John and the Pharisees – Matthew 3:5-9

 I know that it would have been a little early, but what might have been the likelihood that Saul of Tarsus came to John down there in the valley of the Jordan? I can just picture the great scholar Gamaliel taking his little band of disciples down to hear the radical preacher – that one remnant of the Old Testament prophets. Saul later called himself a Pharisee of the Pharisees. With that background, and in the light of his very high opinion of himself and his philosophies, I’m sure that if he had heard John, it would have been only to laugh.

Tonight I’d like to examine once again what the Bible teaches about these Pharisees. And starting out, I surprised myself when I called up all the references to the word “Pharisee“ in the Bible. I expected to find at least ten times as often as I did, but it is found only twelve times. Ah, but then I thought to also check the plural form. The word “pharisaios” ( far-is-ah’-yos ) is found exactly one hundred times in ninety-five verses. That was more the sort of number that I was thinking I would find.

When we get the chance in studying something, it is usually a good idea to go to the very best source. In a court of law, the lawyer usually objects when the witness is trying to express what he thinks was going on in another person’s mind. Let’s stick with the facts, not what other people think about the facts. That is one of the tasks of the Bible preacher – the Bible is made up of facts, but what other people think about the Bible is open to debate. Toe the line, preacher.

There is a lot said about the Pharisees, but undoubtedly the best source of information comes from Paul, who was a part of the straightest branch of the Pharisees. He was an expert in the way that they thought and believed. What does he have to say about these people that John lambasted here in chapter 3?

What was it to be a Pharisee?Before we get to Paul, I’ll read what Smith’s Bible Dictionary says, then we will see if what Paul says agrees. “The Pharisees were a sect that seems to have started after the Jewish exile. In addition to the Old Testament books the Pharisees recognized in oral tradition a standard of belief and life. They sought for distinction and praise by outward observance of external rites and by outward forms of piety, and such as ceremonial washings, fastings, prayers, and alms giving; But being comparatively negligent of genuine piety, they prided themselves on their fancied good works. They held strenuously to a belief in the existence of good and vil angels, and to the expectation of a Messiah; And they cherished the hope that the dead, after a preliminary experience either of reward or of penalty in Hades, would be recalled to life by the Messiah, and that they would be requited each according to his individual deeds. In opposition to the usurped dominion of the Herods and the rule of the Romans, they stoutly upheld the theocracy and their country’s cause, and possessed great influence with the common people. According to Josephus they numbered more than 6,000. They were bitter enemies of Jesus and his cause; and were in turn severely rebuked by him for their avarice, ambition, hollow reliance on outward works, and affection of piety in order to gain popularity.”

From what I have been able to learn, Smith’s is a pretty good description and definition of the Pharisee. But now, let’s build on that just a little bit. Did you notice that Smith seemed to suggest that there was a large number of Pharisees? 6,000. It seems to me that 6,000 would have been a relatively small percentage of the population. Rather than thinking that this was a large number, he may have been implying that he was surprised that the number was actually that large. I’ll come back to this in just a moment.

Paul once said, “My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our RELIGION I lived a Pharisee.” What do you know about the word “religion?” Even though it is rare in the New Testament, the Biblical references come from 2 different Greek words. Paul uses one word twice in Galatians: “Galatians 1:13-14 – “For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” The other original word is “threskeia” ( thrace-ki’-ah ). This word is translated “religion” three times and “worshipping” once. Colossians 2:18 – “Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.” James 1:26-27 – “If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” The Greek word “threskeia” ( thrace-ki’-ah ) is a little like the word “Christian.” There was a district between Philippi and Black Sea which was called Thrace. The people of that area were particularly religious – at least in the eyes of Greeks and Macedonians. And over time, people who displayed a great deal of piety, spirituality and religiousness, were called “Thracians.” And eventually anyone whose religion was bordering on superstition was called a Thracian. Paul used that word to describe his former religious condition.

“My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our RELIGION I lived a Pharisee.” Paul used the word “sect” which I have told you before is “hairesis” ( hah’-ee-res-is ). Five times this word is translated “sect“ and four times it is translated “heresy.” So both “sect” and “religion” are used in either positive, negative or neutral sorts of ways. To be a Pharisee was to be a part of a sect and to believe in a kind of heresy as far as the Sadducees were concerned. To be a Pharisee was to practice a religion which bordered on superstition.

Let’s think about Paul’s sect and what it meant to John.I once talked to a man who didn’t like the King James Bible, because the grammar wasn’t exactly like our English text books. Now as I think back on him, I wonder how precise his own grammar was? I have to grant that our Bibles do not always follow the common rules of grammar, just as they don’t use the same spellings that we are used to. But these are not good arguments to throw away our Bibles. Rules of grammar change over time. And the rules of grammar are often broken for the sake of emphasis. I do it all the time – sometimes for emphasis and sometimes because I’m not as smart as I’d like to be..

What do you think about Paul’s grammar in this statement: “after the most straitest sect of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.” To say “most straitest” is grammatical over-kill. The “straitest sect” all by itself says that there were no straiter sects than the Pharisees. Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees – a part of the “most straitest” sect of the Pharisees. And I’m sure that some of the people coming to hear and watch John were just like Paul had been. As I hope that you are aware, the word “strait“ doesn’t mean going ahead without curving or bending. It speaks about restrictions – Pharisaism was a very narrow religion. And Paul worded his statement this way for emphasis. Those people who came to visit John were narrow – they left no room for the radical preaching of the forerunner of the Saviour.

When I was studying this and I looked at Robertson’s Word Pictures, I was quite surprised. That Greek expert said that there are only four superlatives in the entire New Testament. He used a word which is not in my dictionary, but which I think that I understand: He said that there are lots of “elatives,” but only three “superlatives.” An “elative” must be something bigger and better than most, but a “superlative“ is the highest of the high, the biggest of the big. Not the penultimate, but the absolute ulitmate. The other superlatives that he cited were: Jude 1:20 – “But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your MOST HOLY FAITH, praying in the Holy Ghost.” Revelation 18:12 – “The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of MOST PRECIOUS wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble.” And Revelation 21:11 – “Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone MOST PRECIOUS, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.” Assuming that what Robertson said was correct then, Paul was saying that in his estimation there could have been a no more religious person in all of Israel. Here in Matthew 3, people very close to Paul in religion were standing before John

The word “Pharisee“ refers to someone who was “separate“ from the pack. That was the meaning of the word – “separate.” Those people were scrupulous to the point of being ridiculous. Do you remember what the Lord Jesus said about how they tithed? They didn’t just give 10% of their income to support the House of the Lord, they tithed on grains of salt and mint or tea leaves. What if they got it wrong? What if they failed to properly count the grains that they had been given? Some actually worried about it. Some of these people couldn’t sleep at nights, worrying about whether or not they had been as obedient or as precise as they should have been that day. Those who were true Pharisees of the Pharisees stayed close to insanity – analyzing everything about themselves in their striving for perfection. Granted, not every Pharisee was as radical as the next. Some of them even thought about being baptized by John. But then there were people like Paul.

This is why Paul was so avid in his persecution of the saints. This is why Paul sought to execute or incarcerate the disciples of Christ. Not only would personal tolerance to heresy mean that someone wasn’t the Pharisee that he needed to be, but it was the Pharisaic duty of these people to attack and destroy anything which they felt was blasphemous. They probably felt that he had no alternative but to destroy those wicked believers in Jesus – like John the Baptist and those believers in the Book of Acts.

Paul was probably thinking back on his own earlier days when he wrote to the Colossians – “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.”

I think that there is an IMPORTANT LESSON in Paul, the Pharisee of the Pharisees.Those people believed that the road to Heaven was extremely tough – and very steep. Their prayers had to be exact. Their obedience had to be perfect – not just good, but perfect. They felt that the Word of God demanded absolute precision.

But who is sufficient for these things? Absolutely no one. The best that the most exact Pharisee could ever hope to attain would be near perfection. They believed – they knew – that in theology negligence, human frailty or lukewarmness was condemnation to Hell.

But there was John – condemning the sins of the best Pharisees in the world. Yet at the same time, he was counseling Publicans, sinners and even Roman soldiers. He was merely telling people to repent and to trust God, putting their faith in the coming Messiah. He wasn’t preaching perfection, memorization of the law, and duty to minute detail. John was teaching things which were contrary to Pharisaism.

What should their philosophy have taught those people, if they had only thought it through? No matter how high up the ladder of Pharisaism they arose, they were still faced with their failures. That in itself should have forced them to willingly look for grace from God. If their good wasn’t good enough, then it was obvious that they needed a Redeemer, just as much as the publicans and sinners. But it would take the grace of God for them to realize that they needed the grace of God. It required the condemning style of preaching of John the Baptist to awaken them.

Sadly, we have no evidence that many of those 6,000 Pharisees ever followed John’s exhortation. But there was one – Paul, the Pharisee of the Pharisees who later found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Praise God from Whom all blessings flow.