JESUS FURNISHED A PATTERN

JESUS FURNISHED A PATTERN

INTRODUCTION: God's people follow Jesus because they know Him and love Him.  They are familiar with His voice and follow His lead. (Jn.10:4; Lk. 9:23) His life is the pattern for our lives. (Rom.8:29; 13:14) Paul used Jesus as his pattern to follow. (I Cor.11:1; II Cor.3:18)  We learn from Christ in the New Testament, and in so doing, we try to "measure" up to Him. (Eph.4:13; 1 Jn..4:17; Rev.14:4; Rom.15:7; 1 Pet. 2:21‑24; Jn.15:10; 1 Jn..2:6; 3:3) Yet, today more and more we hear brethren criticize the idea of trying to strictly follow the Biblical "patterns".  It appears that everything should be tolerated, except brethren who insist on patterns being followed. It seems there are some brethren who have the attitude that no one should be criticized except brethren who insist that we be particular and careful about what we do in God's service. Jesus is our pattern and all we can know about that pattern is found in the New Testament. 

  

I.      WE SHOULD STRIVE TO BE AS "LEGALISTIC" AS JESUS. (Matt. 4:4; Deut. 8:3; Heb. 10:7)

A.  Today, we hear people use the word "legalist" in an uncomplimentary way.  They assume a definition and idea of legalism and then apply it to every one who wants to be careful and particular with the Bible.  Thus, with prejudice they pressure people not to think of using the Bible to condemn anyone else's religious abuses or lack of scriptural authority.

1.    Three of Jesus' favorite words were "it is written".  Was He a legalist?  Would He be condemned by today's standards? (Matt.4:1f; 22:29‑32; 19:4; 21:16; 21:42)

2.    He was even particular about a single word in a passage. (Jn.10:33‑36) Even the tense of a word was important. (Matt.22:29‑31)

3.    If people try to follow Jesus' way today, they will be shamed with words like "Bible‑thumper", "Pharisee", "Legalist", "Cultic", etc.  We must follow Jesus even in accepting unjust criticisms and ridicule if need be.

B. Like Jesus, we should expect ourselves and all other people to know the scriptures, the meaning and application.

1.    God holds people responsible. (Matt.12:7; 9:13; 16:11; Jn.8:43)

2.    Jesus rebuked mental laziness and slowness to believe "all" that is written. (Mk.8:14‑17; Lk.24:25‑27)

3.    God's will had to be primary to Christ even if He had to stand alone and suffer to the death. (Matt.26:39) Do we have to stand for anything? If so, what?  Is it legalistic to teach people to stand for those things?  If not, why not?

4.    Was Jesus legalistic in making the statements He made in Matt.7:21‑23; 21:23‑27?  If so, then we must follow His pattern and be willing to be called legalistic, if that is what the use of the term means to our critics.

    

C. Like Jesus, we should insist on strict respect and obedience to God's word.

1.    READ Lk. 8:19‑21; 11:27‑28

2.    ALSO, READ Jn.8:31‑32; 14:15,21,24; 15:10

a.    To say we "love God" is empty if we do not believe we have to   do all He says.

b.    To pick something out of the law of God and act like we do not have to do that (assuming it is something applicable), is to set ourselves above the Law of God, and to make ourselves a judge of the law, rather than a doer of the word.    

3.    Jesus honored and respected God's word right down to the jot and   tittle of it. (Matt.5:17‑19)

II.    OBJECTIONS HEARD TODAY

A."Just follow Jesus and don't let anything, including the Bible, take His place".

1.    How does one know Jesus, much less how to follow Him, without the Bible?

2.    Have you ever heard someone say, "I follow the Bible, not Jesus"? No! Because the subtle distinction doesn't work as well in that direction.  Without the Bible, the above objection is really saying, "Just follow what is your "imagination" of Jesus, instead of the Bible".

3.    Further, did Jesus ever rebuke anyone for trying to follow the Law of Moses instead of Moses?  Can you imagine Jesus saying, "Just follow Moses and don't let anything, including the Law of Moses, take his place"? (Lk.16:29‑31; Mk.12:26; Lk.20:37; 24:44; Jn.5:46)

    B. "Jesus is Lord, not the Bible".

1.    How does one know that Jesus is Lord without the Bible?

2.    How can one determine what the Lord Jesus wants without the Bible?

    C. "Don't trust in self, trust in Jesus".

1.    The fact that one would study the scriptures is a confession that he/she does not trust his own wisdom. He is seeking for God's wisdom.( Acts 17:11; 1 Cor. 2)

2.    Are those who say "just trust in Jesus" sure they are not just trusting in their own opinion and imagination of Jesus?  In essence, they are doing the very thing (in principle) they tell us not to do. Shoud one trust his IMAGINATION of Jesus? How can he be sure his imagination of Jesus is correct? Want he still have to dig into the Bible and find out if his imagination of Jesus is correct?

3.    If depending on one's studies of the Bible is "trusting in self", then what is one doing when he imagines that he is trusting in Jesus? Does he trust in his imagination instead of the real Jesus?

D. "You are guilty of Bible‑olatry, which is, making an idol of the Bible".

1.    Did Jesus make an idol out of the Old Testament?

2.    How can we do like Jesus and still avoid this opinion of us?

3.    Are those who don't follow the Bible guilty of “personal-imagination‑olatry", i.e., making a god out of their own personal imaginations?

A.  “This strictness with the law is just modern Phariseeism".

1.    Actually, the Pharisees were not as strict as Jesus.  They were not as concerned about weightier matters of the law. (Matt.23:23)

2.    Jesus was concerned about the whole law.

3.    They were not concerned about their inward appearance before God, but only their external appearance before men. (Matt.23:3, 5; Lk.11:47‑48) Jesus was stricter in regard to the heart.

4.    The Pharisees added human traditions to the law and found ways to get around strict obedience. (Matt.15:1‑9) Jesus rebuked them for that.

5.    Jesus expects us to strictly do right. (Matt.5:19, 20)

F. "We should follow the spirit, not the letter of the law".

1.    This statement has a deceptive ring of scripture to it. It is a misuse of II Cor. 3.  "The letter" is made to mean the strict wording of scripture, and "the spirit" is made to mean "what you think they really mean"(or what each one desires for them to mean) -- "the letter"(what the words actually say) versus "the spirit" (how I feel inside or how I desire to interpret them). However, II Cor.3 is actually contrasting "the letter"(the already written Old Testament) with "the spirit"(the New Testament, being at that time, revealed through the Spirit to His apostles and prophets). See Eph.3:1-3. Read the context carefully and the Spirit of the New Testament will show that this is the case.

2.    How does one determine what the spirit of a law is? Doesn't this reasoning, in essence, wind up telling people to follow their own imaginations and desires above God's law?

3.    Was the question of circumcision settled by an appeal to "the spirit of the law"?( Acts 15)

4.    Instead of insisting upon taking literal unleavened bread (in observing the Lord's Supper) in harmony with the "letter of the law", can we just observe "the spirit of what it's about"? Can we treat everything else in this way? Baptism?   Confession? Assembling? Church organization?  Who determines what the spirit of the law actually is?  How is this determined?

5.    As we consider this approach, it appears that “the spirit of the law” becomes whatever each man desires to believe it is.  Thus, the only LAW becomes whatever each man wants to IMAGINE that it is.  This whole approach is not worthy of merit. It is an approach that encourages every man to do that which is right in his own eyes.  This only furthers religious confusion.  It does not help to solve anything toward real religious unity.

CONCLUSION:  In spite of modern theology and prejudice against the very attempt to be careful and strict and respectful toward God's word, we must follow the pattern set for us by Jesus.  Beware of brethren who use expressions like the above, or who moan that we need a "new hermeneutic". You can be sure that they are doing things without authority and they just do not have the conviction to give it up.  Jesus is our pattern, and patterns are given to be followed with great care and precision to the best of our ability.

QUESTIONS:

1.    Do we need to be careful to follow Jesus, or would knowledge of a few facts about Jesus be sufficient to guide us throughout life?

     Give a reason for your answer.

2.    What can we know about Jesus' life, principles, ideas, manners, plans, commands, or promises apart from the Bible?

3.    Was Jesus particular about specific tenses in words of the law?

Give an example:

4.    What is meant by the term "Bible‑thumper" today?  Is it designed to make people want to appeal to the scriptures more?  Or, is it designed to make people feel reluctant to appeal to the scriptures?

5.    Do people think they are paying us a compliment when they say we are "legalists"?

6.    Does the Bible give us a pattern of sound words?

7.    If we follow anything else, aren't we going outside the pattern?

8.    Are sound or unsound words used to criticize those who say we need to stay within the pattern?

9.    How can we determine the “pattern” of sound words concerning baptism? 

10. What does 2 Jn.. 9 say and mean?

Terry W. Benton

Understanding Grace #2

Understanding Grace #2

A brother said:

“If you believe we are justified by our own power, through things God has given us to do,…”

TB: The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace THROUGH faith (Eph.2:8).  Faith (believing) is a thing that God has given us to do. Nobody can do it for us. Jesus does not do this for us. So, I believe like Paul that we are justified, not by our own power, but definitely “through things God has given us to do”. One of those things God has given us to do is BELIEVE (Heb.11:6).  It is THROUGH faith that grace becomes our possession (Rom.5:1).  We exercise our minds and hearts upon the word of God and “faith comes by hearing”(Rom.10:17). We do the hearing, the listening, the studying of the evidence revealed. It is BY hearing that faith comes. Hearing is something we must do. This is one of the “things God has given us to do”. Now, I do not believe that I am justified BY my own power. I believe that He gives me the power of salvation through hearing the word of the gospel (Rom.10:17; 1:16). Now, our brother goes on to say that if we believe that we are justified “through things God has given us to do”:

then your salvation becomes dependent on you and your obedience to God.

TB: But, God does not force us to be saved. So, there is a sense in which much really does depend on our willingness to yield and obey. I know it ultimately comes from Jesus, and I know that I cannot save myself except He provide the means and state the conditions or terms of pardon. But, after he provides the means and states the terms of my acceptance, then it becomes dependent on my willingness to yield and obey those terms of acceptance and pardon. Our brother goes on to say:

 On the other hand, if you believe we are justified by God’s grace and power, then your salvation becomes totally dependent on God and His lovingkindness. You can figure out which of those paths leads to confidence and which of those paths leads to deluded self-righteousness or hopelessness.

TB: Well, I believe that I am saved by God’s grace and power, but I also have to believe that it is THROUGH faith that I must bring to God.  Now, if I TOTALLY leave everything up to God, then I will not be saved. As loving and kind as God is, God is leaving some things up to me.  I can yield and obey or I can turn from His grace and let Jesus’ death be in vain for me. God has already voted for me. I have to cast the deciding vote. When I decide to vote for God’s salvation by obeying His terms of pardon, I have every reason to be confident in my salvation. That is NOT a path that leads to self-righteousness or hopelessness.

It is not “self-righteous” to believe that I must meet GOD’s terms of pardon. It would be self-righteous to think that I do not need to or have to. It is not hopeless to think I have to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins.  It would be hopeless if I refused.

So, having looked again at our brother’s words, I still disagree with them. I have not twisted them or taken them out of context. I realize that a little later he made a disclaimer that he does not believe in “cheap grace”, but that disclaimer contradicts the idea of being totally dependent on God and His lovingkindness, because if it costs me anything, cheap or expensive, then it is not totally dependent on God and His lovingkindness. It depends some on whether I am willing to pay the cost demanded, whether cheap or expensive.

I also said and realize that ONLY by grace do I have a chance at all, but the fact that it is a chance to be saved, and that chance is up to me, surely indicates that it is not ALL “totally dependent on God and His lovingkindness”.  When our brother says it is not “cheap grace”, he is implying that it may cost us something, and if it costs us anything, then it is not “totally dependent on God and His lovingkindness”.  

I know the MEANS of pardon (Jesus’ blood) and the TERMS or conditions of pardon are totally given by God’s grace. He did not have to give the means or terms because of any goodness on my end. But, meeting the terms of pardon is totally up to me.  There is much that DEPENDS on me. Am I wrong? Does ANY of the possession of the gift of salvation depend on me?  Yes!  It depends on my hearing, my honesty with the evidence presented, and my willingness to believe and obey the terms of pardon.  Where am I wrong? In what way have I misrepresented anything a brother said?

Now let me address this question to our brother:  Does salvation depend on us at all? If it does not, then all of us are saved automatically. Jesus died for us all.  There is nothing we can do to be lost, because being lost is not up to us, and there is nothing we can do to be saved, because being saved is not up to us. If salvation does depend on us at all, then to whatever degree that any of it depends on us, to that degree it cannot TOTALLY depend on God and His loving-kindness.  The part where God gave terms of pardon and appealed to us to obey those terms of pardon, leaves that much up to us.  We can keep tagging along with this perverse generation and remain condemned with them, or, we can save ourselves from this perverse generation by meeting God’s terms of pardon(Acts 2:40). But, if it depends on my willingness to hear and believe and obey, then the argument our brother makes is not true. - Terry W. Benton

Understanding Grace??

Understanding Grace??

Back in the 1950’s and 60’s there was the testing of ideas of authority under God’s grace.  Brethren knew that salvation was by grace through faith, and they also knew that the grace of God taught us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and to live under the authority of Jesus (Matt.28:18-20; Eph.1:19f).  Because of Jesus’ authority and being head over all things to the church, brethren tested issues to make sure they could hold to the practices that they were engaged as a congregation (1 Thess.5:21).  Even though it was a system of grace, brethren knew that grace teaches us to “prove what is acceptable”(Rom.12:1-4; Eph.5:11) to the Lord, and not just ASSUME what is acceptable to the Lord.  This led to a testing of whether we could support human institutions from the common treasury.

Much dispute was engaged according to the pattern of Acts 15, where brethren believed that discussion and debate was a very needed and helpful tool toward understanding an issue, and developing the convictions that align with what grace teaches and what is truly authorized under grace in Christ.  Yes, division will come about when one side MUST live under the authority of Jesus and the other side thinks grace is a ticket to act without authority.  Jude 4 mentions people using the grace of God for license.  When the treasury is used in ways that force people to violate their consciences, grace does not teach us to just sear our consciences and ignore the issue.  The division was not due to non-institutional brethren not understanding grace, it was due to institutional brethren misusing grace and forcing brethren to either ignore the issue of authority or get out.  Those who fought those battles knew that if there was any other way to avoid division, they would have loved to avoided it.  Sometimes division is just not avoidable (1 Cor.11:19) where brethren will not “test all things and hold fast that which is good” as the grace of God teaches us.

In spite of all the study and testing of ideas, there came along a wave of people who thought a proper knowledge of grace would allow us to fellowship just about anybody. Thus, a wave of people thought they knew more about the grace of God in the 70’s, and thus a battle with the “grace-fellowship” brethren was engaged to test those claims of how to properly understand and use the grace of God toward proper fellowship with institutional brethren.  Brethren were willing to debate the issues, but the “grace-fellowship” advocates preferred not to debate and discuss, but chose hit-and-run tactics instead.  It seems that every time somebody writes an article that suggests that brethren divided “needlessly” over issues of authority, and then someone wants to test their claim, that these brethren do not possess the love and courage of true grace to actually test their claims as we see the apostles and elders doing in Acts 15.  It seems that the new breed do not really believe that their new views can stand up when tested, and so they prefer the techniques of the false teachers in Jude and 2 Peter 2 where you try to slip in and convince people without testing all things openly.

The cycle turns and the cycle turns, like the cycle we see in the book of Judges.  A new generation arises that does not know the issues, and then they think they have discovered “grace” in a way that brethren have always been ignorant about. They visualize being heroes of the faith who can now unite brethren by showing them that they have discovered the “true” grace of God, and that all the division over the issues of the work and organization of the church can now be resolved with a better understanding of grace.

Here is a recent quote I want to examine:

Another key point of understanding for Christians is on the topic of Justification. A good friend of mine has told me time and again that our understanding of justification affects the way we view the rest of the Bible. I think he is right. For instance…

If you believe we are justified by our own power, through things God has given us to do, then your salvation becomes dependent on you and your obedience to God. On the other hand, if you believe we are justified by God’s grace and power, then your salvation becomes totally dependent on God and His lovingkindness. You can figure out which of those paths leads to confidence and which of those paths leads to deluded self-righteousness or hopelessness. –Unquote!

Now, catch the subtlety of the above comment.  It is actually the same claim that denominational “faith-only” people have been advocating for years.  They said baptism is not essential because that is “believing we are justified by our own power”.  Peter did not think so in Acts 2:36-41. They argued that we were wrong about baptism because that is the same as believing that “your salvation is dependent on you and your obedience to God rather than becoming totally dependent on God and His lovingkindness”.  Now, the young brother I am quoting above does not take his words to the logical conclusion. He DOES believe that baptism is essential to salvation, but he did not realize that by borrowing his ideas from denominational writers about grace and justification, he has prepared those who read from him to take his words to the next logical step.

These very arguments were used by a denominational preacher I have debated twice on the issue of baptism’s place in justification (See the Benton-Olson debates at the ReligiousDebates site in YahooGroups).  His argument was exactly what our brother argued above. It is a very weak argument because if taken to the logical conclusion will mean that everyone is saved.  Think about it.  If I “believe” by relying upon my mind to judge truth from error and arrive at conviction, then that would also mean that I should not exercise any thought about the matter, else I would be relying upon my own power to believe, and salvation would be up to me and dependent upon me.  I should not repent because, again, if that is up to me too, then I am relying upon myself and my own actions to bring about what should be “total dependence on God and his lovingkindness” rather than my own efforts and responses.  Our brother uses the denominational arguments of justification without yet taking them to the logical conclusion.  The universalist is “totally dependent on God and His loving-kindness” for he does not believe anything is a condition for justification.  They are taking the grace-justification argument to the logical conclusion. They are simply wrong about whether we have to meet certain conditions for grace and what those conditions are.

The truth is that we are totally dependent on God and His loving-kindness, and that is why we obey Him. If He has conditions for me to meet, I depend on Him to justify me on the terms He gives.  I am totally dependent on Him.  I depend on Him to offer the pardon itself because I cannot produce it, and I depend on Him to tell me what the terms or conditions of pardon are.  I cannot invent my own terms. I totally depend,  as those 3,000 on Pentecost, on God’s grace to provide pardon and to tell me what I must do to obtain His pardon.  Likewise, I totally depend on Him to tell me what His will is for my life.  My obedience is not the basis of salvation. His grace is the basis.  Obedient faith is the condition through which grace is acquired and enjoyed.  Grace does not allow me to quit submitting to His terms and conditions of ongoing pardon (1 John 1:7-9).  I am confident because of forgiveness, not because I feel worthy or good enough.  I am confident because Jesus authored my salvation and is able to aid me on my journey and will be with me to help me finish the race (Heb.2:18; 12:1-4). As I know Him, I love and obey Him. When I see that I am failing, I ask His forgiveness and I know He forgiveness me and lets me start over again and again. That is what His grace teaches me (Titus 2:11-15).

Let us be careful that we do not misuse the grace of God to teach people that they are safe without obeying God.  I do not see the grace taught in the New Testament ever talking like that. Beware that you do not let someone teach you that grace allows people to continue in sin (Rom.6:1f) or that it allows us to fellowship and participate with brethren who are acting outside the bounds of authority. That is surely turning the grace of God into license (Jude 4). That is a misunderstanding of grace, not an understanding of it.

Terry W. Benton

Legalism

Legalism

What is it? Why do people fear it? It seems that the only opposite is “illegalism”. Now, do you want to be legal or illegal? Was Nadab and Abihu punished for legalism or illegalism? Is it legal to do the will of God? Or, is it illegal? Was Ananias and Sapphira killed for doing something legal or illegal? I don’t know what definition people are attaching to the word “legalist”. It seems to mean different things to different people.  What Bible passage uses this term? Did Jesus ever criticize the Pharisees for being “legalists”? Was not the whole issue their misuse of scripture and of their neglect of weightier matters of THE LAW (a legal demand)? Was not Jesus trying to get them to be more legal?

Did Jesus or God ever approve of people doing things that were illegal? Hypocrisy is not legal. This is what Jesus addressed most often regarding the Pharisees. Jesus said that doctrines of men that make void the commandments of God are not legal.(Matt.15:1-9). Hypocrisy and lack of love are not legal.

Was Uzzah killed because of legalism or illegalism? Was David being legal or illegal when he put the ark on the ox-cart? Was it legal or illegal to add circumcision to the gospel? (Gal.1:6-10). Was Paul being a legalist when he forbade the brethren to add circumcision to the gospel?  When he said that people would be “accursed” if they perverted the gospel in so small a matter as adding circumcision, was he being a “legalist”?

If I understand what legal means, then I encourage everyone to try your best to be legal. I would never encourage people to keep on being proud of being an “illegalist”. Doing the will of God and teaching men so is legal. Teaching people not to worry about doing the will of God is illegal. Jesus came to do the will of God.  If He was legal, then He was a legalist, was He not?  If He was illegal, then He was not doing the will of God.  My dictionary says “strict adherence to laws or rules”. When it comes to laws of men, this can be bad. When it comes to the law of God, this is good. If we love God, we should show it by keeping His commandments (John 15:14).  Is that bad or good? Did Jesus condemn the Pharisees for strict adherence to laws of God? Can anyone show an example of where Jesus rebuked them for this?  It was their hypocrisy that Jesus condemned. I challenge any one to show where legalism is condemned in the Bible.

Now, some think legalism is seeking to be justified before God on the basis of doing everything right without violation of the law (perfect “works”).  I don’t know of anyone who seeks “forgiveness” (a legal term) and believe that they have done nothing that needs forgiveness at the same time.  So, I don’t know anyone who thinks that they are justified by their own perfect performance of law-keeping.  I know only brethren who know they need mercy and forgiveness, and therefore, I don’t know ANY brethren who think that their relationship with God is established on the basis of their own perfect legal standing.  All that  I know seek forgiveness by means of the blood of Christ. Isn’t that and obedience an effort to stay on the legal side of God’s law? (Acts 2:37-41).

When John teaches Christians to confess their sins so that we can be forgiven of sins (violation of law), is it not so that by forgiveness we can stand on the legal side of God’s law? (1 John 1:7-9).  If we remain on the illegal side, won’t we go to hell?  So, it seems to me that we must be legalistic by obedience and appeal for mercy through the blood of Christ, else we will go to hell.  It seems clear that our appeal for the blood of Christ is for legal reasons as well.  It is essential to keeping God’s judgments in our favor. 

If our choice is to be legal in what we do and teach, or be illegal, then sign me up for the side of legalism. What if we formed some new terms? For example, “he is a will-of-God-ist”. Would you mind being called a “Will-of-God-ist”? What does it mean? It means someone who insists on doing the will of God. Is that good or bad? In the Bible it appears to be good (Matt.7:21ff).

What about an “obedientist”? What is that? It is someone who seeks to obey the will of God. Would you want to be called an “obedientist” or a “disobedientist”?  Well, if the choice is between those two terms, I want to be an obedientist. Yet, it has the same connotation as legalist. It can be used to prejudice people against being obedient. Yet, nothing in scripture condemns obedience. And, nothing condemns being legal in what you do and teach. When people throw around the term “legalist”, and frame it in a bad light, always throw a question-mark up beside that term and ask for their  definition.

Satan made the good law of God in the garden sound bad. Prejudice has power to blind and destroy. I’m more afraid of illegalism than of legalism. I don’t know if I have seen enough legalism (if legalism is seeking to be on the legal side of God’s law).  I know I have seen too much illegalism.  Brethren, let us be careful about throwing around terms without being clear as to what we mean.  Don’t let any man shame you for trying to get on the legal side of God’s book.

Terry W. Benton

Jesus versus the Pharisees

What Were Some Major Differences?

Intro.  There is no doubt but that Jesus was often in conflict with the Jewish sect known as the Pharisees.  A very casual reading of the New Testament makes this very obvious. In this lesson we want to examine WHY there was conflict.  When we study the evidence of the Bible, we find a different picture than is often expressed by our religious friends in and out of the church.  Occasionally, we run into someone who thinks that strict obedience to the Bible is what Pharisaism was then and is now (only in a “Christian” form).  Is this so?  Or, does the very term “Pharisee” serve a purpose for lawless religious people to frighten people away from trying to obey all of the will of God lest we be considered “Pharisaical”?

What are proper analogies between some professed “Christians” today, and the Pharisees that Jesus confronted?

Common Misconceptions Today

A.    A Strictness About Biblical Authority is Modern Pharisaism

1.      When we examine the evidence of the Bible, we find that the Pharisees were not nearly as strict about God’s authority expressed in the Law as they were strict in regard to their favorite human traditions.

2.      It is not a part of their vocabulary to talk about “the will of God” though this was the central theme of Jesus’ life and talk. Mk.3:35; Jno.5:30; 6:39

3.      Early Christians considered that the Pharisees were NOT submissive to the authority or will of God – Lk.7:30

4.      When all evidence is fairly considered, we conclude that the modern “Pharisees” are those who are religious and respectful toward their own human traditions above the will of God, and who do not often appeal to the will of God as their authority.  Mark 7:1-13

B.     Strict Moral Codes of Ethics is a Sign of Modern Pharisaism

1.      When we examine the evidence of the Bible, we find that the Pharisees were very loose in their personal moral code of ethics.

2.      Jesus said that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.  Mat.5:19-20

3.      The contrasts between Jesus’ standards and those of the Pharisees are seen in the Sermon on the mount – Matt.5-7

a.       Jesus’ shows that they were often very hateful, lustful, and dishonest in their dealings with others. Matt.5:21ff

b.      Jesus shows that they were hypocrites (showing one side in play-acting form) but altogether different inside where God sees their true character. – Matt.6-7

c.       They ignored the Law on key moral issues like coveting a neighbor’s wife, divorce, loving your neighbor, and bearing false witness or keeping oaths.

d.      They brought a woman guilty of adultery before Jesus, but could not throw a stone because they were often guilty of the same thing. Jno.8:3f; Matt.23:25-33

4.      It seems from all the evidence that when people appear religious, but hold to loose moral standards, that they are playing the role of the Pharisees.

5.      We cannot grant that strict moral standards were ever criticized by Jesus, nor upheld by the Pharisees.  Loose morals, while claiming to love and respect God, is a sign of modern day Pharisaism.

C.     Demanding Book, Chapter, and Verse Preaching is Pharisaism

1.      It would be impossible to find Jesus rebuking people who insist that the Bible be preached, and nothing but the Bible.

2.      Jesus rebuked their blindness in reading the scriptures, not the reading of the scriptures themselves.  In them they should have been able to see types, shadows, and prophecies of Jesus.  Jesus insisted that they search the scriptures with greater openness and honesty. John 5

3.      We cannot grant that Book, Chapter, and Verse preaching posed or poses any problem. It solves a lot of problems.  It gives a common measure of truth, and thus a valid means of creating and maintaining the unity Jesus prayed for. John 17

4.      Jesus rebuked “not knowing the scriptures”, but not scriptural teaching.

5.      Jesus rebuked setting aside the commandments of God in preference to human traditions, but not book, chapter, and verse preaching.

D.    Challenging Human Traditions is Pharisaism

1.      It was not the Pharisees that challenged traditions.  It was Jesus.

2.      It was the lack of challenging human traditions that made the Pharisees what they were.  It is here, on the matter of human traditions,  that got Jesus to raise His protests against them. Matt.15:1-14

3.      The Pharisees were the ones who did not want their traditions to be challenged.  Thus, the modern Pharisees would be the same way.

Jesus Never Rebuked The Pharisees Because….

A. They were strict in regard to GOD’s LAW

1.      They were very strict about their traditions, but very loose regarding God’s commandments.

2.      He rebuked their lack of commitment to the Law of God.

B. They wanted scriptural authority for all they did together in temple and     synagogue

1.      Jesus cleaned out the temple because they allowed too much that God never authorized.  Jno.2

2.      They did not have authority to make God’s house a house of merchandise.

3.      The modern Pharisees are making church (God’s spiritual house) a house of fun, entertainment, and social programs.

C.     They were too strict in regard to standards of righteous behavior

1.      The evidence shows that they were very loose regarding the standards of righteousness expressed in the Law.  Matt.5:19-20

2.      They were not very righteous at all.

3.      Jesus expressed higher and therefore stricter standards of righteous behavior. The Sermon on the Mount expresses such contrasts between the standards of the scribes and Pharisees and those standards Jesus expected of those who would see and enter His kingdom.  Matt.5-7

D.    They were against human traditions that set aside the commandments of the Lord

1.      They were for traditions of their fathers even when they set aside the commandments of the Lord.

2.      Modern Pharisees will employ things that set aside the commandments of the Lord.  Sprinkling for baptism, infant baptism, divisive names and creeds that prevent the unity Jesus prayed for.  These are just a few examples.

Jesus vs. Pharisees

A.    Who thought about the scriptures the most?

1.      Who appealed to the scriptures the most?  Jesus? Or the Pharisees?  We find Jesus speaking of the scriptures in one way or another in all of His personal temptations, and in His dealings with others.  “What saith the scriptures” was constantly on His tongue.

2.      The Pharisees occasionally brought up the scriptures when it seemed in their best personal interest to do so.

B.     Who appealed to the will of God the most?

1.      The Father’s will was constantly on Jesus’ mind, tongue, and actions.

2.      The traditions of the elders was most commonly on the lips of the Pharisees.

C.     Who was stricter about morals or standards of righteousness?

1.      Jesus was by far the stricter in regard to morals.

2.      The Pharisees would ignore or bend the rules to suit themselves.

3.      There are modern Pharisees in and outside of churches of Christ today.  They are the ones who seek their own will above the scriptures.  Their standards are usually less than the scriptures would demand.

D.    Who was concerned about human traditions setting aside God’s Law?

1.      Jesus was very concerned about this issue.

2.      The Pharisees are not known at all for such concerns.

3.      Thus, the modern Pharisee would be people in or outside of churches of Christ who have little or no concern about whether a matter traditionally practiced sets aside the commandments of God.

In conclusion, I would say:

You Might Be A Pharisee, If…

•You are more concerned about your traditions than you are the word of God. This is not limited to old traditions. Some are intent on creating new traditions of men in a misguided effort to get away from old, “traditional” ways of doing things.

•You are more concerned about how you appear to men than you are about what God thinks of you (Matt.6-7)

•You are more critical of others than you are of your self. Matt.7:1-7

1.      The Pharisee had no sense of his own sinfulness – Luke 18:9-14

2.      Most members of the church that I hang around seem to have a very real sense of unworthiness and a sense of failings and sinfulness.  Conscientious Christians seem more like the publican.

3.      There are many issues that we need to judge and address, but in a fair manner, and with a care of souls that cautions us to be gentle and wise.

4.      However,  the Pharisees felt that Jesus was too critical of them.  They were offended by Him, and they could not handle the truth.  Modern Pharisees are offended at the truth expressed by the real Jesus of scripture.

5.      We need to be more critical of ourselves than others.  This practice gives us a sense of unworthiness and huge appreciation for the grace and mercy of God, and it causes us to be very compassionate and merciful toward others.

6.      It helps us to develop skills in being wise as serpents and harmless as doves as we seek to gently lead souls out of error and into truth, knowing that others have had a difficult time getting us to see truths we were not able to see for a while due to blindness and pride.

•You emphasize only a few choice details but neglect weightier matters like love, justice, and faith – Matt. 23:23

1.      The Pharisees were very selective on what they would take issue with.  Tithing down to minute details was a hobby-horse with them, while mercy, justice, and faith were severely neglected.

2.      I knew a man that was very quick to blast other members on certain select issues, but he would not pay his bills, and was very hateful toward his wife. This is Pharisaical.  We need to major in majors and minor in minors.  We need to prioritize the issues that God has prioritized without leaving the other undone. 

3.      It seems that putting the kingdom FIRST along with HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS, not our own select issues, is what we should major in.  To put God’s kingdom and righteousness on a lower shelf of importance and priority will surely make us more like the Pharisees and less like Jesus.

Conclusion:

There are many things we want to study about Jesus and the Pharisees.  We want to make sure we are striving to be more like Jesus and less like the Pharisees.  However, in this lesson we hope to accomplish getting a clearer and more accurate understanding.  What were the real issues?  Was Jesus disturbed by their strictness or their blindness and looseness regarding God’s law?   We hope we have made that particular issue clearer. 

Terry W. Benton

terrywbenton@bellsouth.net

Silence: Permissive or Restrictive?

The matter of how to establish authority has always been a difficult matter for most people, at least in their early development of faith in Jesus Christ. Please consider this carefully.

If silence (the fact that the Bible does not say anything on a matter) permits us to do whatever we want, then it permits everything. For example, those who make that argument must be prepared to admit that popes, cardinals, monks, nuns, infant baptism, burning incense, sprinkling babies and adults, instrumental music, auricular confession, district synods and associations, national, state, and district organizations are all permitted. Silence would not permit one of the above items and not permit the other items equally.

On the other hand, if silence on a matter restricts (does not permit), then it restricts everything that is not generally permitted. For example: the Law permitted Levitical priests. Saul was not from that tribe and thought he could offer the sacrifice, perhaps on the assumption that silence permits. He was wrong. Silence restricted the sacrifices to Levites of Aaron's family. If the law were still in place, then Jesus could not be a High Priest because He was of the tribe of Judah. Moses spoke nothing concerning priests from Judah (Heb.7:14). Paul is arguing that the Law had to be changed in order for Jesus to be a legitimate priest because the silence of the Law about priests from Judah did not PERMIT but restricted Jesus from being a priest under the law. When it came to the Law of Moses, did silence about Judean priests permit Jesus to be a priest? Or, did it restrict Jesus from being a priest while the law was still binding? We must conclude that the Law of Moses could not be in effect AND Jesus be a lawful priest. Jesus was not permitted by silence to be a priest under the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was taken out of the way so that Jesus could be a lawful priest under a better covenant.

Implications of Paul's Argument on Silence from Hebrews 7:14

Specific authority restricts. Levi and Aaron's sons were specified. When a matter is specified there are no other options. It is a matter that is removed from the realm of general authority, and it takes on the nature of specific expectations. Silence about Judah or Simeon or Reuben does not permit priests to be taken from those tribes under the Law of Moses. In order for us to be priests as Peter says we are (1 Pet.2:5,9) the law would have to be taken out of the way and a new law that generally allows it must replace the old law. Now, the new covenant does not allow the specific restriction to Levi. It does not even demand circumcision as the Law did. To bind such things as circumcision or tribal priesthood would be to "pervert the gospel"(Gal.1:6-10). The gospel does not allow us to add circumcision or the other shadows of the law (Col.2:14-17). Now, Paul recognized that silence restricted. That principle of law is still a principle of correct application of law no matter if we are talking about an old law or a new law. In other words, Paul argues that silence about circumcision when they first preached the gospel, did not PERMIT people to add it. In fact, it restricted such an addition to the gospel. We are restricted by silence from adding things from the Law of Moses or from the laws and traditions of men. To add such things to the gospel is to pervert and corrupt the gospel. The gospel is perfect and sufficient. To add something to it is to open the door to all things that people desire to be permitted to do.

Modern Applications

Infant baptism is a modern example. Specific authority restricts baptism to penitent believers (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38). Silence about infant baptism does not permit it. We would have to change the gospel and replace it as Jesus did the Law of Moses if we want to add infant baptism on the basis of silence. I have talked with Baptists who can easily see this point when it comes to the topic of infant baptism, but when the topic changes to instrumental music that reasoning they used against infant baptism flies out the window. I pointed out to one fellow that we are just using the same principle of common sense respect for authority that they use on infant baptism, only we are also applying the same logic to the issue of instrumental music, and I added that Baptists in the 1800's even argued like us on that issue as well. He simply could not respond and deny it. He saw that point though he decided to ignore it in application.

If silence restricts where at least general authority does not authorize, then popes, cardinals, and multi-congregational organization is not permitted by the new covenant. Silence about Popes and Cardinals do not permit them. To have them one must change the gospel much like Jesus changed the law by removing it and replacing it. Who has authority to replace the New Testament?

If specific authority restricts, and the church preached without a Missionary Society because the church is it's own missionary society, then the additional organization and church support of the Missionary Society is not permitted. To have such an organization in addition to the local churches one must change the New Testament and replace it. The same is so with other institutions and sponsoring church arrangements.

If we are in the time of reformation (Heb.9:10-15) in which the carnal things of the Old system are replaced with a spiritual counter-part, and the New Testament says to specifically "sing and make melody in your heart" and never authorizes under a general command to just "make music", then we are restricted to vocal singing and the melody is to be specifically made in the heart (Eph.5:19). 200 years ago most Baptists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans made these very points. To do other than this one would have to change the New Covenant. Silence does not permit. Silence about playing instruments does not permit them. We need some general authority. "Make music" would be general enough, but it is not to be found in the New Testament of this time of reformation. "Play a song" would be general enough, but it is not found in the New Testament in this time of reformation. We have specifics that restrict us from going to the types and shadows of the old system. We are restricted from the burning of incense, animal sacrifices, and instrumental music. This is precisely why that the early churches did not employ these things. We are not only restricted from adding back the shadows of the Law of Moses but we are also restricted from adding the doctrines and traditions of men. These also change and corrupt the gospel. We are restricted from Popes and Cardinals, district orders and associations. Silence did not permit Jesus to be a priest under the Law, and silence did not permit the Jewish Christians to start binding circumcision upon the church. Christians are restricted from being Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians. Silence does not permit. We are to be Christians, nothing more, less, or else.

Now let me clarify something that confuses some people. The idea of "general" authority is confusing to some. Let me illustrate. When God told Noah to "build an ark", he had general authority to choose a saw and hammer. You do not say "God was silent about a saw and hammer, and therefore those are not authorized". General authority is not silence. When God said "Build an ark" without specifying any specific tools to use, then Noah has general authority to choose whatever tools would help him fulfill the general command to build an ark. Tools that aid in the carrying out of the command are authorized. Specification would restrict. For example, "build an ark using only a hammer" would restrict. "Gopher"wood is a specific restriction, but tools are generally authorized according to the best judgment of Noah. When someone asks for specific authority for song books or pews or lights, etc., claiming that the Bible is "silent" about those things, they show a misunderstanding of the argument on silence. General authority is not silence. It is only lack of specificity. God's authority to Noah was not "silent" about a saw or hammer. They are authorized under the general command to "build". However, God was silent about Pine or Oak. The matter of silence comes into play only when there is neither general or specific authority. For another example: If God had said "have a priesthood" to the Israelites and left it at that, then anyone could be a priest. You would not ask a Danite for his authority to be a priest in that case. You could not say "the Law is silent about Danites being priests". General authority ("have a priesthood" without any specifications) would have allowed Danites to be priests. However, since the Law did specify Levites and specifically those from the sons of Aaron, then Danites are excluded. The silence about Danites for priesthood restricts. Don't confuse lack of specificity with silence. Don't confuse unspecified tools and expedients with matters that God is actually silent about in either a general or specific way.

"Buried in baptism"(Rom.6:3-5; Col.2:12) restricts us to burial or immersion and does not permit sprinkling or pouring. The only way to lawfully do those things today is to change the New Testament law of Christ. Baptists recognize that as so, but now will throw out those solid principles of common sense when it comes to other matters. The only way to include gymnasiums, instrumental music, and the general Southern Baptist Association, would be to change the New Testament. The silence of the scriptures does not permit just select items. They cannot oppose Catholics for having Popes and Cardinals and burning incense (which they do on the basis of the idea that silence permits) and then select a few other items as being permissible. Silence either restricts in every way or it permits in every way. I believe that we can all see that silence restricts. General authority allows choice without specification. Specific authority restricts to the items of specification. Silence about something that is not authorized either generally or specifically only restricts us from proceeding. We have only one source of measuring an issue. We must use it carefully and handle it aright. We must be careful to prove all things and hold fast that which we can prove by scripture to be good. Jesus' authority is expressed for us in the New Testament. We must not go beyond the boundaries of that authority (Matt.28:18; 2John 9-10).

By Terry W. Benton