Truth Magazine

By L.A. Stauffer

Synagogues have been the center of Jewish religious and social life for more than 2000 years. Although their origin is wrapped in the obscurity of Jewish history between Old and New Testament times, they were prominent throughout the Graeco-Roman world by the time of Jesus and the apostles. Why and how they arose is fathomable in part, but some historians and theologians believe they served a far more extensive and valuable purpose than merely a place for Jewish worshipers to assemble. Some scholars cannot resist the conclusion that synagogues developed for just such a time as the arrival of the Messiah, the prophesied kingdom, and the fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose to redeem mankind. 

Synagogues indisputably provided an arena in which Jesus could challenge the scribes, Pharisees, and other leaders of Judaism; a place where he could put the right construction on the law and prophets and announce the fullness of times. They were likewise auditoriums for evangelism by apostles who, taking the Scriptures in hand, alleged and proved from prophecy that Jesus was the Christ and that the time for the messianic kingdom had come. But all this is to get ahead of the story of the synagogue.

Bible readers and students leave the holy precinct of Old Testament revelation, pass over 400 years of profane history, enter the sacred grounds of New Testament Scriptures, and suddenly read about Sadducees, Pharisees, Edomite rulers, Roman governors in Palestine, and synagogues. Some undoubtedly, especially those unfamiliar with the history between the covenants, are startled by the presence of synagogues in every part of the Roman empire at the opening of the first century A.D. And yet, those acquainted with that history would be as equally surprised if there were no synagogues in those cities.

When the Old Testament comes to end with the book of Malachi, only a small remnant of Jews have returned to Jerusalem and their Palestinian home. The remainder of the nation in great numbers adapted to the Greek culture that engulfed the world through the influence of Alexander the Great and established homes and businesses in the cities of every province of Rome. Would these Jews of the Diaspora forsake God? Would they reject his law completely? Would they join the pagans in their heathenistic worship, especially after being exiled from their land for adopting the  ways of the Gentiles? After learning in captivity the lessons of apostasy and compiling the sacred writings in both Hebrew and Greek, it is to be expected that some among them would seek to honor God. But where? Certainly not at pagan temples. Isolation from Jerusalem and dispersion among the nations are the circumstances that demand in every city a place to assemble for the reading of Scripture, prayer, teaching, and exhortations to faithfulness. This is the setting for the beginning of Jewish synagogues.

The word “synagogue” does not at first mean a building in which to assemble. The term grows out of the Greek prefix (sun) which means “together” and the Greek verb (ago) “to go, come, bring.” This combination gave Greeks the word sunagoge, which means “a coming or bringing together” of a group — whether people, animals, commodities, or other items. From Thycidides on it might refer to the gathering of a harvest, a union of barbers, the mustering of an army, and a host of similar applications.

Sunagoge is first associated with the Jewish nation in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures about 275 to 250 B.C. There it is used some 200 times and translates a dozen or so words. It primarily denotes the “community” or “congregation” of Israel, whether assembled or not. It is likewise employed to describe a collection of revenue, a pile of stones, a swarm of bees, a herd of cattle, and the Babylonian and Assyrian armies and nations. But it principally translates edah and occasionally qahal, Hebrew words that refer to the “assemblies” of Israel and the “community” or nation of Israel itself (see Kittle, VIII: 798-841).

Sunagoge in time followed the history of the English word “church” and came to denote the building in which Jewish worshipers assembled. The origin of buildings and the use of “synagogue” to denote meeting houses is apparently lost to the annals of history. Unsuccessful attempts have been made to trace synagogues to the time of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Jewish captives of Babylon and Persia. The first documented inscription of a “place” of assembly outside Jerusalem is in Schedia, Egypt at the time of Ptolemy Euergetes who ruled from 247-221 B.C. Even then the building was called a house or “place of prayer” (proseuch ) rather than a synagogue (The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 10: 120; see Acts 16:13). By the time of Jesus and the apostles, buildings flourished both in Palestine and every corner of the Roman world. Generally, they bore the name “synagogues” and were established in any community where ten Jewish males lived.

Synagogues were places of assembly both for worship and the conduct of community business. There schools were conducted for children, alms were taken up for the poor, sentence was pronounced against criminals, scourgings were administered to the guilty, and convicted citizens were excommunicated from Jewish society (see Matt. 6:2, 5; 10:17; 23:34; Mark 13:9; John 12:42; Acts 22:19). But mainly it was a place of worship on certain week days, on the sabbath, and on feast days and other special occasions.

The synagogue itself was no innovation per se, but an aid to provide a place for the nation to do what Ezra and Nehemiah did when after captivity they tried to rebuild the people as a holy nation and an elect race. While synagogues were generally places of worship, the “main object of these Sabbath day assemblages . . . was not public worship in its stricter sense, i.e., not devotion, but religious instruction.” Philo called them “houses of instruction” (The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Emil Schurer, Division II, II:54; see Acts 15:21). From the teaching of the New Testament and Talmudic compilations the traditional service at the synagogue is reasonably clear. 

The service opened with a recitation of the Shema, a compilation of verses from Deuteronomy 6:4-9, 11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41. Next followed a reading from the Torah (law) and the prophets. The Torah, according to Schurer, was divided into 154 sections and was read in its entirety every three years. This was followed by a prayer, a blessing from one of the priests, and a discourse from a scribe, rabbi, or a selected guest among the visitors. The service ended with the utterance of the Shemmeh Esreh — a prayer repeated by dedicated Jews three times a day. The prayer in part included: praise to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob for his gracious blessings; a request for wisdom and forgiveness; a call for help to do what is right and to endure affliction; a plea for God to reign over them and bring justice to evil-doers; a cry for mercy to the      righteous and restoration of the nation to Jerusalem; an appeal for God to accept their prayers and worship; a final offer of praise and thanksgiving (Schurer 85-87).

The synagogue and its service, according to Jewish authorities, was a revolutionary departure from the Temple service of a special priesthood and sacrifices. The synagogue possessed no inherent sanctity and its service included no sacrificial or sacramental ritual. It required no intermediary services of a priest, but was a democratic fellowship of worshipers who sought God directly in eagerness to learn the law (Jewish Encyclopedia 120).

The exact structure or layout of synagogues cannot be easily determined. Archaeological remains of synagogues — some 150 sites in places as diverse as Galilee, Syria, Babylon, Greece, Asia Minor, Italy, Spain, Egypt, northern Africa — are of post-Christian times and may not necessarily represent the design of synagogues in the time between the covenants and at the beginning of the first century. They were usually located at the highest point of a city and faced either east or toward Jerusalem. Evidence, according to some writers, indicates that the structures may have been patterned after the Temple. But since there were no rabbinic regulations, synagogues may have varied from locality to locality, depending on the size and wealth of the Jewish population. Schurer notes that the design of A.D. 200 and onward, of which there are many examples, did not arise immediately and may well reflect the earlier time of the first century. The most notable examples show two-columned auditoriums with a central nave and two narrower seating aisles on either side. More elaborate synagogues contained galleries that extended over the side aisles with separate entrances from the outside and included a pillared porch or stoop at the main entrance. 

What is known with a good bit of certainty about the furnishings of synagogues is that they had either concrete or wooden benches which were often backless. Some benches, probably at the front of the auditorium facing the assembly, were what the New Testament calls “chief seats” where men of prominence were seated: elders, scribes, rabbis, or wealthy and otherwise important figures of the community (see Matt. 23:6; Mark 12:29; Luke 11:43; 20:46). Also at the front of the synagogue was a raised dais (bema)               where a reading desk stood and a box known as the “ark” (geniza) in which scrolls of the Old Testament Scriptures, wrapped in linen cloths, were housed. Mention is also made of candlelabras for lighting and trombones and trumpets for sounding the time of special events and days.

The personnel in charge of the synagogue and its services were not necessarily priests, scribes, or elders. No doubt in any community where these men resided they took part in the synagogue services at regular intervals. But even young men from the synagogue schools were called on to read the Scriptures and visitors were asked to speak. The ruler of the synagogue and the minister or attendant at the service were not necessarily rabbis or scribes. The ruler of the synagogue was chosen from the community to arrange and set in order the procedure for worship.

Historians and theologians, as noted earlier, often view the rise of the synagogue in the context of the “fullness of times” or “last days” — a time purposed by God, foreseen in Old Testament prophecy, and fulfilled in the life of Jesus and the revelation of the gospel of salvation (see Isa. 2:2; Acts 2:17; Heb. 1:1; 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:11). The public ministry of Jesus opened with the announcement that “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15). God had set a time within his own authority for the arrival of the kingdom, according to Jesus, who then sent the twelve to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth with the good news of salvation (see Acts 1:6-8).

How convenient were those places of worship in every community in Palestine when God sent forth his Son in the fulness of time to implant his universal rule into the hearts of men through the gospel. There — at those synagogues — Jesus began his public ministry, spake with authority, revealed and demonstrated his identity as the Christ, and announced the arrival of the messianic kingdom (Matt. 4:23; Luke 4:16-30). From synagogues in the rest of the known world the apostles heralded in every nation the will and purpose of God to sum up all things in heaven and earth in Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:10, 11). There the gospel of grace through faith was announced first to the Jews, among whom were God-fearing proselytes. From there the good news radiated outward to the Gentiles of the community and churches were established alongside the synagogues (Acts 13:5, 14, 42; 14:1; 17:1, 10, 17; 18:4, 7, 19, 26; 19:8).

The synagogue, it is evident, was not only an expedient for Jewish worshipers scattered among the nations, but was likewise an aid for disciples of Christ who were dispersed by God’s command into all nations to preach the gospel (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15,16; Luke 24:47-49).

1716 Dover Trace Dr., Fenton, Missouri 63026

By Mike Willis

In reading the New Testament, one sees repeated references to the Pharisees. The word appears 100 times in 95 verses. The word does not appear in the Old Testament. Consequently, one may correctly deduce that the Pharisees are a sect of the Jews that developed during the inter-testament period. But who were they? Most of us think we have a pretty good understanding of who they are, but as this article will demonstrate, that understanding may be flawed.

The word “Pharisee” is translated from the Greek word pharisaios. It is used to describe a group of Jews who were designated as the Pharush (#$w@rp@f). The word #$rp@ has as its basic definition “to separate.” The My#$iw@rp; were the “separatists” or “sectarians” (TDNT IX:13). The “separation” which they maintained must be understood in its historical context. 

Historical Origins

Some trace the origin of the Pharisees all the way back to Ezra and Nehemiah when these two leaders called on the Jews to separate themselves from their heathen and Samaritan neighbors. Intermarriage threatened the spiritual purity of the people of that generation and separation from their religious neighbors was necessary. However, there is insufficient evidence to convince one that this is the origin of the Pharisees.

The earliest historical reference to the Pharisees occurs in Josephus (Antiquities XIII:x.5). During the days of John Hyrcanus (High Priest from 135 to 105 B.C.), one of the Pharisees committed a personal offense against him by encouraging him to give up the priesthood because his mother had been a captive under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Pharisees had great power over the multitude at the time, but this offense caused Hyrcanus to leave the Pharisee party. Josephus identifies the Pharisees as a group who “have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses” (which tradition the Sadducees rejected). He added that the Sadducees had influence over the richer people whereas the Pharisees had more influence over the populace. Later, Josephus relates the position that the Pharisees held about fate and free will, the immortality of the soul and resurrection (Antiquities XVIII:i.2; cf. XIII.vi.9). He said, “They also believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards and punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in  this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but the former shall have power to revive and live again” (ibid.). During the reign of Alexandra Jannaeus, the Pharisees virtually administered the civil government (Wars I:v.2).

From these references, we begin to understand what being a Pharisee meant. It was a separatist movement in response to the Hellenization that was occurring during the inter-testament period. There were Jews who were becoming like their Hellenist rulers. 1 Maccabees records, 

In those days went there out of Israel wicked men, who persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the heathen that are round about us: for since we departed from them we have had much sorrow. So this device pleased them well. Then certain of the people were so forward herein that they went to the king, who gave them license to do after the ordinances of the heathen: whereupon they built a place of exercise at Jerusalem according to the customs of the heathen: and made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen, and were sold to do mischief (1:11-15).

The group that wanted to separate themselves from those among them who were Hellenizing became known as the Pharisees. 

Later in the development of the Pharisee movement, their emphasis on the oral law led to a separation  between those Jews who kept the strict observance of the Law (defined to mean, those who observed the “oral law” tradition that the Pharisees developed) and the common people (‘am ha’aretz, the “people of the land,” i.e., the common people). A conscientious Pharisee could not stay in the home of an ‘am ha’aretz (Mishna: Demai 2:2), could not buy or sell to him (Demai 2:3). Demai 2:3 is typical of the Pharisees’ attitude toward the ‘am ha’aretz: “One who undertakes to be a 44rb’xa (one of the group who observes all of the Pharisees’ oral traditions, mw) may not sell to an ‘am ha’aretz, either wet or dry produce, and may not buy from him wet produce, and may not stay as guest with an ‘am ha’aretz, and may not have him as guest in his garments.” One can see how Jesus’ association with publicans and sinners was an affrontal to the very essence of what it meant to be a Pharisee.

The separation that occurred between the Pharisees and the ‘am ha’aretz (“the people of the land”) was related to the oral laws developed by the Pharisees. The oral laws eventually became known as the halakhah.1 To understand the Jewish attitude toward oral law, consider the following. Chagigah 1:8 says that “the rules about the Sabbath, Festival Offerings, and sacrilegious misappro-   ­priation of sanctified property are as mountains suspended by a hair (i.e., there is little direct Scriptural substantiation for them), because Scripture is meagre and the rules are many; laws of cases between man and man, rules of the Services, laws of the clean, and the unclean and the laws of incest, these have bases for support and they are the essentials of the Law (i.e., the laws enjoined by the Sages are to be accepted as of equal importance and equally binding as those founded on the Torah)” (the comments in parentheses are from Blackmon’s notations on the Mishnah). In Sanhedrin 11:3, the Mishnah says, “Disregard of the enactments of the Scribes is more severely dealt with than disregard of the injunctions of the Law.” This is followed by an example to illustrate the point with reference to phylacteries. Elazar ben Enoch was excommunicated “because he disputed [the Rabbinic regulations] concerning the cleanness of the hands; and when he died the court sent and laid a stone upon his coffin” (Eduyoth 5:6).

In discussing the concept of the oral law, people usually refer to the statement in the Mishnah about the oral laws being a “fence about the law.” The statement is taken from Avoth 1:1 which says,

Moses received the Law from Sinai and handed it down to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets handed it down to the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence round the Law.

Avoth 3:13 says, “Tradition is a fence to the Law; tithes are a fence to riches; vows are a fence to abstinence; a fence to wisdom is silence.” This is usually interpreted to mean that the Oral Tradition arose as very conservative interpreters bound their personal scruples into human law, similar to one binding his judgment about how “long” one’s hair must be to prevent the violation of 1 Corinthians 11. That is not the case. The oral law was more nearly like the councils of the Roman Catholic Church that made pronouncements about eating meat on Friday or saying the Mass in Latin, both of which are encroachments on the all-sufficiency of Scripture by the presumptive act of enacting laws.

The Pharisees Were Liberals, Not Conservatives

Scholars are rather generally agreed that the oral traditions of the Pharisees represent something far different from a “conservative” reaction to the Law. The Oral Law demonstrates that the Pharisees were the progressives, the liberals of that day. Here are some scholarly comments to document this assessment:

The New Jewish Encyclopedia: “The Pharisees were ‘separatists’ in that they emphasized observance of such practices as ritual purity and tithing, which kept them apart from the less observant Jews. They were ‘expounders,’ encouraging a liberal interpretation of the Scriptures and the adaptation of its laws to the changing conditions of life. This contrasts with the Sadducees who adhered strictly to the letter of the Law” (376).

Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Everett Feguson): “. . . one of two courses could be followed with regard to the law. The traditional code might be expanded to meet new circumstances and be reinterpreted in accord with new beliefs; or these experiences could be left outside the scope of its authority and new ideas be left unrecognized. Those who accepted the first policy became the Pharisees, and those who adopted the second became the Sadducees. . . . Moreover, the Pharisees felt that if the applications of the law were to be binding, they had to have the force of the Torah itself. The means to achieve this was the idea of oral law (“tradition of the elders”; Mark 7:3, 5), equally authoritative with the written law (481, 482). Ferguson concluded by saying “the Pharisees were not ‘Pharisaical’” (483).

Judaism and Christianity:2 This book describes the Pharisees as “the source of the Law, its legislators. . . . the legal authorities, the lawmakers” (xx). Note these quotations:

The latter (Sadducees, mw) believed in the exact letter of the law, the Pharisees held that the spirit should prevail and that the law should be adapted to changed circumstances, not that it should be abolished. Yet the Sadducees represent a type of religious conservatism which it is easy to misrepresent as callous and wooden. They were ready to yield to scriptural warrant, and for this reason the Pharisees were sometimes driven to casuistry, in order to meet their opponents on their own ground and so win their adherence (Herbert Lowe, “Pharisaism,” I:143).

The Pharisee believed in bringing religion into daily life, because he stood for the principle of progressive revelation. By this, he meant that the spirit of the Torah contained the power of inspiring changed circumstances, not that the Torah required supplementing from without. It could expand (Ibid. I:153).

The Pharisees did not hesitate to adapt the law to changed conditions: they employed the principle of legal fiction, in order to safeguard principles while relaxing hard conditions (II:52).

. . . If that were so, then it would follow that the divine revelation was not confined to the written text of the Torah. There must be an unwritten Torah, not as the rival or even the commentary on the text, but as completing it; so that the written and unwritten together made up the Torah as it essentially was. This new idea appeared and began to be acted on somewhere about the year 170 B.C. . . . 

The immediate result was that it became possible to define a halachah without basing it on some text of the written Torah, or even establishing some connexion with the text. The halachah, so defined, was vouched for by a tradition, assumed to have come down from the far-off past, and accepted on the authority of the teachers who declared it. And by means of this concept of the Unwritten Torah, these teachers were enabled to give a wider meaning to the precepts of the written Torah, being no longer tied down to the literal sense or the interpretation of it on the former lines. . . 

One is the famous text of the lex talionis, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” etc. There is a clearly stated order that in certain cases of bodily injury a savage retaliation was to be inflicted. Those who defined the halachah dealing with such cases frankly abolished the written text, and made no attempt to humanize it by any artifice of interpretation. They appointed a different procedure to be followed in such cases, viz. the payment of a money fine, depending on the amount of the injury (R. Travers Herford, “The Law and Pharisaism,”III:102, 103).

Note the statements from these quotations that emphasize the liberalism of the Pharisees:

• “encouraging a liberal interpretation of the Scriptures and the adaptation of its laws to the changing conditions of life.”
• “that if the applications of the law were to be binding, they had to have the force of the Torah itself.”
• “the Pharisees were not ‘Pharisaical’” 
• “the spirit should prevail and that the law should be adapted to changed circumstances”
• “he stood for the principle of progressive revelation”
• “the divine revelation was not confined to the written text of the Torah”
• “by means of this concept of the Unwritten Torah, these teachers were enabled to give a wider meaning to the precepts of the written Torah, being no longer tied down to the literal sense or the interpretation of it on the former lines”
•  “Those who defined the halachah dealing with such cases frankly abolished the written text”

These quotations demonstrate the liberalism of the Pharisees. Their liberalism is confirmed by the fact that the Mishnah followed the rulings of the liberal school of Hillel except in nine cases. In three cases it followed the ruling of Shammai and in six cases the ruling of neither school was followed (E. Rosenthal, II:185 note). Rather than understanding the “fence of the Law” as a conservative defense of the written word, the Pharisees “realized that new conditions created new needs which were not met in the written Torah. They therefore ruled that the needs of the times and the adjustment of human relations justified a modification and called for new regulations and rules not only to maintain but also to raise the ethical standard” (E. Rosenthal, III:175). 

This appraisal of the Pharisees is confirmed by New Testament evidence. The adherence to oral law was condemned  by Jesus as teaching for one’s doctrine the commandments of men (Matt. 15:8-9). He demonstrated how the Pharisees’ adherence to oral law was used to release men from responsibility to God’s divine law of providing for one’s father and mother (Matt. 15:4-5) as well as imposing as divine law the commandments of men in such areas as the washing of hands (Matt. 15:1-3). Writing new laws and releasing men from responsibility to divine law are the characteristics of liberals, not conservatives. Having witnessed how liberalism undermines Bible authority in every area, we can more easily understand Jesus’ warning about the leavening influence of the Pharisees’ doctrine (Matt. 16:12).

New Testament Description of Pharisees

One must include in this study the New Testament references to the Pharisees. In recent years, the New Testament evidence is generally viewed as slanted by the fact that it was written by Christians (although all of the authors were Jewish). Greater emphasis is usually given to the writings of Josephus than to the inspired New Testament documents. Inasmuch as the New Testament documents are contemporary first century documents, the same as is Josephus, this approach is flawed. But for those who believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures, this approach is a fundamental mistake.

As mentioned above, the word Pharisee appears 100 times in 95 verses in the New Testament. Here are some things said about them in the Scriptures:

• John the Baptist described them as a generation of vipers (Matt. 3:7)
• They were charged with hypocrisy (Matt. 23; cf. Luke 12:1) with reference to: (a) refusing to enter the kingdom and preventing those who wished to do so (Matt. 23:13); (b) devouring widow’s houses while making long prayers (Matt. 23:14); (c) compassing land and sea to make one proselyte who, when converted, is two-fold more a child of hell than before (Matt. 23:15); (d) tithing mint, anise, and cummin but leaving undone the weightier matters of the law (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42); (e) cleansing the outside of the cup but not the inside (Matt. 23:25; Luke 11:39); (f) being like whited sepulchres that are beautiful on the outside but rotten on the inside (Matt. 23:27; Luke 11:44); (g) piously building tombs of prophets but being guilty of the very things that killed them (Matt. 23:29)3
• They loved places of pre-eminence (Luke 11:43)
• They were self-righteous (Luke 18:9-14)
• They were separatists. They separated themselves not only from the Gentiles, but also from those common people (‘am ha’arets, “the people of the land”) who did not observe the law with the same ritual purity as they did (Matt. 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30; 7:36-39; 15:1-32).
• The Pharisees were committed to observing the oral traditions relating to fasting (Matt. 9:14; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33), observing the Sabbath (Matt. 12:2; Mark 2:24; Luke 6:2, 7; 14:1-3; John 9), washing of one’s hands (Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:1-5; Luke 11:37-38), etc.
• They accepted looser views on divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:3; Mark 10:1-12)

No wonder Jesus said that unless one’s righteous is superior to that of the scribes and Pharisees, he could not see the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:20). He was concerned about the leavening influence of their doctrine (Matt. 16:12).

Distinctive Doctrines

The doctrinal beliefs that distinguished the Pharisees from the Sadducees were (a) Belief in resurrection (Acts 23:8), (b) Belief in angels (Acts 23:8), (c) Acceptance of the authority of Oral Law, (d) A doctrine of fate that still left room for free will.

Later Development of the Pharisees

What happened to the Pharisees after the close of the New Testament? The Pharisees were the ones responsible for the survival of modern Judaism. The Sadducees were so tied to the Temple that when it was destroyed, so were the Sadducees. The Pharisees were more nearly associated with the synagogue. After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70, the Pharisees moved their headquarters first to Jamnia and later to Tiberias. Under the leadership of Jochanan ben Zakkai, the Jewish community was rebuilt from the smallest of beginnings (see TDNT article on pharisaios).

Conclusion

Perhaps this survey of the Pharisees will give one a better understanding of the Jewish backgrounds in place during the ministry of Jesus. A reading of the gospels demonstrates that some of  Jesus’ harshest words were reserved for the Pharisees. An understanding of how their adherence to oral law undermined the authority of the law makes one see how serious was the leavening influence of their doctrine (Matt. 16:6).

The charge of “Pharisaism” that is made by many today toward those who adhere to the teachings of the New Testament is totally unfounded. In most cases, those who make the charge are themselves the ones guilty of manifesting the spirit of the Pharisees. They are more concerned about the “spirit of the law” than the “letter of the law.” They are more concerned about adapting the law to the changing needs of the man. This is the spirit of the Pharisees, not strict adherence to the word of God. Jesus never condemned the Pharisees for obeying the letter of the Law or demanding from others Bible authority for what they did. To charge those who adhere to the authority of Scripture for what they preach and teach as Pharisees is like charging the Pope with being an “anti.” The entire structure of Catholicism is contrary to the principles of conservativism, just as it was so with reference to the Pharisees.

Endnotes

1. The Halakhah comprise the laws and ordinances of religious and civil practice in every phase of Jewish life and conduct. The Halakhah to begin with was the Oral Law, those legal decisions which were handed down orally from generation to generation. As this grew, a systematic compilation of these laws was make by Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi known as The Mishnah. The next great compilation of the Halakhot was The Talmud (The New Jewish Encyclopedia 184).
2. Judaism and Christianity. Volume I is edited by W.O.E. Oesterley, Volume II by H. Loewe, and Volume III by Erwin I.J. Rosenthal.
3. To believe that all Pharisees were “vipers,” hypocrites, loved places of pre-eminence, self-righteous, etc. would be to ignore part of the Bible evidence about Pharisees. One Pharisee warned Jesus of Herod’s attempt on his life (Luke 13:31), Jesus treated some of the questions of the Pharisees as having been asked from a pure motive (Luke 17:20-21), Nicodemus was a Pharisee (John 3:1), Paul described his early life as a Pharisee as living according to the strictest keeping of the Law (Acts 26:5; Phil. 3:5). 

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com

By Ron Halbrook

A teenager submitted this question: Would it be wrong for a Christian to wear clothing like “Wu Wear” or “Fubu” or “Tommy Hilfiger”? It is encouraging to know that teenage Christians want to know and do what is right, even in how they dress.

It is not wrong to wear various kinds of clothes that come into fashion, with these limitations: (1) Be sure it is completely modest (1 Tim. 2:9-10; 1 Pet. 3:1-4). (2) Avoid clothes that are extravagant in cost. Expensive clothes lead to covetousness, pride, and materialism. We serve God, not materialism (Matt. 6:24). (3) Avoid clothes that are used by rebels, druggies, dropouts, boozers, gang members, homosexuals, and other ungodly people to “send a message.” We must not do things which hinder the light of a Christian example (Matt. 5:13-16).

Jesus prayed, “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil” (John 17:15). We can participate in new fashions and customs within the perimeters and principles of God’s Word.

3505 Horse Run Ct., Shepherdsville, KY 40165-6954

By Irvin Himmel

A wealthy young man once approached Jesus with this question: “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” Jesus reminded him of some of the commands of the law to which he needed to give attention, and he responded, “All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?” (Matt. 19:16-20).

Jesus knew precisely what was lacking in this young ruler’s life. Despite his being well acquainted with the law, the young man’s attachment to worldly possessions had a solid grip on him. Like the insect on the glueboard, he thought he had something but in reality it had him! The master told him to sell what he had, give it to the poor, “and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.”

You and I need to think soberly and regularly about what may be lacking in our lives. There may be one thing in particular that is a deficiency.

Do I Lack Obedience to the Gospel?

There are some folks who have numerous commendable traits. They are good neighbors, morally upright, friendly and likeable, but they need to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). All have sinned (Rom. 3:23), and nothing but the blood of Christ can atone for sins. Moral goodness will not remit anyone’s sins. The best of good people have sinned and need to turn to Christ in submission to the gospel. Examine the case of Cornelius in Acts 10 and 11.

Associating with Christians will not automatically make one righteous. Being married to a child of God will not in itself transfer one into the family of God. Attending church services will not guarantee citizenship in the kingdom of heaven. Listening to the preaching of the gospel will not avail unless that preaching produces faith which prompts obedience. The soul is purified when one obeys the truth (1 Pet. 1:22). In the absence of obedience there is no promise of salvation from sin.

Do I Lack Diligent Study?

Some who have been baptized into Christ show no signs of growth. They are failing to feed their souls on the pure word of God which enables spiritual development (1 Pet. 2:2). They need to show more interest in assembling with saints, participating in Bible classes, and in private reading and studying of the Scriptures. They need to devote more time to meditating on God’s enduring word. They are a reminder of the people described in Hebrews 5:12.

Commonly, weak Christians make the lame excuse that they do not have time to study. What about the hours they spend in watching TV, reading newspapers, engaging in recreational activities, surfing the Internet, etc.? It is a fact that most of us manage to find the time to do whatever we set our hearts on doing. There is no shortcut to gaining Bible knowledge. One must be willing to apply himself to serious, steady, and systematic searching of the Scriptures.

Do I Lack Prayer?

Jesus said that “men ought always to pray, and not to faint” (Luke 18:1). “Pray without ceasing,” said Paul (1 Thess. 5:17). The Christian is to be “instant in prayer” (Rom. 12:12). How much better things would be if we would replace grumbling and bickering with prayer. We are taught to avoid anxiety, and “in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God” (Phil. 4:6). Worry weakens; prayer has power.

The sinless Savior prayed when baptized by John (Luke 3:21). He arose early in the morning, a great while before day, departing into a solitary place, and prayed (Mark 1:35). He “continued all night in prayer to God” before the selection of the apostles (Luke 6:12-16). He “went up into a mountain to pray” when the transfiguration occurred (Luke 9:28-36). He prayed in Gethsemane with a heavy heart, burdened with sorrow and agony (Matt. 26:36-44). He prayed on the cross (Luke 23:34). Who can be his true follower without learning to pray?

Do I Lack Patience?

Some Christians endure for a while then grow weary. “Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy” (Jas. 5:11). There must be “patient continuance in well doing” if we seek for glory, honor, and immortality (Rom. 2:7). One must not allow “burnout” to destroy his soul. Let us be refreshed in spirit through Bible study, prayer, and fellowship with God.

We need patience in teaching others. There are times when we move too fast, pressing for immediate results. Correcting conditions that need to be changed requires much patience. Paul urged Timothy to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:2, NASB). The words of Hebrews 10:36 are a timely reminder: “For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.” No patience, no promise.

Do I Lack Courage?

John the Baptist was not devoid of courage. Although Herod was a powerful ruler, John boldly spoke against his adulterous marriage. “It is not lawful for thee to have her,” said John (Matt. 14:4). He did not follow the path of some modern preachers by attempting to find a way to “okay” Herod’s sinful marriage. The beheading of John bears testimony that courage can lead to costly consequences. On the other hand, one who is too cowardly to stand on the Lord’s side faces consequences of greater magnitude.

Courage is firmness of mind and depth of conviction which empowers one to face dangers and discouragements without wavering. Stephen displayed remarkable courage in Acts 7 by “telling it like it is,” knowing that his own life was on the line. Peter and John showed courage when they were beaten, threatened, and told not to preach any more in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:40-42). The life of Paul is replete with examples of courage. The gospel challenges people to come to Christ and evince courage.

Do I Lack Zeal?

Many disciples of Jesus in this modern age need a greater degree of fervency, enthusiasm, devotion, zest, and energy. Resemblance to the lukewarm Laodiceans (Rev. 3:15-19) reveals complacency and apathy. Little enthusiasm is shown toward the work of the church. There is no real spark of energy in reaching out with the gospel. Warmth is noticeably lacking. A spirit of indifference prevails.

Zeal is contagious. Paul remarked to the Corinthians that “your zeal hath provoked very many” (2 Cor. 9:2). Of course, zeal must be properly directed. The Israelites had “a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2). Some cultists show extraordinary zeal, yet they are without knowledge, consequently they consume their energy in behalf of false religion. Conversely, some who know the truth lack the zeal and commitment to fulfill the demands of true religion.

Do I Lack Love?

In the absence of love, eloquent speech becomes no more than a clanging cymbal, intellectual attainments are valueless, benevolence is without advantage to the giver, and martyrdom profits nothing (1 Cor. 13:1-3). Love is the hallmark of devotion to Christ. “Let all that you do be done in love” (1 Cor. 16:14, NASB). Jesus said, “if ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love” (John 15:10).

Brotherly love is commanded. It is a mark of genuine discipleship. The Master said, “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:34-35). Gospel preachers are not exempt from the command to love one another. Misrepresentations, personal attacks, demeaning innuendoes, derogatory dictums, and vilifications do not mirror love. The truth can be spoken in love (Eph. 4:15) without being watered down and without compromise.

Conclusion

The rich young ruler went away sorrowful when told what he lacked and what he needed to do to supply what was missing. The realization of what we lack should spur us to work on overcoming our deficiency. Instead of being sad and going away grieved, let us draw closer to the Lord and make our calling and election sure.

2820 Hunterwood Dr., S.E., Decatur, Alabama 35603-5638