HOW TO BE A PHARISEE

Holy smokes....oh my what a post this was. Okay, first off....PLEASE, I am still shocked at the idea so many seem to have, that man somehow is able to "change himself." No, I am sorry, this can ONLY COME FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT. Take your man-centered salvation and go off in your little corner, because I won't stand for it.

Would you agree that repentence is necessary?

This Calvinist is going to keep his mouth shut at least for now...lol. I will say you are exactly right that without repentance, there can be NO SALVATION. But, repentance comes natural I think in the process as well. You can't truly believe Jesus is the Son of God and not repent of your sins when you think of what he did on that Cross. The two are definitely linked.

Cough, cough, now the question is....how could any of this happen without the Holy Spirit intervening first? cough cough. </Calvinist comment>

"Interesting. Do you think you can be 'saved' without repenting?"

You can't be changed to even repent until God changes your sinful, fallen nature.

yes, of course. It says so quite clearly in Scripture "repent and believe."

My complaint is not with repentance, but with the focus on man that comes with it in the minds of humans. To me, it is all about God and so it gets me rather riled up seeing everyone jumping around saying "Look at me, I did a good work today and repented." Everyone is bringing attention to themselves, which is wrong. It is ALL about God, for he is the one who even molds and shapes new hearts to believe.

This essay, and some of the replies to it, contain some rather sweeping generalizations. The Pharisees were not, as implied, a united movement. Rather, there were several schools of Pharasaism, the most important being the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. The Hillelites taught a more lenient interpretation of the Law, in contrast with the rigidity of the Shammaites. The criticism Jesus is recorded as having made of the Pharisees is very similar to the sorts of criticisms that the Hillelites made of the Shammaites. IMO, Jesus's criticisms were in fact directed towards the followers of the school of Shammai, and not towards the Hillelites, who shared with Jesus a similar understanding of the Law.

And you know this how? It certainly not mentioned in scripture.

They were so careful to avoid breaking God's commandments that they built a fence around them. Ironically, this is precisely what Jesus does in Matthew 5. He teaches that not only must you avoid adultery, but merely looking with lust is committing adultery in one's heart. Similarly he teaches that anger is committing murder in one's heart. "Building a fence around the Torah" means avoiding situations in which one is likely to be tempted to sin. This idea is preserved in the Christian notion of "avoiding the near occasion of sin".

No, the Pharisses got bogged down in the 'letter' of the law and forgot the 'spirit'. Hence, they thought they could 'look' all they wanted but were still sinless since they did not 'touch'. The Lord rebuked them over this type of thinking when they attacked Him and his disciples for not washing their hands before eating. (Matt. 15)

But in vain they do worship me teaching for doctrines the commandments of men...for out of the heart preoceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to wash with unwashen hands defileth not a man

They added 248 commandments and 365 prohibitions to insure they did not even approach the original ten. The 613 mitzvot (commandments) were not "added" by the Pharisees; rather, they are all found in the Torah. Judaism reads the Torah such that anytime God says to do something (or not to do something), that thing is considered a commandment. You would agree that there are many times outside of the 10 commandments that God commands something? For example, the first commandment found in scripture is to "be fruitful and multiply". Another commandment is the observance of Yom Kippur. A significant portion of these commandments have to do with the priesthood and the temple service, and thus are inapplicable when there is not a temple in Jerusalem. Others only apply within Eretz Israel, or under other particular circumstances. For the typical Jew living in the diaspora, probably only a few dozen of these 613 commandments would apply to him.

The issue of adding up the 600 plus laws was to avoid the two greatest ones, Loving God and man.(Matt.22:36-40) The Pharisee's used the Law to not doing what God intended the Law for

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith ; these ought ye to have done and not to leave the others undone (Matt.23:23)

The Pharisees put the emphasis on externals. They wore special clothing to attract attention to themselves. This is that kind of statement that bothers me. Does he really mean to suggest that all Pharisees were like this?

The Lord stated that they emphasized externals

But all their works they do for to be seen of men, they make broad their phylacteries and enlarge the borders of their garments (Mat.23:5)

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.

Now, you are leaving the article and looking at my posts?

you shall love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18) you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. (Deuteronomy 6:5) For an observant Jew, love of God and neighbor are considered commandments.

Well, the Pharisees were not to obervant then. They got angry at the Lord for healing on the Sabbath-twice (Mk.3:6, Lk.13:14)

It is too bad that you are not in charge of salvation, I am sure it would be a lot tougher. Scripture is very clear, however, For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God, Not of works lest any man should boast (Eph.2:8-9) Interesting. Do you think you can be 'saved' without repenting?

No, repentance is a necessary part of the salvation process. Repentance precedes faith and means that one has changed their mind about their own spiritual condition (they are sinners and deserve death-Rom.3:23,6:23) and need a saviour. Thus, they repent turn away from their past and turn to the free gift of salvation found in the work (Rom.3:25) and Person of Christ (Rom.6:23). (See Acts.26:20, Rom.2:4)

if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin (2 Chronicles 7:14)

Note the words my people. Historically this is referring to the Nation of Israel. Now, if you want to apply it spiritually then it refers to one who is already saved, not one who has need of being saved. The poster I was dealing with was getting salvation confused with sanctification

In the New Testament Christians have 1Jn.1:9, 1Cor.11:32 as acts of Repentance and confession of known sins in our lives.

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.

That is true, but that is temporaly until the 'fullness of the Gentiles come in'(vs.25). The Israel that Paul then begins to speak of is the National Israel,

There shall come out of Sion, the deliverer and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob (vs.26)

The chapters 9-11 are dealing with racial/national Israel and its history and future. 'my kinsmen according to the flesh,(vs.3) 'concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen (vs.5)

The mention of the 'spiritual Isreal'(Gal.3:7) was to explain the mystery of the hardening of Israel as the Church, the body of Christ (Eph.1:28) and His Bride (Eph.5:25-32) was being formed. Once that is complete then the Old Testament promises will be fulfilled (Rom 11:29) which include the 'writing of the Laws upon their hearts (Heb.11:11, Jer.31:31)

We are New Testament that is New Covenant. It states,

when I will make a new conveant with the house if Israel and the house of Judah

Thus, bringing the 12 tribes back to one people (Zech 12-14, Rev.7)

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

He was referring to all the Law that had been written, which consisted of some 600+ laws and precepts, not just the Ten.

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.

In that passage, the Ten Commandments is being alluded to, but I do not think the Lord was referring to the Pharisses abuse of just the Ten Commandments.

Besides what difference does that make anyway? No one can keep the Ten, no less the 600. That is why the Lord put in the issue of the heart because He knows our hearts are desperately wicked; who can know it(Jer.17:9)

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.

It only says the Jews heart,(Heb.8:8) so I have to stay with what is revealed in Scripture. The Lord will however, be king of the whole earth (Zech.14:9)

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?

That is not a problem, since that is also done from love, a love of the sheep (1Pet.5:2, Acts.20:28, 1Tim.5:17, 2Tim.4:2, Tit.1:13)

This is not Pharisaism since it does not come from legalism, but from adhereing to the words of God. Pharisaism (as the article noted) is substituting the words of God for the traditions of men (Mk.7:7-9)

The article is strangely silent on the matter.

No, I think you have confused separation based on Biblical norms and standards with the imposing of manmade traditions. That is the essence of Pharisasim. John the Baptist was not a Pharisee, even though he was separated from normal society.

Sorry, but this sounds like something from the herbert armstrong school of law.Which one of the splinter groups do you belong to?

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?

My favorite is don't drink alcohol, when is written do not get drunk.

John 2,8: Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." 9They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

Ephesians 5:18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit

1 Timothy 3:8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain.

1 Timothy 5:23 Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.

Titus 2:3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.

angelo: This essay, and some of the replies to it, contain some rather sweeping generalizations. The Pharisees were not, as implied, a united movement. Rather, there were several schools of Pharasaism, the most important being the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. The Hillelites taught a more lenient interpretation of the Law, in contrast with the rigidity of the Shammaites. The criticism Jesus is recorded as having made of the Pharisees is very similar to the sorts of criticisms that the Hillelites made of the Shammaites. IMO, Jesus's criticisms were in fact directed towards the followers of the school of Shammai, and not towards the Hillelites, who shared with Jesus a similar understanding of the Law.

FTD: And you know this how? It certainly not mentioned in scripture.

This can be readily found in some very good commentaries, and I've heard this before.

The teachings of the various branches of the Pharisaical school of Judaism are a matter of historical record: their writings are preserved for any interested scholar.

But, more importantly, this squares with Scripture. Otherwise, it would make no sense for Paul to call himself a Pharisee in the present tense:

Acts 26:5 -- But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

Similarly, this explains some of the attempted entrapment of Christ by the Pharisees. They tried to get him to declare allegiance to one of the two branches by choosing sides on contraversial matters (e.g. divorce).

There may well meaning people still working in the organization, but the organization ceased to be regarded as being 'Christian' long ago. Not unlike the YMCA. The Salvation army today would be regarded like the Red Cross by most people. At least that has been my impression.

I just have to tell you ftd, that your impression is completely wrong. First, you describe, as many erroneously do, the Salvation Army as an "organization," while it is in fact a church/denomination. The officers are ministers and their commitment to the gospel is as strong as ever, if not stronger.

Let me recommend to you a book I just finished reading. It's called If Any Two Shall Agree. It's the story of Paul and Kay Rader. Paul Rader is the former General (worldwide) of the Salvation Army. The Raders, as well as the author, Carroll Ferguson Hunt are personal acquaintances of mine. Dr. Rader is now President of Asbury College in Kentucky. You may also want to read Marching to Glory by Edward H. McKinley, historian for the S.A. which tells of the rise of the Salvation Army in the United States.

Granted, the general public sees the strong social emphasis the Army has, but the message of the gospel goes hand in hand.

"I guess the thief in the cross got lied to when Jesus said he would be joined in paradise. After all, he wasn't baptized. /sarcasm"

No, I don't think he was lied to at all. But I do think that upon meeting God, he will reply to you: "Well, who nailed YOU to a cross?!?"

The Bible makes perfectly clear what one needs to do in order to be saved. Your "faith only/nothing else matters" dogma is tiring and flies in the face of what the REST of the scriptures say on this subject. If I offered you a check for a million bucks, would you have it if you didnt go to a bank and, dare I say it, CASH it? For it was Jesus himself that said not everyone who comes in the name of "Christ" would be saved. There are plenty of Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, and Jews who aren't saved..yet some of them..nay..many of them, believe otherwise. Are you going to make exceptions for EVERYONE? What part of Mark 16:16 didnt you understand the first time you read it, or did you need a denominational interpreter? Your words come from Man, not from God.

You have to DO what Jesus commanded in order to be saved.

"If ye love me, then OBEY my commandments!"

Would the walls of Jericho had fallen if they had not blown their trumpets? Would the blind man have been healed if he had not washed his eyes out with mud? I think on Judgement Day you will be surprised at how many people profess to follow Him, yet did not even obey his most simplistic commandments.

"I guess the thief in the cross got lied to when Jesus said he would be joined in paradise. After all, he wasn't baptized. /sarcasm"

No, I don't think he was lied to at all. But I do think that upon meeting God, he will reply to you: "Well, who nailed YOU to a cross?!?"

The Bible makes perfectly clear what one needs to do in order to be saved. Your "faith only/nothing else matters" dogma is tiring and flies in the face of what the REST of the scriptures say on this subject. If I offered you a check for a million bucks, would you have it if you didnt go to a bank and, dare I say it, CASH it? For it was Jesus himself that said not everyone who comes in the name of "Christ" would be saved. There are plenty of Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, and Jews who aren't saved..yet some of them..nay..many of them, believe otherwise. Are you going to make exceptions for EVERYONE? What part of Mark 16:16 didnt you understand the first time you read it, or did you need a denominational interpreter? Your words come from Man, not from God.

You have to DO what Jesus commanded in order to be saved.

"If ye love me, then OBEY my commandments!"

Would the walls of Jericho had fallen if they had not blown their trumpets? Would the blind man have been healed if he had not washed his eyes out with mud? I think on Judgement Day you will be surprised at how many people profess to follow Him, yet did not even obey his most simplistic commandments.

Cree en El Senior, Jesu Cristo, y sera salvo.

And you know this how? It certainly not mentioned in scripture.

Its called "history". Perhaps you've heard of it?

The issue of adding up the 600 plus laws was to avoid the two greatest ones, Loving God and man.

FYI, I am a Jew. And this comment is blatantly false. You quote the line where Jesus calls the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, but you fail to mention:

For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:18-19)

The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat;
so practice and observe whatever they tell you (Matthew 23:2-3)

Well, the Pharisees were not to obervant then. They got angry at the Lord for healing on the Sabbath-twice

Once again, it was the Shammaites who held to this rigid interpretation of absolute rest on the Sabbath. Hillelite teaching accepted the idea that healing was a good deed and was thus permitted on the Sabbath.

This can be readily found in some very good commentaries, and I've heard this before. The teachings of the various branches of the Pharisaical school of Judaism are a matter of historical record: their writings are preserved for any interested scholar. But, more importantly, this squares with Scripture. Otherwise, it would make no sense for Paul to call himself a Pharisee in the present tense: Acts 26:5 -- But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. Similarly, this explains some of the attempted entrapment of Christ by the Pharisees. They tried to get him to declare allegiance to one of the two branches by choosing sides on contraversial matters (e.g. divorce).

Exactly. Thanks for the corroboration.

Its called "history". Perhaps you've heard of it?

My apologies for the sarcasm; it was uncalled-for.

HAVE YOU RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST SINCE YOU BELIEVED?