still a heavy transgression: for them, no matter how you connect different building complexes with each other, they are still separate houses!), but for the Jews, this type of exegesis, which creatively reapplies and recasts Scripture to be relevant to current situations (midrash), was pretty much natural: Jesus and St. Paul themsleves engage in it, and as some argue, even a number of the NT authors.

This type of ‘applied’ exegesis, wherein the point of departure was no longer the Torah itself but contemporary customs and beliefs that the interpreter attempted to connect with and justify using Scripture, was apparently connected with the rise of the Pharisees: since, unlike priests or Levites, the Pharisees were unable to claim authority by reason of hereditary status (such as priests) or high-level professional training (such as the Levitical scribes), one could say that they were obliged to defend their ideas using arguments solidly backed by Scripture. Out of this necessity an exegetical technique of exegesis soon arose which conformed to well-defined rules known as the middot. Although these were often employed in a scholarly demonstration of the validity of traditional exegesis, the middot were principally useful to the interpreter seeking to forge a link between the Torah and oral teachings handed down from previous generations. The written Torah and oral Law (Scripture and Tradition) were together considered to represent authentic Judaism, and upon the fall of the Second Temple efforts were made by the Rabbis (the Pharisees’ spiritual descendants) to amalgamate the Oral and Written Torahs with one another, the end results of course being the Mishnah and the Talmud.

When the Pharisaic sages read Scripture they did not always agree in how to employ ‘applied’ exegesis in different passages: indeed, scholarly debate was so central to the Pharisaic tenet. In debating and disagreeing over the meaning of the Torah or how best to put it into practice, no rabbi felt that he (or his opponent) were in some way rejecting God or threatening Judaism. It was not seen as something divisive, but as a way to grasp the divine will and to imitate God (a rabbinic idea has it that God and the heavenly court are perpetually engaged in Torah study in Heaven).

 

[patrick457]

The establishment and adoption of ‘applied’ halakhah in the different Pharisaic schools created a dichotomy in legal exegesis: as a solution, the rabbis took care to distinguish between the peshat or plain sense, and the darash or derived sense of Scripture. Peshat is by no means always the literal meaning of Scripture: it could very well be ‘pure’ midrash so hallowed by time that it came to be accepted and identified with Scripture itself. Later Rabbinic Judaism further refined these different senses, which is summarized in the acronym PaRDeS (which also serves as a pun for the word pardes ‘orchard’, i.e. ‘paradise’): the literal sense or peshat (“plain”), the allegorical meaning or remez (“hint”), the comparative meaning or darash (“to seek;” cf. midrash), and the mystical meaning or sod (“bone”).

For an example: by the inter-testamental era, the aristocratic Sadducean priests in charge of the Temple apparently were content to follow a literal interpretation of the Scriptures which appeared to confirm them as divinely-appointed leaders of the nation. Not surprisingly, their complacent attitude was rejected by everyone else, each with their own proof-text and ‘applied’ exegesis.

The Pharisees, like most Jews, took the unique sanctity and authority of the Temple for granted, but also considered their home turf the synagogue to be within the sphere of the divine presence or Shekhinah that dwelt in the Temple, using passages like Exodus 20:24: “In every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you.” For the Pharisees this of course did not mean that multiple sanctuaries were being authorized, but rather that the Jews were allowed to worship in more than one place (“In every place where I cause my name to be remembered…”). Of course, the fall of Jerusalem put an end to these Temple polemics, but the idea of God being present wherever as few as ten or even two people (a minyan) are gathered together still remained. The community at Qumran, meanwhile, thought the Temple has become corrupted and temporarily deprived of its holiness due to the wickedness of its priests. Its sanctity and elect status has since been transferred to the group’s supreme institution, the ‘Council of the Community’. Their proof-text for this was Habbakuk 2:17, “The violence done to Lebanon will overwhelm you.” Under the traditional exegesis that “Lebanon” was a symbolic name for the Temple, the author of the Pesher Habbakuk proves his point that the ‘Council of the Community’ is now the true substitute for the Temple in Jerusalem until the city be reconquered from evil hands by identifying the ‘Council’ as “Lebanon.” Christians, meanwhile, believed the Temple to have been effectively supplanted by the community of believers, i.e. the Church, as St. Paul writes:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

(Ephesians 2:11-22 ESV)

 

[patrick457]

Finally, the priests in the Temple of Onias in Egypt contended that their temple is equal in status to that of Jerusalem. Onias IV, the lawful heir of the legitimate high priests, migrated to Egypt after realizing that the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids would not put him in the office of high priesthood, decided to put matters into his own hands by placing himself under the protection of the Seleucids’ political rival, the Ptolemies. About 154 BC, with the permission of Ptolemy VI (Philometor), he built at Leontopolis a temple which, though comparatively small, was modeled on that of Jerusalem. He tried to justify this act by invoking Isaiah 19:18-20. This is how it reads in the Masoretic text (ESV):

In that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD of hosts. One of these will be called the City of Destruction (עִ֣יר הַהֶ֔רֶס ‘îr ha-heres). In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border. It will be a sign and a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt. When they cry to the LORD because of oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and deliver them.

In the Septuagint, however, this is how the text goes:

In that day there shall be five cities in Egypt speaking the language of Chanaan, and swearing by the name of the Lord of hosts; one city shall be called the city of Asedec [from Hebrew עִ֣יר הַצֶּ֔דֶק ‘îr haṣṣeḏeq, “city of righteousness”?]. In that day there shall be an altar to the Lord in the land of the Egyptians, and a pillar to the Lord by its border. And it shall be for a sign to the Lord for ever in the land of Egypt: for they shall presently cry to the Lord by reason of them that afflict them, and he shall send them a man who shall save them; he shall judge and save them.

A connection was thus made between this ‘one city’ in Egypt and Jerusalem because of the fact that Isaiah 1:26 refers to Jerusalem with the very same title of ‘îr haṣṣeḏeq: “…Afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city.”

Understandably, the folks in Judaea are not too keen with this Oniad claim. One of the Qumran scribes and the translator Symmachus the Ebionite chose to read the name as ‘îr ha-ḥeres “city of the sun,” while the Masoretic reading ‘îr ha-heres “city of destruction” (note: the letter he rather than ḥeth) seems to reflect the Pharisaic understanding of the passage soon after the destruction of the Egyptian sanctuary by the Romans in AD 73. It would seem at first that the stance taken was that while worship in the Temple of Onias was illicit, it was not basically wicked (so in the Mishna); however, as time went on, opinion on the subject became much sharper - the Tosefta now saw in that worship a crime worthy of excommunication, and the Targum Isaiah translates the passage as: “the city of Beth Shemesh (House of the Sun) which is destined to be destroyed.” It not only conflates the two readings, but implies the ominous name as pointing to the possible ungodliness of the place.

In my view, Christ was giving them one of many ‘wake up calls’ - their practice of religion was not pleasing to God and they needed to change. The refused Christ’s instruction and went on to murder Christ by using the Roman Empire as their weapon.

I believe this is where we need to properly distinguish who’s who. I’m not saying that we should whitewash whatever faults certain Pharisees (or other parties involved) have had, but to conflate “the Pharisees” (who plotted to kill Jesus, or so the gospels say) and “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” (who arrested Jesus and handed Him over to Pilate) would be kind of like conflating Republicans and Democrats (being not American, I’m pretty sure I muddled that one ), or the Nazis and the Soviets, or Catholics and Protestants.

 

[fred_conty]

The Phar. was a religious leader who sought to keep the letter of the law but didn’t care about the spirit of the law, that is, loving God with their heart. Their idea was take first place in society and be admired. What Jesus really detested about them was that they were mis-leading the people with the law and not teaching them to love God. So the word Pharasee today means to pretend to be one thing while actual being another, or for short, “two faced”.

Just a thought.

 

[patrick457]

The Phar. was a religious leader who sought to keep the letter of the law but didn’t care about the spirit of the law, that is, loving God with their heart. Their idea was take first place in society and be admired. What Jesus really detested about them was that they were mis-leading the people with the law and not teaching them to love God. So the word Pharasee today means to pretend to be one thing while actual being another, or for short, “two faced”.

Just a thought.

That’s really the main disagreement that Jesus had with Pharisees: the interpretation of certain ethical laws and the play-acting of some of their numbers.

The Pharisees were doctrinally a liberal grassroots movement: their foremort concern was how to make the Law, much of which concerns the priestly class (how to perform sacrifices, etc.), relevant to the times and to the common layman. Under the Biblical idea that all Israel is “a kingdom of priests,” the Pharisees encouraged that every Jew act like priests in the Temple by staying pure: avoiding sin and ritual impurity in their daily lives. They believed in a Judaism that extended far beyond the Temple, creatively applying the Law to mundane activities in order to sanctify the every-day world. They emphasized that rituals were not something that is monopolized by an inherited priesthood but rather could be performed by all adult Jews individually or collectively; whose leaders were not determined by birth or social status but by scholarly achievement.

All this is really laudable when properly done IMHO, but this steadfastness towards the Law does lead to a rather elitist, holier-than-thou attitude, which was what Jesus was condemning. (I should add here that Pharisees did not usually impose their rules on non-members, which kind of leads me further to imagine that Jesus happened to meet up with the more rabid, radical folks. )

The Pharisees also tended to embrace theological developments (dare I say ‘innovations’) such as a clearly defined angelology, a belief in reward or punishment after death (depending on one’s deeds in life), and most importantly, the resurrection of the dead at the end of days - all of which their Sadducean rivals (who were somewhat the ‘Old Believers’) apparently rejected.

The commitment to relate religion to daily life through the law has led to the view that they were ‘legalistic’ (cf. the label ‘pharisee’). In fact, some other Jewish groups were much more strict and legalistic than they were: the Sadducean tradition tended to read and interpret the commandments of the Torah in a literal manner, and the Community at Qumran governed themselves through elaborate rules and regulations, some of which are scrupulous to a high degree. In some cases, Pharisaic law was even more lax. It is more accurate to say they were legalistic in a different way than is sometimes implied.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Patrick,

Apparently, ‘work’ was also subject to the practical aspects of day-to-day life in 1st Century Judea. In Luke 14:1-5 we see Christ curing a man with dropsy after first asking if it was leagal to do so. The Pharisees did not answer Him - and it is at this point that He effectively reminds them that pulling out an animal that has fallen into a pit is acceptable - but, curing isn’t? Here is a brief commentary on this passage:

By this example Christ convicts his adversaries, as guilty of sordid avarice, since, in delivering beasts from the danger of perishing on the sabbath-day, they consult only their own advantage, whilst he was only employed in an act of charity towards his neighbour; an action they seemed so warmly to condemn. Ven. Bede.
veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Luke_14

Which is kind of funny, since legal interpreters at the time themselves disagreed on what exactly constitutes a violation of the sabbath rest. The Law only says that one should do no “work”: what exactly would fit under this rubric the text never says. The ambiguousness could lend itself to different intepretations: Jesus could very well justify His actions even if others criticize His interpretation of the Text, and He did.

Now I might say that attempting to ‘kill’ Jesus because of His having a different interpretation of the Law is a bit of an overreaction on Pharisees’ part: under normal circumstances disagreements were perfectly natural - in fact, they were in ways welcomed, since they were an occasion for highly-prized scholarly debate - and people did not suddenly try to kill each other for that. I mean really, did the folks whom Jesus encounter have such short tempers and huge egos?

I am really not sure why you put “Kill” in quotation marks. Are you saying that there was not an organized plot to kill Christ? Here are a couple of references identifying that the Jewish leaders were a murderous group at heart, and just enthuiastic debate team members: Mark 11:18, Matt 21:46, John 10:30, etc. And, we should recall that since the servant is not greater than the Master - Paul’s life was threatened several times by those who came up on the losing side of the debates (here is just one reference: Acts 9:29). Killing one’s debating opponent appears to be not that novel of an apporach.

As to wondering about the, “…short tempers and huge egos…” in my opinion, they had an abundance of both. In fairness to the Jewish leaders (Pharisees only being one of the groups that were singled out by Christ to be used as the ‘Bad Example’) they had never debated anyone like Christ before - He performed miracles right in front of them to prove His point - something they could not do! Of course they felt overwhelmed - God Himself was arguing against them! And, all this was being done in front of the People - and even they (mildly) rebuked the Pharisees by saying that Christ did not teach like they did - He taught with Authority! Now, you know, such a comment must have truly frosted these guys!

But, there is another aspect that shuld also be mentioned: The Jewish Leaders did not want Judiasm to be “fulfilled” by Christ - and personally, I think this was because they saw not only their livlihoods but their entire way of life threatened by such a fulfillment. The Jewish leaders were scared to death that not only could He make drastic changes - but, this is just what He had in Mind! There was no winning a debate with Christ. There was no compromise with Christ. As they saw it, the only option they had to control this ‘out-of-control’ rabbi was to kill Him.

What has always amazed me is that they guys were soooooooo knowledgeable in the written word of Scripture (they knew where the Messiah was to be born and quickly answered Herod’s question) but, they were not able to see that Christ was doing everything that had been foretold. My guess is that God hardened their hearts - but, that is just a personal opinion.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Patrick457,

I am not quite sure which way to go on this in my disagreement with your post… But, here, let me stumble along on this path for a while…

I believe this is where we need to properly distinguish who’s who. I’m not saying that we should whitewash whatever faults certain Pharisees (or other parties involved) have had, but to conflate “the Pharisees” (who plotted to kill Jesus, or so the gospels say) and “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” (who arrested Jesus and handed Him over to Pilate) would be kind of like conflating Republicans and Democrats (being not American, I’m pretty sure I muddled that one ), or the Nazis and the Soviets, or Catholics and Protestants.

Keeping the characters straight is always a good idea, Patrick457 - I just don’t have a lot of detail here. In using the US political parties as an example, it could be said that more Democrates, Republicans and Independents voted for President Obama then for his opponent. My guess is that the Jewish leaders that condemned Christ had the majority of the votes - but, some may have dissented (Nicodemus? Joseph of Aramathea?) All this shows is that majorities can and do make major mistakes. The crowd turned mob that screamed for the release of Barabas and the crucifixion of Christ were the only voices heard by Pilate that day.

I certainly do not want to slander the Jewish leaders - they did hold the Seat of Moses - so lumping them all together would not be either fair or accurate. Not all Germans voted Hitler, yet not only German but the entire world suffered from those election results. Ultimately, the general but unjust perception was that all of Germany - all Germans - were responsible for the evils of WW II. So, if there were Jewish leaders who tried to prevent this abuse of power by the Sanhedrin (and, I am sure there were some) I just do not know about them. But, this ‘miscarriage of justice’ or, this ‘happy fault’ was seen from all eternity by God as His Plan of Salvation for all of us.

My prayer is that those who had any part in the crucifixion, came to a knowledge of the Truth and repented before they died.

God bless

 

[patrick457]

Hi, Patrick,

Apparently, ‘work’ was also subject to the practical aspects of day-to-day life in 1st Century Judea. In Luke 14:1-5 we see Christ curing a man with dropsy after first asking if it was leagal to do so. The Pharisees did not answer Him - and it is at this point that He effectively reminds them that pulling out an animal that has fallen into a pit is acceptable - but, curing isn’t? Here is a brief commentary on this passage:

By this example Christ convicts his adversaries, as guilty of sordid avarice, since, in delivering beasts from the danger of perishing on the sabbath-day, they consult only their own advantage, whilst he was only employed in an act of charity towards his neighbour; an action they seemed so warmly to condemn. Ven. Bede.
veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Luke_14

If a person is ill or injured, but his condition have no sign of worsening until the close of sabbath, are the sabbath laws still applicable to him? One camp argued that it is, the other (the position Jesus takes) argued that they are suspended for his welfare.

As an aside, there is something interesting going on here. I quote from The Missing Jesus: Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament by Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans, Jacob Neusner, etc.

The rhetorical features of many Gospel debates are cast in this mold:

Statement of opponent’s ANALOGOUS legal practice as a question: “Is not this your practice in similar cases to our discussion?”
Conclusion: Therefore you must agree with me to be consistent.

In close detail we see how what is being addressed fits a standard form:

Legal assumption: (a) Something indeed looks problematic and in general your position is right. (b) Here by analogy is why this case is an exception.
Understood Conclusion: We can now both agree that I am correct.

The Pharisiac-Sadducean argument in m. Yad. 4:5 echoes this form precisely. The Sadducees complain about pharisaic practice of not venerating certain scrolls revered by some groups. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai asks them if they do not revere the bones of their own revered High Priest more than they would a donkey’s bones and then provides the argument that they must likewise agree with the pharisaic practice that was challenged. The implicit argument is that the works under discussion (homoros–probably those Torah scrolls used by the ‘foolish’ nation = ho moros of Samaritans) have the value of donkey bones (hamor). Here, aside from the cute phonic similarity, we have the ideal argument form, which was noted above. The Sadducees are given an example from their own revered High Priest, with which they will agree. This clinches the argument.​

“What would you do if your animal fell into a pit on a sabbath?” That’s another issue which the Scriptures are silent about, and which commentators have given different interpretations of. The Community at Qumran, for example, as recorded in the Damascus Document, had some very strict sabbath rules (translation from The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English by Geza Vermes):

No man shall eat on the Sabbath day except that which is already prepared. He shall eat nothing lying in the fields. He shall not drink except in the camp. If he is on a journey and goes down to bathe, he shall drink where he stands, but he shall not draw water into a vessel. He shall send out no stranger on his business on the Sabbath day. No man shall wear soiled garments, or garments brought into the store, unless they have been washed with water or rubbed with incense. No man shall willingly mingle (with others) on the Sabbath.
No man shall walk more than two thousand cubits after a beast to pasture it outside his town. He shall not raise his hand to strike it with his fist. If it is stubborn he shall not take it out of his house.
No man shall take anything out of the house or bring anything in. And if he is in a booth, let him neither take anything out nor bring anything in. He shall not open a sealed vessel on the Sabbath.
No man shall carry perfumes on himself whilst going and coming on the Sabbath. He shall lift neither stone nor dust in his dwelling.
No man minding a child shall carry it whilst going and coming on the Sabbath.
No man shall chide 16. Or: show bitterness to (4Q721, fr. 5 i, 7)] his manservant or maidservant or labourer on the Sabbath. No man shall assist a beast to give birth on the Sabbath day. And if it should fall into a cistern or pit, he shall not lift it out on the Sabbath.

That’s just a small sample of the restrictions, but you get the drift. If Jesus had ever met with these guys (we don’t know if He did)…wow.

The later Rabbis had a more lax view than the Qumran sect, but they themselves are divided whether it is permissible to bring the animal out of the pit - which still puts one at risk of a minor violation in the process - or just to bring provisions to it until it could be rescued after the sabbath (b. Shabb. 128b; b. B. Mes. 32b). From the gospels we could infer that the more lenient version was common in Jesus’ time.

 

[patrick457]

Again, quoting from Andrew Linzey and Dorothy Yamamoto’s Animals on the Agenda: Questions About Animals for Theology and Ethics:

As to the example given in Luke 13.15, it is very much in line with the Mishnah’s interpretation of sabbath law in relation to domestic animals, though not explicitly stated as a rabbinic ruling. The point is that tying and untying knots were defined as two of the types of activity which constituted work and were generally unlawful on the sabbath (m. Shabb. 7.2), but provision for domestic animals was one kind of reason for allowing exceptions (m. Shabb. 15.1-2; cf. b. Shabb. 128a-b; cf. also m. Erub. 2.1-4, where it is taken for granted that cattle are watered on the sabbath).
These exceptions to the prohibition of work on the sabbath are remarkable. They are not cases in which the lives of the animals were in danger, and so they cannot be understood as motivated by a concern to preserve the animals as valuable property. Rather they are acts of compassion, intended to prevent animal suffering. It was only because the law was understood as generally requiring considerate treatment of animals that the sabbath commandment could be interpreted as not forbidding such acts of mercy to animals on the sabbath. Moreover, it is clear that Jesus understood the issue in this way. His argument is that, since his hearers agreed that acts of compassion designed to relieve the suffering of animals are lawful on the sabbath, surely acts of compassion designed to relieve human suffering are also lawful. According to Matthew 12.12-13, rescuing a sheep from a pit on the sabbath is ‘doing good’, and so healing a man’s withered hand on the sabbath is also doing good.
Of course, in all three texts, the law’s requirement of compassion for animals is only the presupposition for the point Jesus is making. But his argument is certainly not merely ad hominem. He is arguing from a presupposition which is really agreed between him and his opponents. Jesus, in his recorded teadching, does not teach compassion for animals. but he places himself clearly within the Jewish ethical and legal tradition which held that God requires the people to treat their fellow-creatures, the animals, with compassion and consideration.

 

[patrick457]

I am really not sure why you put “Kill” in quotation marks. Are you saying that there was not an organized plot to kill Christ? Here are a couple of references identifying that the Jewish leaders were a murderous group at heart, and just enthuiastic debate team members: Mark 11:18, Matt 21:46, John 10:30, etc. And, we should recall that since the servant is not greater than the Master - Paul’s life was threatened several times by those who came up on the losing side of the debates (here is just one reference: Acts 9:29). Killing one’s debating opponent appears to be not that novel of an apporach.

Sure makes you appreciate internet forums, doesn’t it?

Personally, I think that part of the difficulty lies in the accounts themselves. I’m of the opinion that the gospels, especially the Synoptics, should not be read like modern literature, which delves into the inner thoughts of its characters: they tell us about the what, but not the how or why - a common characteristic of much ancient storytelling. We are never told why Judas chose to hand Jesus over; we never read about what was going on in Jesus’ mind. The Jesus story in the Synoptics is also not a linear narrative, but a series of independent pericopes strung together (the Passion narrative is the exception - while it is still composed of different pericopes, the narrative stucture moves in a straightforward chronological fashion). This has the side effect of making the characters appear to have rather ‘flat’, two-dimensional personalities (John’s gospel is the exception here: from a literary POV he is generally more of an engaging writer for the modern reader since he generally gives a more detailed, nuanced portrayal of his characters - no wonder many modern filmmakers and storytellers would choose to draw upon his gospel).

(Yeah, I realize we’ve talked about this before, but to preemptively clear up another misunderstanding: I am not attacking the depth, power and impact that the Scriptures have and had, or at least I think that it shouldn’t be an attack, but just a personal critique of the gospels as literature. Got it? )

E.P. Sanders points this out much better than I ever could (The Historical Figure of Jesus):

The synoptic gospels lack most of the things that we now expect in the story of someone’s life. Looks, personality, character – we know very little. When it comes to the other figures besides Jesus, we are really in the dark. Pilate, curiously, is given touches of character by Matthew and John, but for the most part the other actors are very flat. Peter, we learn, was a little wishy-washy. What was John like? James? We do not know. What about the Pharisees? They appear in a group, denounce Jesus, sometimes are denounced in turn, and disappear. What were they up to? Were they all equally hostile towards Jesus? Where did they go when they disappeared? If they thought that Jesus’ disciples were breaking the sabbath law (Mark 2.24), why did they not lay a charge by reporting them to a priest (who might have fined them by requiring that each bring a sin offering, two birds, when next in Jerusalem)?
Many readers today do not realize how episodic the synoptic gospels are, since Christians have had almost 2000 years to build up a more novelistic view of the events and people in the gospels. Books have been written, movies made, explanations offered. On Sundays numerous priests, pastors and teachers retell some aspect of the gospel account, adding personality and motive. Judas, the disciple who betrayed Jesus, is often depicted as a frustrated zealot who wanted Jesus to lead a revolution, who thought of himself as a great man in Jesus’ kingdom, and who was bitterly angry when he learned that Jesus wanted another sort of kingdom. This gives the story colour and drama. There is nothing in the gospels about Judas’ ambitions at all. Perhaps he realized that Jesus was a marked man and decided to get out when he still could, while also making a profit. One guess is as good as another. Similarly Mary Magdalene has appealed enormously to people who have imagined all sorts of romantic things about her: she had been a prostitute, she was beautiful, she was in love with Jesus, she fled to France carrying his child. For all we know, on the basis of our sources, she was eighty-six, childless, and keen to mother unkempt young men.

Leaving aside that whole disagreement about whether the conflict pericopes are factual or retrojections (i.e. later disputes between Christians and Jews were thrust back into the lifetime of Jesus) for other folks, we do notice a trend underlying these ‘conflict’ stories: the Pharisees are acting rather disproportionately by seeking to take Jesus’ life for such trivial matters. (To answer myself: yep, Jesus apparently did not seem to have much luck with His opponents. ) We could understand potential violence occurring when we are talking about more serious, sensitive stuff, but in contrast to the disagreements Pharisees had with each other and their Sadducean rivals, a good deal of the issues at hand (plucking grain or curing people during sabbaths, washing hands before eating) were fairly minor matters.

 

[patrick457]

As to wondering about the, “…short tempers and huge egos…” in my opinion, they had an abundance of both. In fairness to the Jewish leaders (Pharisees only being one of the groups that were singled out by Christ to be used as the ‘Bad Example’) they had never debated anyone like Christ before - He performed miracles right in front of them to prove His point - something they could not do! Of course they felt overwhelmed - God Himself was arguing against them! And, all this was being done in front of the People - and even they (mildly) rebuked the Pharisees by saying that Christ did not teach like they did - He taught with Authority! Now, you know, such a comment must have truly frosted these guys!

Miracles by itself is not a sign of uniqueness at that time, since the Jews believed that righteous and holy men who were particularly close to God could ‘influence’ the divine will and perform signs and wonders in His name. We don’t know the names of any miracle-workers active during Jesus’ lifetime, but we do have records of some who came before or after Him: the rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, who healed the son of the famous rabbi Gamaliel vicariously, and Honi/Onias the Circle Drawer, who was perceived to be so close to God that he is on highly familiar terms with Him; God in turn seems to do whatever Honi asks (according to the story preserved in the Mishna, the Pharisaic scholar Simeon ben Shetach called Honi up and told him that “if you were not Honi I would decree a ban upon you. But what shall I do to you, for you act like a spoiled child before God and He does your will for you, like a son who acts like a spoiled child with his father and he does his will for him?”). Honi’s fame in particular was such that even Josephus, who was usually extremely skeptical about ‘miracle-workers’, considered him a “righteous man” and a “beloved of God.” Of course, that’s not counting charlatans, magicians (who differed from miracle-workers in that they did not perform wonders because of any relationship with a deity and following a fixed set of techniques to perform, rather than being ‘autonomous’ and spontaneous) and people who claimed to be wonderworkers but never got to perform any miracle - usually because they were killed off (some messianic claimants like Theudas or the unnamed Egyptian guy falls under this category).

A study of non-Christian literature would show that the miracles attributed to Jesus were not greatly different from those attributed to other Jews in the same general period. People who saw Honi or Hanina only concluded that their prayers were effective. Those who saw the exorcist named Eleazar (Antiquities 8.45-49) using a herb and a ring concluded only that he had access to the wisdom of Solomon, considered in folklore to be the exorcist par excellence. All in all, people did not doubt that Jesus was a miracle-worker, but this alone did not move all of them to become followers or to conclude that He was God’s final Spokesman. The miracles proved nothing to most Galileans beyond the fact that He was a holy man on intimate terms with God (which wasn’t that exceptional); with His enemies, on the other hand, thinking that He was on intimate terms with the devil. (Sure makes you appreciate Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ in contrast to public opinion: it took a huge leap of faith to do that one, and Jesus Himself says so.) The effect that Jesus’ miracles had on His disciples seems to have been no greater, or not much greater, than their effect on other people: at least it did not stop them from abandoning Jesus when He was arrested. It took the greatest - and most unlikely in many ways - miracle, the Resurrection, to persuade them and set them on fire.

But, there is another aspect that shuld also be mentioned: The Jewish Leaders did not want Judiasm to be “fulfilled” by Christ - and personally, I think this was because they saw not only their livlihoods but their entire way of life threatened by such a fulfillment. The Jewish leaders were scared to death that not only could He make drastic changes - but, this is just what He had in Mind! There was no winning a debate with Christ. There was no compromise with Christ. As they saw it, the only option they had to control this ‘out-of-control’ rabbi was to kill Him.

What has always amazed me is that they guys were soooooooo knowledgeable in the written word of Scripture (they knew where the Messiah was to be born and quickly answered Herod’s question) but, they were not able to see that Christ was doing everything that had been foretold. My guess is that God hardened their hearts - but, that is just a personal opinion.

God bless

I’m planning to write about the ‘Messianic expectation’ in 1st century Judaism next. Stay tuned.

 

[Julia_Mae]

In Mark 7:9-13 NASB Jesus says to the Pharisees and the scribes:

“You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘ Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘ He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

I think what He said is just straightforward: the Pharisees were stealing the money that the son would give to help his parents. No retirement in those days, no welfare, the son’s help to his parents was extremely important. Jesus refers to the Law to show how very important it is and how it is the true Law, while the Pharisees just made up something to get what they wanted.

BUT - I think He is also implying that the Pharisees, by preventing the man from honoring his parents, are worthy of death under their own Law.

Jesus had the chance to stand by while the Law was carried out when the woman was caught in adultery. I think we know from that what His reaction would be to anyone trying to kill their child for being lazy and drunken.

 

[patrick457]

BTW, here’s a nice quote from Ben Witherington (The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth):

In the course of this book we will see that Jesus and the Pharisees had many things in common and certain notable differences. Both Jesus and the Pharisees were deeply concerned about the Jewish people and focused their ministries on those who lived within the land. Neither set out to convert Gentiles on other lands. Jesus’ activities seem to have been mostly centered in Galilee, while the Pharisees’ activities seem to have been predominantly centered in Judea. Unlike the Qumran sectarians, neither Jesus nor the Pharisees believed that withdrawal into the desert from a corrupt society to wait for its imminent end was the way forward. Rather, both Jesus and the Pharisees saw it as their task, borrowing a phrase from my own Wesleyan heritage, to “spread Scriptural holiness throughout the land.”
In other words, Jesus and the Pharisees were concerned with the renewal and redemption of the Jewish people, who under foreign occupation had become acculturated, tainted and in some cases even lost. The Jesus tradition is quite explicit as this point, stating that Jesus was sent specifically to the “lost sheep of Israel” (Mt 15:24), though whether this meant all Israel or the lost among Israel has been debated.
It seems clear however that Jesus and the Pharisees disagreed on who was lost and needed redemption and who did not, and perhaps even about who was redeemable. They also disagreed on the proper means for hallowing or sanctifying God’s people. The Pharisees seem to have wanted all of Israel to become like Levitical priests, keeping all the purity laws, both ritual and moral, as found in the Levitical code in the Old Testament. Jesus’ view of holiness and purity seems to have been rather different.
Another striking similarity between Jesus and the Pharisees was that they shared some common theological beliefs regarding angels, resurrection and new oral teachings not found explicitly in the Torah. They seem to have agreed that the Torah was the foundation of their Jewish faith and that there was a need for fresh, even novel, interpretation of it, as well as the addition of some teachings it did not explicitly contain. Yet Jesus was perceived as a threat by some of the Pharisees because he refused to accept their oral expansions of the Torah at various points calling these oral traditions the traditions of humans and not the Word of God.
The Pharisees "by claiming to have the correct interpretation and ability to explain (and expand) the law according to oral tradition to meet new situations, … asserted implicit and sometimes explicit authority over all Jewish people. Not surprisingly, they did not easily tolerate anyone who threatened the assumptions upon which that authority was based.” Jesus presented a threat because he claimed that his authority came directly from God, not through the accumulated knowledge of human oral traditions.
Apparently, neither Jesus nor the Pharisees were committed to going the route of the Zealots in advocating armed resistance and the ultimate violent overthrow of the occupying forces. This does not mean that either Jesus or the Pharisees were quietistic and advocated total withdrawal from the fray, like the Qumran sectarians, nor does it mean that their teachings had no social or political implications. Rather, both Jesus and the Pharisees believed that the way forward was to renew or redeem the populace as a means of changing the social situation in the land and create a holy community. But what amounted to holiness? What did God require of the chosen people in this new situation? How were they to react to the inroads of Hellenization and Romanization, of Greco-Roman culture? On these subjects Jesus and the Pharisees disagreed, indeed they disagreed strongly.
Jesus bound his followers to himself, and it was his person, his teaching and his actions that were the essence and heart of the matter. For the Pharisees, no one teacher, scribe or, in later days, rabbi had this function. Nor did any one set of teachings by one Pharisee ever assume the status that the Jesus tradition did for his followers. In anticipation of later discussion, I would suggest it is because the Jesus movement was a messianic one that believed and consciously acted on the assumption that God’s dominion was already breaking into the midst of God’s people in the person and work of Jesus.
Some Pharisees might have believed that they were preparing the way for the end times, not unlike the way John the Baptist seems to have done, but they did not have the sort of realized eschatology that we find in the teachings of Jesus and his followers. The Pharisees did not see themselves as inaugurating a new covenant, but rather they were bent on fully implementing the old Mosaic one.

 

[De_Maria]

Tim and Tom, I think I am with you: so the Pharisees would have been less hypocritical if they would have just been stoning their children when they curse their parents like the Law says. Thanks!

Tim and Tom, I think we have just been victimized by a loaded question. Let me ask you another, “have you ever stopped beating your wives?”

Well, GMST, the fact is that Jesus was not focusing on the stoning of children but on the respecting of Parents. Jesus didn’t say, “hey, you guys are getting around the law requiring the stoning of your children.” He said, “hey, you guys are getting around the law requiring you to take care of your parents.”

So, the answer to your question is, “No, Jesus was not advocating the stoning of children.”

Sincerely,

De Maria