HOW TO BE A PHARISEE

The loyalty of the Pharisees was to God's law and their concern was for personal holiness.

During the time of Ezra and Nehemiah they contended for God's law of separation, especially in barring heathen from the rebuilt temple and opposing intermarriage with pagans. In fact, the name Pharisee means "the separated ones."

During the intertestimental period when Jerusalem was under Greek control, many Jews went along with the pagan program. Through the practice of the Jewish religion was outlawed, the Pharisees resisted even if it meant their death.

However, over a period of four hundred years the Pharisees went from being heroes to hypocrites. How did it happen?

At first the Pharisees emphasized piety and devotion to God. Gradually they developed their own distinctives. They were so careful to avoid breaking God's commandments that they built a fence around them.

They added 248 commandments and 365 prohibitions to insure they did not even approach the original ten.

They did not demand that everyone adopt their personal convictions, but in time a narrowness developed. They began to feel their way was best. In time this led to an unbalance. They came to believe their way was not only best; it was the only way.

Their traditions became laws. Gradually there was a shift away from the spirit of God's law to the letter of their law. Godliness was now measured by external compliance to their rules. Those who did not conform were not accepted within the sect.

The Pharisees put the emphasis on externals. They wore special clothing to attract attention to themselves. Jesus declared that everything they did was for show (Matthew 23:5). They were proud of their spirituality (Luke 18:11) and rigid in their positions. A loss of reality developed.

They emphasized nonessentials, making the Sabbath a burden instead of a delight. They counted out the herbs of their garden in order to pay tithe, but actually they were very materialistic.

Jesus knew that they loved their money (Luke 16:14). It was best not to get involved in a business deal with them.

In fact the strongest language Jesus ever used was directed against the Pharisees. He said they were hypocrites not practicing what they preached (Matthew 23:3). Jesus was not impressed with their strictness. In their zeal to keep their rules they were breaking God's law (Matthew 15:3).

What was once a movement toward holy living had become a dead institution. By the days of Jesus, the Pharisees were the scribes; the professional religious people of that day. They probably did not number over 6000. The perception of the day was that they were holy people, but the common people felt it was impossible to live that strict and be part of the real world.

It was an option open only to the clergy. Their legalism became a barrier that actually led to the damnation of those who fell under their influence (Matthew 23:15). While the people of Palestine could be divided into six or seven religious denominations, 90% of the people did not identify with any group.

Jesus never broke the law of God, but He made no effort to observe the traditions of the Pharisees. It was the Pharisees who cried out, "We have a law" (John 19:7). Their law crucified the Messiah. The spirit of legalism will always kill spiritual life.

The eighteenth century Wesleyan revival was a revival of piety and godliness. However, Wesley said

Nor do we desire to be distinguished by actions, customs, or usages of an indifferent nature. Our religion does not lie in doing what God has not enjoined or abstaining from what God has not forbidden.

Wesley went on to say a Christian is one who has the love of God shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost given unto him. The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, which were concerns of Jewish legalism. Christianity is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17).

In time, however, holiness became institutionalized. In the late nineteenth century Beverly Caradine observed

No one can recall the gentleness, patience, long suffering, humility, sweetness, and perfect love which characterized the Holiness Movement some years back and now see what is preached in numerous quarters and by many individuals and churches.

There was not a division that we recall among them. There was no strife about non- essential doctrines; no breaking into sets and cliques with watchwords, modes of worship and exclusive ways and teachings peculiar to some school or following.

There was no ugly spirit nor unkind speech over honest differences of opinion upon matters that do not effect the soul's salvation and entrance into heaven.

As we look around today and see the splits and divisions and the lack of brotherly love among professors of holiness, we feel forced to say, as the dying mother of Israel said, "The glory is departed" [quoted by J. M. Hames, The Glory Departed].

Today they gather in conventions to brag upon themselves. They refer to themselves as "God's choice saints," but their hypocrisy is a barrier to the salvation of their children. They emphasize the tradition they are committed to keeping, but they have little grasp of Church history.

Certainly we should respect the creeds of the early church councils. We should be humbled and challenged by the tradition passed on to us by martyrs, missionaries, scholars, pastors, and evangelists. This does not mean, however, that we are under any obligation to perpetuate the idiosyncracies of a small subculture.

At one time in America, Methodism was the dominant religion. During a 17 year period around the time of the founding of the United States our population increased 75%. During that same period Methodism grew 5500%. Today the entire holiness movement in America amounts to about 1% of the population. The conservative holiness movement of today represents about 0.6% of the larger holiness movement or 0.0075% of the American population.

While they continue to subdivide and separate from each other they are making no impact upon American society.

Make no mistake, we are to keep God's commandments. This obedience is a mark of salvation (1 John 5:2). However, His commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3). It is possible to maintain all the rules of the modern Pharisees and yet not be born again.

We are still saved by grace through faith. Ultimately it is not what we do, but what He has done that justifies us.

A. J. Smith went to China as a missionary and while there experienced the new birth. In 1953 he wrote in Bible Holiness and the Modern, Popular, Spurious

You may not go to the show, but you have fits of anger, that shows you are unsaved no matter what you profess.

You don't go to the ball games, but you slander your neighbor and speak evil of others. You do not drink, smoke or clew, but you have idols in your heart, which shows God is not first in your life.

You do not curse, but are mean and ugly to wife, husband, or children. You do not use "make up" but you make up for it by being proud over your plain clothes and more so than others who make no such a high profession over their latest styles.

It is possible that you are more proud over the fact that you do not wear a necktie, than others are who wear them.

Sometimes people become ultra-conservative in one area of their life to compensate for their defeat in another area. Here are three guidelines that will help maintain the Pharisaical tradition:

1. Fill in where the Bible is silent and then preach your notions as Bible truth. Most people do not know the Bible well. They will accept what you say as gospel and despair of ever becoming a Christian.

2. It is not necessary to keep God's law so long as you keep man's rules. The more rules the better. Eventually you can develop a discipline so strict that you are the only one qualified to be the potentate. If anyone notices your inconsistences, accuse them of compromise and separate from them.

3. Always put the emphasis upon human achievement and never mention God's grace. Preach you experience (highly edited, of course). Give the impression that the stricter the better. Say little about Christ or the cross.

I wonder which commandments he is talking about?

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, this is the first and gratest commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and prophets (Matt.22:36-40)

See also Rom.13:8-10

The bible further defines what love of God is and love of neighbor is. Love of God is keeping the first four of the ten commandments. Love of our neighbor is keeping the last six. The new convenent writes those laws into our hearts.

Well, here's a guy who uses a lot of words to say remarkably little.

Worse, he avoids the real question: On what basis does a church say "no" to this, and "yes" to that, without falling prey to the Pharisaical dangers he's warning us about?

He doesn't really tell us anything that helps us address it.

These things always swing from extreme to extreme. The denunication of pharasaism in this essay has planted within it the hard unmistakable seeds of "holier than thou" self-righteousness of its own.

Liberal churches are filled with orchards of such trees bearing self-righteousness of a different species but of the same deadly taste. Search their affirmations and you will find them exulting in the self-righteousness of "tolerance" and "nonjudgmentalism" as they embrace and celebrate lawlessness and gross sexual deviancy and imagine themselves holier than the fundamentalists they despise because of it.

The more things change . . .

This probably strikes more of a chord with those of us who grew up through the "Holiness" movement. What unfortunately happened, as Reasoner points out was that certain forms were adopted - don't drink, don't smoke, don't swear, don't dance, women don't cut their hair, women don't wear pants, etc., etc. and those were equated with "holiness" when that's not at all the holiness God calls us to. Unfortunately many in the holiness movement still live and die by these outward signs.

But I disagree with the author when he says While they continue to subdivide and separate from each other they are making no impact upon American society.

We just have to look at The Salvation Army alone to see the error in that statement. In the first few weeks at Ground Zero, the Chaplain there, the one that prayed with the firefighters as bodies were removed, was a Salvation Army officer. I am personally acquainted with the former General of the Army. He relayed a story of one Sally worker at Ground Zero. She was standing there, taking a break. A rescue worker came up to her and said, "I've never believed in God. I feel like I need to pray, but I don't know how. Do you know how to pray?" The SA worker said, "yes I do and prayed with the worker and shared the gospel."

There are many other examples. Yes, there's been a lot of hurt in the name of "holiness." But not from those who grasp the real message of the movement.

Christian Holiness Partnership

We are still saved by grace through faith"

I do not understand your comment on this. Do you not believe we are saved by 'grace through faith' (Eph.2:8)?

Hmmm, probably is against water baptism too. "JUST BELIEEEEEEVE! Nothin' else!"

Do you believe you need 'water baptism' to be saved?

Laughable.

Not if you are denying that salvation is through faith and faith alone! That is how one is saved, trusting soley on the finished work of Christ (Rom.3:25)

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, this is the first and gratest commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and prophets (Matt.22:36-40) The bible further defines what love of God is and love of neighbor is. Love of God is keeping the first four of the ten commandments. Love of our neighbor is keeping the last six. The new convenent writes those laws into our hearts.

No new convenant is written on the Christian's heart. That is a promise made to Israel (Heb.8:8, Jer.31:31) for the Millnennial reign of Christ.

On the contrary, the Christian is commanded to remain under the control of the Holy Spirit, to 'yield to him' and not to sin (Rom.6:16,19) and to grow from being a 'babe in Christ' to an adult by going from the milk (1Pet 2:2) to meat (Heb.5:14) of the word of God.

Just believeing, nothing else, is right. And a person who believes, who is a born again washed in the blood of Jesus Christ christian will be obvious to the world because they keep the commandments because they are saved not to get saved. Keeping the commandments out of obedience, gratitude, and love means is a whole different concept then keeping them out of fear of hell or to get a reward and that difference shows in peoples lives.

Becky

>Liberal churches are filled with orchards of such trees bearing self-righteousness of a different species but of the same deadly taste.

I agree. But Conservative churches are filled with orchards of such trees bearing self-righteousness of a different species but of the same deadly taste. While they are not as "tolerant" at Liberal churches, they tend to be full of cock-sure answers, self-assured holyness and rightousness which often has no Biblical basis.

Well, here's a guy who uses a lot of words to say remarkably little. Worse, he avoids the real question: On what basis does a church say "no" to this, and "yes" to that, without falling prey to the Pharisaical dangers he's warning us about? He doesn't really tell us anything that helps us address it.

Well, I must disagree. I think he does sum up the issue nicely. A Christian does not need a list of do's and don'ts, he needs to learn the words of God (see the articles posted 'Up With Preaching' and 'Return to the Bible')

The list of 'do's and don'ts are good for babes who do not know any better, but one needs to grow out of that stage and see why things are wrong and get to the root of the issue.

Scripture emphasizes the need of Love in everything the Christian does (1Cor.13) and Faith (Rom.14:23). The mature Christian must always be asking if what he is doing has both those elements.

'Pharisees' do neither.

No new convenant is written on the Christian's heart. That is a promise made to Israel (Heb.8:8, Jer.31:31) for the Millnennial reign of Christ.
On the contrary, the Christian is commanded to remain under the control of the Holy Spirit, to 'yield to him' and not to sin (Rom.6:16,19) and to grow from being a 'babe in Christ' to an adult by going from the milk (1Pet 2:2) to meat (Heb.5:14) of the word of God.

Christians are part of spiritual Israel.

In Romans 11, Paul compares Israel to natural branches of God's promises and gentiles as branches "grafted" on to that promise.

When Jesus said the "whole law" and the prophets hang up on the law of love, he was referring to the 10 commandments.

Paul understood this concept:

2Co 3:3 Being manifested, that you are the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, and written: not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God: not in tables of stone but in the fleshly tables of the heart.

He clearly made a comparasion between the letters written on the tables of stone with God's finger, the 10 commandments, to letters written in our hearts by God.

Though I do agree that there will be a thousand year kingdom and that the law will be at that time written in everyones heart.

On what basis does a church say "no" to this, and "yes" to that, without falling prey to the Pharisaical dangers he's warning us about?

The authors intent is plain. He does not want anyone criticizing anything for fear they will be considered a Pharisee. Typical Liberal tilt. No answers to any position only condemnation of those who take a position.

Scripture emphasizes the need of Love in everything the Christian does (1Cor.13) and Faith (Rom.14:23). The mature Christian must always be asking if what he is doing has both those elements.

Well and good. But from the perspective of a church, love and faith are the means by which one discerns a "yes" or a "no." Thus, Paul can preach faith and love in one place, and cast certain factions or people out of the church in no uncertain terms.

As a practical example, suppose that representative of some activist group -- the homosexual agenda folks are very active these days, as are the labyrinth crowd -- come into your church and begin agitating for their particular agenda.

The primary purpose of Churches is to safeguard and propagate Right Teaching, and to protect church doctrine. It implies not just faith and love, but also a set of rules to which the church adheres.

When confronted by activists, your church will have to say either yes or no. The question is: how does a church walk the fine line between pharisaism on the one hand, and abject surrender on the other?

The article is strangely silent on the matter.

Yes, there's been a lot of hurt in the name of "holiness." But not from those who grasp the real message of the movement.

Honestly, I think that next to no one in the Holiness movement in general, and perhaps a handful in the Conservative Holiness movement, have any real grasp of the message. Check out www.fwponline.cc, the website of the Fundamental Wesleyan Society, and the articles in the Armininian Magazine index page there, to see what I mean.

I think the Holiness movement lost sight of its message around the time it shifted the emphasis from Wesleyan entire sanctification that perfects us in love, to that of a second-blessing baptism in the Holy Spirit that enables us not to sin--the privilege of any Christian worthy of the name (see 1 Jn. 2:1, 3:7-10, 5:18, etc.).

But I have to say, the Salvation Army is probably the only one that still gets the message straight, at least as an organization. "Soap, Soup, and Salvation!"

These things always swing from extreme to extreme. The denunication of pharasaism in this essay has planted within it the hard unmistakable seeds of "holier than thou" self-righteousness of its own. Liberal churches are filled with orchards of such trees bearing self-righteousness of a different species but of the same deadly taste. Search their affirmations and you will find them exulting in the self-righteousness of "tolerance" and "nonjudgmentalism" as they embrace and celebrate lawlessness and gross sexual deviancy and imagine themselves holier than the fundamentalists they despise because of it.

The writers of the 'Arminian Magazine' seem to be conservative (so far as I can tell). They are decrying the departure of the Churches away from Scripture.

I would agree that 'liberalism' is as judgemental as any Pharisee. That is because they have rejected (like the Pharisee) the words of God, which is the only thing that can keep one humble and bearing 'fruit' (Gal.5:22-25).

The danger from being a Pharisee is that doctrinally they may be correct. The Pharisee's were far more 'biblical' then the Saducees or Herodians (believing in Angels, the Resurrection, Hell, Heaven, etc) but they had denied the most important thing-love (Mat.23:23,1Cor.13).

Now, when I say love, I do not mean 'sentimentality' but love that comes from the power of the Holy Spirit controlling your life (Rom.6:16)

The more things change . . .

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be, and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun (Ecc.1:9)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.