Discipleship Group – Legalism of the Pharisees

At discipleship group session at church last Saturday, my discipleship group leader began the session by asking the group why we thought the Pharisees were legalistic in the way they dealt with the law in the bible, and whether that was wrong. Now, this concept of legalism has a pejorative notion, and I was seeking to clarify what is meant here by legalism. If legalism means an adherence to law, then aren’t all law-based societies legalistic?  My answer was that the fault lies with the way the Pharisees abused their position as interpreters of the law to advance their own agenda. For example, the Pharisees coming up with the definition of work such that the healing of the sick on the Sabbath would come under such a definition and be forbidden whereas actions serving the property-owning Pharisees such as the rescuing of their cattle would not.

My discipleship group leader did not want to get into the question of whether the way the Pharisees handled the law was correct or wrong. But he sought to examine whether the adherence to law itself by the Pharisees was wrong or right.  He mention about how some churches possess an antinomian view of how Christians were not under law. The antinomian-legalism issue is certainly a controversial divide in the Christian world, but I thought that what my discipleship group leader was addressing was something different. I thought that someone who holds an antinomian view of church theology could understand why the Pharisees were legalistic and even condone it, except that they see the coming of Jesus as the basis for renouncing that legalistic approach.  Now, I am actually not sure whether there is any controversy if the question is simply whether the Pharisees were wrong in adhering to their laws as expressed in the Old Testament or in the rabbinical literature.

We went through several passages of the Old Testament in the bible where the laws were being handed to the Israelites, featuring the pattern where God threatens punishment if the laws were flouted and reward if the laws were adhered too. For example, Deuteronomy 11:26 which goes, ““See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse, the blessing, if you listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, which I am commanding you today; and the curse, if you do not listen to the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the way which I am commanding you today, by following other gods which you have not known.” And then, my discipleship group leader talks about the context of the Israelites at the time at which Jesus was presiding. The Israelites had been in foreign exile for quite some time because they had disobeyed God’s commandments not to worship false gods. Hence, the attitude displayed by the Pharisees was one of zeal for the law in the hope that they may redeem their blessings.

It seems like what my discipleship group leader is saying is that the Pharisees strict adherence to the law stems as a reaction from the historical baggage of the Israelites. Reminds me of what Professor Thio Li-Ann mentioned in a public law lecture of how the constitutional laws of individual countries are shaped by their reaction towards historical baggages. So she mentioned as an example, Article 1 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany which features a clause about the protection of human dignity as an example of its reaction to the racism in its Nazi past.

We talked briefly about why the Pharisees, or the Jews would not accept Jesus as the coming Messiah as expressed in the prophecy of the book of Isaiah. I have yet to examine this issue, but a brief examination from Wikipedia shows that the Jews believe in a concept of Messiah that is different from that of Christianity. Christians believe that Messiah is about a savior. But in Judaism, Messiah need not be limited to such connotation but refers simply to an anointed one. Thus, my discipleship group leader points out how even King Saul, or King Rehoboam were treated as Messiahs by the Jewish people. He mentioned about how the Jews interpreted the prophecies of Isaiah as referring to more than one Messiahs, such as a spiritual Messiah, and a political Messiah. I have yet to read up on a response by Judaism on why they think that the prophecy of Isaiah does not refer to Jesus. I am not very sure whether they are convincing. I have seen documentaries featuring Jews who have converted to Christianity, or adopted a religious position called Messianic Judaism which blends evangelical Christianity with elements of religious Jewish practice. But I have also read of responses of Christians who were particularly shaken in their faith after hearing the arguments from the Jewish side. It made me question whether there can be any conclusivity to the matter, or is religion ultimately a speculative matter. I can only recall seeing an episode of Mr Bean doing a comedy skit playing the devil where he welcomed the Christians to hell with his snarky apology, “Sorry, but the Jews were right.”. As of now, I have been focusing pretty much on apologetics, but I suppose I should give comparative religion an examination as well. As a Christian, I can only hope that Christianity is right on the matter.