The Religion of the Pharisees (Part 3)

UPDATE Sept 2021: I have come to believe that Jeff Crippen does not practise what he preaches. He vilely persecuted an abuse victim and spiritually abused many other people in the Tillamook congregation. Go here to read the evidence. Jeff has not gone to the people that he spiritually and emotionally abused. He has not apologised to them, let alone asked for their forgiveness.


Where my attention is held determines where I will go, and what I will do.  I can’t avoid sin by focusing on what not to do, but rather by focusing on what Christ calls me to do!”  —Joe Pote

We actually ought to attribute the authorship of this series of articles to all of our readers as well.  Joe’s quote above is a good example.  Christ!  There is the answer to the religion of the Pharisees.  Not “do not handle, do not taste, do not touch” (Col 2:21).  Thank you, Joe!

Let’s look now at Matthew 3.  Here is the first mention of the Pharisees and their kind in Matthew’s Gospel –

Matthew 3:1-17, “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.'” Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey.  Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

First of all, where did these guys come from?  We have not met them in the Old Testament.  Malachi spoke some 400 years before, and then the OT canon ended.  The 400 silent years, this era is called, because God sent no prophet during that time.  And then John the Baptist came on the scene in the spirit of Elijah.  John was the last OT prophet, a real transitional figure between the Old and the New covenants and, as Jesus said, John was the greatest of the prophets (Matthew 11:11).  But who are these vipers – the Pharisees and the Sadducees?  How did they develop during this time that is also called the “Intertestament Period”?

I found these facts in ISBE (izzzbeee, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia).  Pharisee is a name coming from a word meaning “separatist.”  They were so named because of their care to avoid legal contamination.  The Jewish historian, Josephus was a Pharisee.  During the intertestament period when one of the successor-generals of Alexander the Great, Antiochus Ephiphanes persecuted the Jews and desecrated their temple, the Pharisees supported the successful rebellion of Judas Maccabeus.  They later separated from Judas, opposing any diplomacy with Gentile nations.  This led to an attitude of complete separation from Gentiles.  Their strictness and opposition to any other Jews whom they perceived as sympathetic to the Gentiles resulted in some 800 of the Pharisees being put to death by crucifixion.

The Pharisees added traditions to the Law.  They taught that these traditions, which were supposedly interpretations of the Law, had been given by Moses to the 70 elders, and had then been orally transmitted through the centuries.  The Mishna says –  “Moses received the (oral) Law from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets and the prophets to the men of the great synagogue.”  The Pharisees also taught that additions to these traditions were made by prophets by direct inspiration, or by interpretation of the words of the written Law.  So in this respect the Pharisees were very much like the Roman Catholic Church today.  Rome maintains that an authoritative, orally-transmitted body of tradition has been passed down accurately from the Apostles, separately from the written Scriptures.  Listen to the ISBE article describe their tradition-

Less valuable, at times burdensome and hurtful, were the minute refinements they introduced into the Law. Sometimes the ingenuity of the Pharisaic doctors was directed to lighten the burden of the precept as in regard to the Sabbath. Thus a person was permitted to go much farther than a Sabbath day’s journey if at some time previous he had deposited, within the legal Sabbath day’s journey of the place he wished to reach, bread and water; this point was now to be regarded as the limit of his house, and consequently from this all distances were to be ceremonially reckoned (Jewish Encyclopedia, under the word “Erub”): The great defect of Pharisaism was that it made sin so purely external. An act was right or wrong according as some external condition was present or absent; thus there was a difference in bestowing alms on the Sabbath whether the beggar put his hand within the door of the donor or the donor stretched his hand beyond his own threshold, as may be seen in the first Mishna in the Tractate Shabbath. A man did not break the Sabbath rest of his donkey, though he rode on it, and hence did not break the Sabbath law, but if he carried a switch with which to expedite the pace of the beast he was guilty, because he had laid a burden upon it.

In the next article, part 4, we will look at still more information about the Pharisees, and also try to make some observations about the scribes and the Sadducees, though our primary focus here is on the religion of the Pharisees.  But let’s end this article with a very important hypothesis –

If, in fact, our churches today are infected with the leaven of the Pharisees, then we should expect to find a body of tradition which, though not the Scripture itself, still enjoys widespread authority among us.  It would be a body of teachings, that purports to be proper conclusions from the written Scriptures, as interpreted by various men (theologians, pastors, teachers) over time.  These traditions would then have grown to enjoy widespread, unquestioning acceptance by the majority of Christians.  And, as we shall see, when these traditions are exposed as erroneous, those who hold them do not give them up without a fight.


Posts in this series

Part 1: The Religion of the Pharisees (Part 1)

Part 2: The Religion of the Pharisees (Part 2)

Part 3: Is this post.

Part 4: The Religion of the Pharisees (Part 4)

Part 5: The Religion of the Pharisees (Part 5)

Part 6: The Religion of the Pharisees (Part 6)

Part 7: The Religion of the Pharisees (Part 7)

Part 8: The Religion of the Pharisees (Part 8)

9 thoughts on “The Religion of the Pharisees (Part 3)”

  1. Sounds a whole lot like what I describe on my book cover as “On the topic of divorce, the Christian church has developed a system of biblically unsubstantiated myths that encourage legalistic attitudes toward believers who have experienced divorce.”

  2. Yes and that is just the topic of divorce. There are lots of others, and I think if we will all give some serious thought to this subject, we can comment on these articles and we will end up identifying a whole host of traditions. And not only are these traditions unwritten, many of them are unspoken. That makes nailing them down even more difficult. Principle – we need to honor and worship the Lord acceptably on the Lord’s day. Tradition – men must wear suits and ties to church. This tradition may never be voiced from the pulpit, but violate it and you will know it. Some traditions are more damaging than others, but all of them pile on an unhealthy burden.

    1. Yes, lot’s more. The ones that concern me the most are those which I have not yet recognized in my own heart. I’m sure some are there, and pray the Holy Spirit will graciously reveal them to me.

      So, to add to your list, as a member of a Southern Baptist church, one unwritten Pharisaical-type tradition that I encounter (and stand against) is this notion that one must be baptized by immersion in a Baptist church in order to become a member of a Baptist congregation. Absurd! As though God cares by what church denomination we have been baptized into His body!

      1. Believer’s baptism, yes. Baptism of a baptized Christian (who has already been baptized as a believer), i.e., re-baptism, and THAT in a particular denomination or it doesn’t count – is madness. If you think about it, what that is saying is that as in your case, the SBC is the only true church. Only its baptism counts. So, complain all we want about Rome’s teachings, how is that any different? And then there is the whole matter of “close communion.” How many battles in church history have been fought over that one! In our church, we announce that if you are a Christian and have been baptized and are in good standing with a Christian church, then you are welcome to participate in the communion service. Actually, I think I need to reconsider that last phrase “if you are in good standing with a Christian church.” Because many abuse survivors are not “in good standing with a Christian church” as we are learning here, and yet they certainly can come boldly to the communion service. Of course, what I really have meant by that phrase is that a person is not in unrepentant sin and is under the discipline of a local church. But then somehow our church discipline system doesn’t seem to be working very well these days. As far as I am concerned, it is the individual who is going to give an account to Christ by eating and drinking judgment to himself, and while I can warn, I think my responsibility stops there.

  3. This post [comment] may be unrelated to the current issue. I need to know if anyone has heard or dealt with the “National Alliance for Family Court Justice”.

  4. Some other traditions from the conservative end of the spectrum are: there is a correct length for a woman’s skirt; all women must wear skirts because trousers means you are wearing man’s clothing; women must wear head coverings; women should allow their hair to go grey naturally; the children should go out to Sunday school during the service; OR the children (in another church) should stay in through the sermon, therefore Sunday School has to happen before or after the service; the offering should be prayed for before (or after) the plate goes round; women may speak from the front of the church but only from a side lectern, not from the pulpit; to raise one’s hands during singing or prayer is not okay….

    Traditions from the Charismatic end of the spectrum: the preacher must wear designer jeans and an open neck shirt; to be a strong Christian you must raise your hands in the singing and prayer times; you are not a Christian unless you speak in tongues; you are not ‘on fire’ unless you speak in tongues; it’s biblical to wave banners during the service and doing so makes the service more spiritual; women must dye their hair and should be gym-aholics so they all look trim and terrific….

  5. That was a good post Barbara. I think we can both relate to a certain church where what the women wear is important. The sermons are good, but there’s something lacking…

  6. Barb commented on traditions from either end of the spectrum, conservative or Charismatic.

    Crossing the entire spectrum: Without a perceived valid reason, one must attend a local, bricks-and-mortar church / “c”hurch.

    Joepote01 commented:

    So, to add to your list, as a member of a Southern Baptist church, one unwritten Pharisaical-type tradition that I encounter (and stand against) is this notion that one must be baptized by immersion in a Baptist church in order to become a member of a Baptist congregation. Absurd! As though God cares by what church denomination we have been baptized into His body!

    Pastor Jeff commented:

    ….Baptism of a baptized Christian (who has already been baptized as a believer), i.e., re-baptism, and THAT in a particular denomination or it doesn’t count – is madness. If you think about it, what that is saying is that as in your case, the SBC is the only true church. Only its baptism counts….

    Good points. Not issues I have personally encountered, but some local “c”hurches lean in that direction.

Leave a comment. It's ok to use a made up name (e.g Anon37). For safety tips read 'New Users Info' (top menu). Tick the box if you want to be notified of new comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.