The Sin of the Pharisees

What were the Pharisees doing that was so terrible? The issue is important, since the consequences were dire, and are still being felt. If you read all of Matthew 23, it appears that the Pharisees were being set up to kill Jesus and have his blood on their hands because of these other iniquities.

Many a nominally Christian anti Semite use this and similar passages to justify hatred of the Jews. I think they are making a huge error. Nearly all of Jesus’ followers were also Jews. Jesus was criticizing a particular type of Judaism. Moreover, the Pharisees were in a sense obeying the commandments when they crucified Jesus.

That the Pharisees witnessed Jesus performing miracles was not sufficient reason to follow him. Deuteronomy foretells of future false prophets being able to perform wonders. Such false prophets were supposed to be killed. If the Pharisees killed Jesus because they thought Jesus was such a false prophet they were following the Great Commandment. (Note the language of verse 3!)

But note:

Jesus did not lead people away from the Law of Moses. What he did question were Jewish traditions added to the Law of Moses. Such oral traditions have since been written down in the Talmud.

There are a great many rulings in the Jewish traditions that go beyond what the Law of Moses called for. If you do follow them, you will indeed be within the actual commandments. But doing so is an unnecessary burden. And the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were apparently unable/unwilling to bear the full weight of the burden themselves.

For now, do note that this is the “legalism” that Jesus was criticizing, not following the Law of Moses. Many a Christian has failed to understand this and claimed that the old commandments were done away with, that we should merely follow the Spirit or some such. A selective reading of Paul’s letters can lead one to this conclusion, but there are many passages in Paul’s letters that indicate that the commandments are still in force, and the letters by the other apostles hammer in this point.

Adding to the Law is a sin [Deuteronomy 4:2], but was this the sin that justified setting up the Pharisees to have Jesus’ blood on their hands? The additions were not arbitrary; they were based on the Law. The Pharisees were mandating extra measures to ensure the Law was not broken. Jesus did something similar by equating hatred with murder and sexual lust with adultery. And Jesus even endorsed following the rulings by the same Pharisee law experts he was denouncing [Matthew 23:3].

One difference, however, was that Jesus called for these extra measures as a matter of internal discipline. He gave no mandate to prosecute people for such slipping. If the Pharisees were punishing others for not doing their extra measures, then the Pharisees were guilty of injustice. But was this the sin in question?

Note the word “hypocrite.” Also note the bits about straining on gnats and swallowing camels, and omitting the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith. Making a huge show of being ultra strict in Sabbath observance, tithing, etc. does not compensate for neglecting other parts of the Law.

But which parts?

One part explicitly mentioned is taking care of parents in their old age.

Another clue can be found in Matthew 23:

We need to be careful using this passage, as it is not found in all ancient manuscripts. The Net Bible omits this version, so I had to resort to the King James Version. If this verse is valid, it can be tied to the many Gospel passages referring to neglect of the poor. It is safe to say that the Pharisees were found wanting in their treatment of the poor and downtrodden. Note that this was a requirement under the Law of Moses:

The well off were required to lend to the poor at zero interest. But the poor were required to pay back or suffer a temporary loss of farm and/or freedom. However, note that there is no enforcement provision for this lending requirement other than divine wrath.

But does failing to loan constitute robbing the poor? Perhaps. But let us also consider Jesus’ “mission statement.”

What is this “year of the Lord’s favor?” E-Sword’s commentary cross-references this passage to Leviticus 25:10, which talks about the year of jubilee, when debt slaves are freed and the land is returned to the people according to their inheritance. The proclamation of jubilee is certainly good news to the poor! I cannot say for certainly that this the passage above refers to the jubilee year, but it definitely fits.

It also meshes with the criticisms of the rich. In an agrarian society the surest way to riches was to accumulate land. Once the fortunate have enough land to generate a surplus, they can reinvest in more land. Over generations you end up with a plantation system or feudal system. The jubilee law (and inheritance laws that forbid primogeniture) prevent this. Matthew 19:20 states that the rich man (whom Jesus asked to sell all his possessions) was a young man. This means that he probably inherited his wealth. Were these possessions land?

Were the Pharisees keeping this law? Do modern Jews keep this law? I know not. I did see references to Sabbath years when reading Maccabees recently, so that law had come back with the Jews when they returned from Babylon – at least the parts about letting the land rest.

Lest any Christians feel smug, how many Christians obey the jubilee law?