iii. THE PHARISEES AND JESUS. —(l) Their opposition to our Lord. The Pharisees and scribes were the first to assume an attitude of hostility and criticism to Jesus. They maintained this attitude all through His public ministry down to the very close ; for although in the last days of His life the Sadducees were most prominent, the Pharisaic scribes also took part in His trial and condemnation. They had many reasons to find fault with Him. He claimed authority to for- give sins (Mt 9°, Mk 2%, Lk 5%), and associated freely with jpublicans and ‘sinners’ (Mt 94, Mk 218, Lk 5” 7® 15 197); He and His disciples were indifferent to ascetic practices (Mt 914, Mk 918, Lk 553), and to leviti purity (Mt 15, Mk 74, Lk 11°), and were not careful to observe the Sabbath in the orthodox fashion (Mt 1218-914, Mk 935. 815. Lk 615. 6a. 13 1415. Jn 5 lor. 9126... They accused Him of being in league with Beelze- bub (Mt 12**, Mk 8535. Lk pect, Mt 9% 1115); demanded a sign from Him (Mt 12" 161, Mk 84), and attempted to frighten Him from Galilee into Judwa, where He would be more in the power of the Sanhedrin (Lk 13%, cf. Plummer, δέ. Luke, 348). They μα testing questions to Him, e.g. as to the way o preter} eternal life (Lk 10), as to the greatest commandment (Mt 9345. Mk 12°5#-), and as to the law of divorce (Mt 19%, Mk 102). These were leading questions meant to test His orthodoxy, and to discredit Him, if possible, with the people (see Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 202 on Mk 103 : ‘probably their intention was simply to place Him in apparent opposition to Moses, who had permitted divorce’). Their most skilful testing question was that as to the lawful- ness of paying tribute to Cesar (Mt 227) Mk 123. 1, *): whatever answer He gave, He could hardly avoid offending either the Roman authorities or the people. For their alliance with the Herodians in this matter (Mt 22!6, Mk 1918), ef. Mk 3°. From their standpoint their opposition to Him was inevitable. They felt instinctively that the whole spirit of His life was in flat contra- diction with their most cherished convictions.
(2) Our Lord’s criticism of the Pharisees. Jesus recognized that the opposition between Himself and the Pharisees was essential, and not only defended Himeelf egaiuek their attacks, but also criticised them keenly. He frequently denounced them as hypocrites (e.g. Mt 6% δ: 156. 157 9313. 1. 23. 35. 71.3, Mk 7°), whited sepulchres (Mt 23%, cf. Lk 11*), the offspring of vipers and serpents (Mt 12% 23%), an evil and adulterous generation (Mt 12% 16‘), and blind guides (Mt 15! 2315. 19. 24. 26). He warmed His disciples against their leaven (Mt 16% 44, Mk 8, Lk 121), denied that their right- eousness qualified for admission into the kingdom of heaven (Mt 5”), and declared that, while the publicans and harlots were entering the kingdom, they were remaining outside (Mt 215), He recognized their official character, and the duty of the people towards them as authorized teachers, but He warned against following their example (Mt 23™-), He also charged them with a great many specific vices, most of which were inherent in Pharisaic Judaism.
The fundamental principle of Pharisaic Judaism was complete separation from everything non- Jewish ; hence their separation from the mass of
PHARISEES
PHARISEES
their fellow-countrymen ; hence also their devotion to the minute study and scrupulous fulfilment of the law. The law was God’s great gift to Israel; their possession of the law was the most signal proof that they were God’s chosen people; it separated Israel as a ‘holy’ people from all other peoples. It was also the on 7 and the absolutely oe πον means of attaining the Messianic salvation th for the individual and the nation. Life had therefore no other aim and meaning than the study and fulfilment of the law. One evil conse- quence of this ‘idolatry of the law’ was the exter- nalizing of religion. was conceived of mainly as Lawgiver and Judge. The religious relation between God and Israel was purely legal; it was founded on a purely legal compact. Religion was not a fellowship with God, but a strictly legal walk before God. Their zeal for the law was conse- quently a serving of God for the sake of reward; more especially for the supreme reward of sharing in the glory and bliss of the Messianic age. It was ossible to satisfy God’s demands perfectly in a fea way ; and by doing so they hoped to enjoy the commanding God, whom they obeyed, as a a gracious God. This doctrine of merit led almost of necessity to a great multiplication of precepts, to a hedging or fencing of the law, so as to make its violation almost impossible. They also sought to acquire merit by doing more than was com- manded. Moreover, in their keeping of the law, they considered mainly whether a particular action was commanded or forbidden. eir attitude to their almost deified law was external, formal, mechanical. They laid stress not upon the right- ness of an action, or upon the disposition from which it was done, but upon its being commanded and upon its formal correctness. They applied this principle even to such matters as fasting and prayer. They attached excessive importance to the precepts relating to foods and levitical purity, because the strict observance of these precepts kept them from defilement. They made the law ‘only a manual of religious etiquette.’ Their righteousness was thus mere formalism ; their righteous man was one who kept the law, written and oral, in an external, but formally correct manner.