Teachers: The objective of this lesson is to reveal that one of the groups who listened to Jesus were people who accepted scripture as God's word and had a deep faith in God. However, their emphases and expectations disagreed with God's purposes. What God intended in addressing evil in human existence and what they concluded God intended did not agree. The Pharisees' expectations failed to reflect God's purposes. While this group was devoutly religious, they were also Jesus' fierce opponents.
Today the Pharisees are victimized by our ignorance and prejudice. Not every Pharisee was "a bad person." Nicodemus was a Pharisee (John 3:1). Not all Pharisees shared the same convictions and perspectives. The school of Hillel taught divorce could occur for virtually any reason. The school of Shammai taught divorce could occur only if there was unchastity.
Students need a clear understanding of this fact: some Pharisees had good hearts and open minds. Though they were conditioned by the group's focus, these individuals saw in Jesus something the group failed to see. For example, Nicodemus acknowledged to Jesus he understood Jesus was a teacher sent by God (John 3:2). The Pharisees were a very diverse group, and the subgroups within the Pharisees often reflected contrasting perspectives [as do we].
The Pharisees' roots reached back to a time long before Jesus' birth. Their roots were in a movement that challenged Israel to return to the "old paths" [their term]. This movement powerfully resisted the cultural transitions that began [socially and religiously] in the period between the Old and New Testaments. These people were grieved because Israel's cultural and religious identity were redefined by the changes occurring during that four hundred year period.
A widely accepted conclusion is the Pharisees originated from the Hasidim. The Hasidim were deeply disturbed because Israel, during the intertestamental period, was moving far away from Israel's ancient teachings and practices. Those teachings and practices had to be restored if Israel was to return to God's ways. The Pharisees held and emphasized the same concerns. This concern is reflected in the Pharisees' view of scripture, their emphasis on ceremonial purity, their emphasis on Leviticus' dietary laws (chapter 11), and their emphasis on Sabbath violations.
The Pharisees believed scripture was God's inspired word. To them, divine authority existed in two forms. The first was the written word Christians commonly refer to as the Old Testament. The second they called "the oral law." The oral law [in theory] was handed down from Israel's ancient past. Religious leaders of one generation communicated the oral law to the religious leaders of the next generation. The purpose of the oral law was to apply written scripture to circumstances and situations not specifically addressed by Old Testament scripture. To the Pharisees, scripture was God's living word. It addressed all situations in every age.
The Pharisees regarded scripture to be God's word. They declared scripture was "living." They meant scripture was applicable to the situations and circumstances of every age. Scripture was always relevant. It only needed to be correctly applied to situations and circumstances.
Consider an example of the intended relationship between written scripture and the oral law. Written scripture declared Israel was to keep the Sabbath (Saturday) holy by not working (Exodus 20:8-11). To obey that written law, "work" must be defined. The oral law defined work. It divided work into categories and provided regulations within each category. The oral law did not intend to change the written law. If the written law and the oral law conflicted, the written law should be obeyed.
The functional purpose of the oral law was to apply scripture. Since they considered their interpretations and applications as correctly reflecting written scripture's intent, their interpretations and applications carried the authority of written scripture. Unfortunately [as is still true among us], the Pharisees often considered their interpretations and applications to be scripture itself.
Matthew [the gospel written to Jewish readers] stressed Jesus' use of written scripture in his discussions with Pharisees. Most disagreements between Jesus and the Pharisees did not concern written scripture. Most concerned the emphasis in or the applications of the oral law.
Jesus often appealed to the Pharisees' recognized source of authority when they verbally attacked him or his teachings. Do not assume Jesus' tone and attitude when such confrontations occurred. In most instances [publicly], the Pharisees initiated the confrontation. When they attacked, Jesus tried to teach. Jesus tried to teach them until his earthly life was almost over. Matthew 23 occurred near Jesus' death.
The Pharisees intended to keep the Jews close to written scripture. Their purpose was to lead Israel back to scripture. Their mission was to declare and protect the meaning of the law.
The Pharisees viewed Jesus' rejection of some of their interpretations and applications as an attack on scripture itself. They considered their interpretations and applications to be a correct attempt to preserve scripture and its authority.
The Conflict
The gospels declare many Pharisees opposed Jesus. Some Pharisees followed Jesus and the twelve in an attempt to catch them breaking the law (Matthew 12:1,2). Some verbally attacked Jesus and the twelve for violating established Jewish tradition (Matthew 15:1,2). Some accused Jesus of violating the Sabbath by working (Matthew 12:9-14). Some declared Jesus obtained his power from Satan (Matthew 12:24). Some tried to trap Jesus in his teachings (Matthew 22:15). Some supported the plan to kill Jesus "for the good of the nation" (John 11:46-50).
The Pharisees did not consider their opposition to Jesus as opposition to God. They regarded Jesus to be in opposition to God.
Carefully consider. This group held a deep faith in God. They believed written scripture was the inspired, living word of God. They believed scripture addressed every situation in every age. They were committed to challenging Israel to return to "the old paths." They demanded obedience to God's will. Jewish society recognized them as the interpreters of God's word.
How could those things be true, and they be in conflict with Jesus? What in their religious focus did Jesus oppose?
Jesus' opposition
They considered themselves to be the enforcers of God's laws. As experts in the teachings of scripture, their responsibility was to demand compliance, not to be an example. The position of informed expert easily can become the position of judge. The informed expert exists to teach. The judge exists to condemn others' failures. Jesus said they considered themselves to be God's enforcers. They had little intention of applying their knowledge to their own lives.
In their personal list of priorities, receiving honor for themselves from others was more important than causing others to give God honor. They used knowledge of God's word to glorify themselves rather than to glorify God.
John the baptizer taught that the kingdom would be revealed in the immediate future (Matthew 3:2). Jesus also taught the kingdom would exist in the immediate future (Matthew 10:1-7). Jesus' teachings often dealt with the coming kingdom's nature. What God intended in the kingdom and what Israel expected in the kingdom were quite different. As an example, consider the kingdom parables of Matthew 13. The Pharisees rejected and opposed Jesus' kingdom concepts and teachings. Because they were experts in the scriptures, they were in a position to understand Jesus' teachings. Yet, they opposed those teachings. They also closed the minds of many who heard Jesus.
Among the Jews were proselytes. These people, who were not Jewish by birth, had converted to Jewish teachings. In this conversion process, converts were taught perspectives, values, concepts, and emphases that distorted God's concerns and purposes. The end result: these converts were further from God after conversion than before conversion.
In their applications and interpretations of scripture, the Pharisees created and gave authority to artificial distinctions. In ages when written contracts were rare in the daily transactions of common people, oaths served as verbal contracts affirming honesty and integrity in the agreement. An oath served the purpose of a handshake in our past society. The oath declared, "This is the truth. It is honest. What I said is trustworthy." The artificial distinctions approved the abuse of oaths. Through artificial distinctions, an oath could be transformed into an instrument of deceit.
Mint, dill, and cummin were grown in small quantities for seasoning food. The Pharisees stressed the importance of giving God ten percent of every blessing or benefit. The tithe acknowledged God is the source of all blessings. The Pharisees emphasized tithes must be given without fail even in small blessings. While they emphasized small details in people's relationship with God, they ignored God's serious concerns about people's relationship with people: justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Jesus agreed concern for details in a person's relationship with God was good. However, concern for details in that relationship could not and must not be substituted for a commitment to God's basic concerns in human relationships: (a) doing what is fair and right; (b) being merciful; and (c) being trustworthy.
The Pharisees emphasized external appearances [easily done if ceremonial purity is the criteria] instead of internal conditions and realities. [Ceremonial purity concerned the teachings that stressed physical acts that made a person "clean" or "unclean." For examples, see Leviticus 12-15.] Jesus declared that external purity should reflect internal realities. When the emphasis is on a person's internal purity [heart, mind, and conscience, motives, values], his or her external acts and behavior will reflect that purity. The Pharisees' emphasis created the conviction that external appearances were more important than internal realities.
Also read Matthew 15:7-9 and 22:15-22. Be very careful. Our common concept and definition of hypocrisy do not address the Pharisees' problem. They were devout. They "practiced what they preached" in standards of ceremonial purity, dietary laws, and Sabbath day regulations. In many matters they lived by their convictions. Their hypocrisy was not a shallow pretense of religious conviction practiced to deceive other people. Their hypocrisy presented, upheld, and defended distorted perspectives of scripture that perverted godly values. Their hypocrisy misrepresented God. They claimed to represent God and His will better than anyone else. But the truth was that they blinded people to God. A person converted by the typical Pharisee was in worse spiritual condition after his or her conversion.
Help students clearly distinguish between today's typical concept of hypocrisy [a shallow religious pretense maintained to deceive others' opinion of you] and Jesus' rejection of the Pharisees' behavior and attitude [misrepresenting God and His teachings in a manner that perverts God's concerns, purposes, and emphases].
Jesus also said:
The righteousness of Jesus' followers must go beyond the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. This was more than merely "knowing more than they know." It was more than merely "out performing them." It was a matter of focusing on God's intents and purposes.
They refused to see and acknowledge the obvious. In context, when Jesus cast out demons, they refused to glorify God. Instead, they asked Jesus to prove God enabled him to cast demons out. Failing to see God at work in Jesus was evil. Giving Satan credit for God's act was spiritually adulterous.
The influence of the Pharisees' teachings produced evil, not godliness.
Israel's understanding of how God blessed, supported a materialistic attitude. The Pharisees loved money [material prosperity] as did many other Israelites.
In this parable, the Pharisee focused on "I" and "what I have done." He was the center of his prayer. God was unimpressed and unresponsive. The Pharisee left the temple area with all his sins. His prayer was to himself about what he considered to be his own goodness.
Representatives of the Pharisees listened to Jesus teach and witnessed his miracles frequently. Few people had more opportunity to see the evidences of God's work in Jesus' life than did they. Yet, what most of them "heard" was considered lies, not God's teachings. What most of them "saw" was Satan's power, not God's power. Most of them "saw" the evidences of evil, not the evidences of godliness.
They listened with prejudiced ears and saw with prejudiced eyes. They often were part of Jesus' audience, but rarely to learn, often to dispute or verbally attack.
A few Pharisees recognized Jesus as a man from God, but most did not. Pharisees, by choice, were present in most audiences who heard Jesus and witnessed his miracles.
Even Israelites acknowledged many of the Pharisees had a questionable spiritual influence. The Talmud wrote of the "shoulder" Pharisees who paraded their religious duties on their shoulders; the "delaying" Pharisees who asked people to wait while they went to do a good deed; the "bruised" Pharisees who walked into walls to avoid looking at women; the "pestle" Pharisees who walked with heads bowed in a false sense of humility; the "what is my duty" Pharisees who asked that question to get others to extol their virtues; and the admirable Pharisees who, like Abraham, loved God.
Link to Student Guide
Quarter 1, Lesson 3