Pharisees

[volgadon]

SUzie said:

How the Lord felt about it? Did he support their traditions or did he condemn them? Based on the things Jesus tells them in the New Testament, it is very clearly how he felt about them and their erroneous notion of equating outward appearance with righteousness. Not to mention, they used to look around and point out those who weren't dressed as they were supposed to be...(of course, there are so many examples but just focusing on the one about appearance).

They were NOT interested in purity of HEART but measured purity on the basis of outward appearance.

The white shirt thread was closed, but I wanted to respond to this.
Let me begin by stating that I am not attempting to exhonorate the Pharisees. I do however believe in setting the historical record straight. Especially considering that we are studying the New Testament this year.
How popular wisdom sees Pharisees has just as much to do with century upon century of antinomism as it does with the facts. IE according to this conception Pharisees are a prime example of meaningless, hypocritical legalism. Lets at least make an effort to see things from their POV. Is it likely that their primary concern was with being self righteous? People hardly think that way about themselves. There has to be something in their faith or way of life which is appealing and meaningful to them.
The Law of Moses separated the holy from the profane, the pure from the impure.
Like any legal codex, the Law of Moses had to be interpreted as it was applied to daily life. No law by itself covers every situation, let alone fully.
What the Pharisees set out to do was ensure that the meaning of the law was properly observed in daily life. Failure to comply with the Law of Moses rendered a man unclean. Unless he became clean he was cut off from the covenant community.
So, for example, failure to render a proper tithe had serious implications. Hence the issue of tithing the tiny cumin and anise seeds. This was not an issue of wearing a tie to sacrament meeting or not.
You said that the Pharisees pointed at those not dressed properly. I must have missed the reference. Would you care to provide it?
I'd love to discuss the topic more fully, but for tonight I'll just add that the Pharisees were not a homogenous group. Jesus' teachings often fit with the teachings favoured by the school of Hillel, and that Jesus also had positive things to say about Pharisees.

[HEthePrimate]

One thing that I find interesting is that at times Jesus knowingly rendered himself ritually "unclean" (according to the law of Moses). For example, he allowed a woman who was known to be a sinner to touch him, wash his feet, and wipe them with her hair (Luke 7:36-50). Another time, when healing a leper, he touched the man, thus rendering himself unclean (Matthew 8:2-4). I think Jesus knowingly violated these social taboos in order to teach the Pharisees (and all the people) what God is really like. He doesn't hate people because they sin, and he doesn't run away in order to avoid being contaminated by the "unwashed masses." No, God loves us enough that he reaches out to us in compassion, despite all our filthiness, and even if it means getting his own hands dirty, because he wants to heal us.

[volgadon]

That isn't a bad interpretation, but I feel that the key lies in understand the role of living waters. Living waters (such as a stream, lake, fountain, or rain water) were required for purification. They did not become unclean. Christ called himself living water because he had the ability to render people pure and clean.

[HEthePrimate]

Originally Posted by volgadon

That isn't a bad interpretation, but I feel that the key lies in understand the role of living waters. Living waters (such as a stream, lake, fountain, or rain water) were required for purification. They did not become unclean. Christ called himself living water because he had the ability to render people pure and clean.

True enough, but in the eyes of the Pharisees, he would have become unclean.

Perhaps he was trying to help people see each other as people, rather than as "clean" or "unclean," "ok to hang out with" or "someone to avoid." In other words, maybe part of what at-one-ment means is breaking down the barriers between people. The Pharisees may have been hypocrites, but they may also have been getting in the way of healing and atonement.

[JudoMinja]

Perhaps another reason the Lord called the Pharisees hypocrites could be because the Pharisees were quick to label others "unclean" and distance themselves from those people when the Pharisees in fact had also done things that would make them "unclean". To me, I see a repeat of the "everyone is a sinner" lesson and that denying others acess to places of worship due to their sins or uncleanliness is wrong.

[volgadon]

Originally Posted by HEthePrimate

True enough, but in the eyes of the Pharisees, he would have become unclean.

Perhaps he was trying to help people see each other as people, rather than as "clean" or "unclean," "ok to hang out with" or "someone to avoid." In other words, maybe part of what at-one-ment means is breaking down the barriers between people. The Pharisees may have been hypocrites, but they may also have been getting in the way of healing and atonement.

Perhaps, but we need to be careful not to see it through modern eyes. There is a time and a place for likening the scriptures unto ourselves, and one for understanding the historical context. Jesus was very much concerned with purity and cleanliness, that is after all the purpose of the atonement. The language Jesus used to describe himself would have been clearly understood by the Pharisees.

[jayanna]

I think of the pharisees in this way...that they lived by the letter of the law, and by the time of Jesus, they had forgotten the spirit of the law, or that the spirit of the law had been put aside for what seemed to be the more important letter of the law.

We need both the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.

The law now is a higher law, but there is still a letter and a spirit. Sometimes it is hard to balance both.

I think that we are a little too quick to whip out the 'p' word whenever someone is trying to make a decision by the letter of the law. The rules are necessary, even when we don't like them, or currently understand them. Sometimes we need to try living a law before we can fully understand why it was given to us. We should give the benefit of the doubt whenever hearing about a law which has a questionable origin to us, try it first, then decide judging by the fruits of it.

I, however think that between the two, the spirit of the law is the most important...

[HEthePrimate]

Originally Posted by volgadon

Perhaps, but we need to be careful not to see it through modern eyes. There is a time and a place for likening the scriptures unto ourselves, and one for understanding the historical context. Jesus was very much concerned with purity and cleanliness, that is after all the purpose of the atonement. The language Jesus used to describe himself would have been clearly understood by the Pharisees.

Well, if we are going to do that, then we will have to accept that in the Pharisees' eyes, Jesus rendered himself unclean. They did not recognize him as "living waters," and did not acknowledge his right to forgive sin. What Jesus was doing was revolutionary, contrary to and ahead of the spirit of his time. He was ushering in a "new era."

[SeekerofTruth]

Thanks for posting a thread like this volgadon! :-)

One of my favorite passages that really convicted me was John 5:38-40

"And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. I receive not honour from men."

I remember when I read that I was like "how many times do I just study and read my Bible and refuse to go to Jesus" I read it to attain knowledge, superiority, thinking that the Scriptures will always give me something but my heart and mind are not listening or hardened by my pride of sin. It is a very refreshing and convicting verse for a Pharisee such as myself. lol There is a great difference between knowing God's words and hiding God's words in our hearts. one of my daily struggles. :-)

[Suzie]

Volgadon I referred to pharisaic behavior to those who see/gossip/murmur about others who do NOT wear a white shirt or have a beard as "inferior" "rebels" or "lack spirituality". I know Jesus told the people to follow the things the Pharisees taught BUT NOT do as the Pharisees did (very interesting) But what Jesus said about them and how they perceived things?

23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and canise and cummin, and have domitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Those are pretty strong statements from the Savior. Number 26 is specifically interesting.

For me the rule isn't the issue (neither was for Jesus since he told the people to actually follow what the Pharisees taught them but interestingly enough he also told them not to do it like they Pharisees did).

Again, the issue is not really the rule or unwritten rule, the issue becomes one when people start gossiping, murmuring about those who don't wear a white shirt or choose to grow a beard and when people make their own interpretation of what is necessary to (as per example) to pass the sacrament. For the Pharisees wasn't enough to just keep the Sabbath Day Holy, they went much further than that. In our handbook of instructions the quote is clear when it says:

Those who bless and pass the sacrament should dress modestly and be well groomed and clean. Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament. Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance. Bishops should use discretion when giving such guidance to young men, taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church.

We can all become pharisaic-like in our dealings with others, specially with those who look, think and appear different than we are. Jesus taught us to take care of our inner selves first and the "outside of the cup/platter" maybe clean also IF we do the first.

Edit: Also it is pharisaic-like IMO, when we think that by wearing a white shirt and being clean shaven we're somewhat now more righteous, more obedient, more worthy than our brothers who don't. However...

...for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7)

Beautiful.