I have reposted this because Substack did not send it the first time. The church has stereotyped the Pharisees. Consequently, the church routinely uses its stereotype to read the Gospels and in so reading them the church misreads the Gospels. In a recent post I used the term “lenient” for the Pharisees. For some scholars that is a term we need to be using more if we want to understand them well. Frankly, to say in our churches that the Pharisees are lenient will raise more than an eyebrow.
Our church is working through my book, The Lost Son. It is a study of the parable of the prodigal son. I have a chapter in this book about the Pharisees. I wish I had this book when writing mine.
Though I taught the Pharisees were strict in their application of the law, I emphasized it was still their interpretation of the law and application that clashed with Jesus’. As NT Wright has mentioned, the Pharisees and Jesus had different understandings of how the kingdom of God was to come about.
I’d be curious how the writers of this book would understand Jesus’ accusation, “They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders…” This would seem to be contrary to their understanding; especially with you saying, “The bigger story is that they wanted to help people observe the law in ways that made sense and were practicable.” It would seem strange too, for a Pharisee wanting people to observe the law, and yet be willing to kill those who apposed their interpretations and applications.
Also, given the Pharisees are so “lenient” and “progressive” in their interpretations of scripture, what does this say about Paul who self still identified with being a Pharisee? Should we read Paul in a interpretive progressive light?
used to think Pharisees were hypocrites in the sense that they said one thing but did another, or they talked the talk but couldn’t walk the walk. After reading Chilton, Mason, etc. (haven’t had the chance to read this book edited by Sievers/Levine), I view the Pharisees more as “sincere hypocrites” as opposed to disengenuous ones. They sincerely believed they were right but were tragically wrong.
"The bigger story is that [the Pharisees] wanted to help people observe the law in ways that made sense and were practicable." - I don't see this as making them less conservative; in my experience in conservative churches the leaders do this all the time; they are constantly helping people figure out how to observe "what the Bible says" in ways that make sense and are practicable. I think it's about whether fundamentally we are rule-based or Spirit-led. I see the Pharisees as too rule-based. Jesus said "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." (John 3:8). We can't walk with the Spirit and always follow rules if this is true of the Spirit. The Spirit does as the Spirit pleases and we cannot tell where it's coming from or going, which means the Spirit cannot be defined by any list of rules or any list of interpretations of rules. I was watching some of a very long interview with Rick Warren. I haven't heard all of it but I've heard from 1:22:21 where he talks about guard rails, setting guard rails for his church staff. Because of the Billy Graham Rule (don't be alone with a woman) he would not stop to help a woman at the side of the road with a flat tire, he says. To protect his reputation. But - Philippians literally says Jesus was made 'of no reputation' in the kenosis. Rules don't save us and rules alone can never show us what a truly Spirit-led life is like. Imo. Here's the video of Rick Warren starting at the guard rail section (in which Rick disappointingly seems possibly to exonerate Bill Hybels, blaming him for not setting guardrails but not for sinning, by saying 'he was thrown overboard'?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X03gY7HPr7Q&t=4941s
Our church is working through my book, The Lost Son. It is a study of the parable of the prodigal son. I have a chapter in this book about the Pharisees. I wish I had this book when writing mine.
Though I taught the Pharisees were strict in their application of the law, I emphasized it was still their interpretation of the law and application that clashed with Jesus’. As NT Wright has mentioned, the Pharisees and Jesus had different understandings of how the kingdom of God was to come about.
I’d be curious how the writers of this book would understand Jesus’ accusation, “They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders…” This would seem to be contrary to their understanding; especially with you saying, “The bigger story is that they wanted to help people observe the law in ways that made sense and were practicable.” It would seem strange too, for a Pharisee wanting people to observe the law, and yet be willing to kill those who apposed their interpretations and applications.
Also, given the Pharisees are so “lenient” and “progressive” in their interpretations of scripture, what does this say about Paul who self still identified with being a Pharisee? Should we read Paul in a interpretive progressive light?
This was so helpful. Thanks, Scot.
used to think Pharisees were hypocrites in the sense that they said one thing but did another, or they talked the talk but couldn’t walk the walk. After reading Chilton, Mason, etc. (haven’t had the chance to read this book edited by Sievers/Levine), I view the Pharisees more as “sincere hypocrites” as opposed to disengenuous ones. They sincerely believed they were right but were tragically wrong.
"The bigger story is that [the Pharisees] wanted to help people observe the law in ways that made sense and were practicable." - I don't see this as making them less conservative; in my experience in conservative churches the leaders do this all the time; they are constantly helping people figure out how to observe "what the Bible says" in ways that make sense and are practicable. I think it's about whether fundamentally we are rule-based or Spirit-led. I see the Pharisees as too rule-based. Jesus said "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." (John 3:8). We can't walk with the Spirit and always follow rules if this is true of the Spirit. The Spirit does as the Spirit pleases and we cannot tell where it's coming from or going, which means the Spirit cannot be defined by any list of rules or any list of interpretations of rules. I was watching some of a very long interview with Rick Warren. I haven't heard all of it but I've heard from 1:22:21 where he talks about guard rails, setting guard rails for his church staff. Because of the Billy Graham Rule (don't be alone with a woman) he would not stop to help a woman at the side of the road with a flat tire, he says. To protect his reputation. But - Philippians literally says Jesus was made 'of no reputation' in the kenosis. Rules don't save us and rules alone can never show us what a truly Spirit-led life is like. Imo. Here's the video of Rick Warren starting at the guard rail section (in which Rick disappointingly seems possibly to exonerate Bill Hybels, blaming him for not setting guardrails but not for sinning, by saying 'he was thrown overboard'?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X03gY7HPr7Q&t=4941s