Should Christians be Pharisees? Should we follow the apostle Paul’s example in this? Do you remember the following incident from Acts 23: “Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.”” (Acts 23:6) Does this mean that it’s okay for Christians to be Pharisees?
Paul, in similar circumstances, made use of his Roman citizenship. Time and again, when discussing issues related to our heavenly citizenship, people refer to those incidents to say that we should be proud of our earthly citizenship. If that’s so, what lessons are we supposed to draw from Paul’s actions in Acts 23? In what ways are Christians to live as Pharisees?
LOL That’s a nice twist! Since Paul is using his status as a Pharisee to start an argument among his accusers, I think that might just be a pattern for us somewhere in there!
Since most Christians cannot claim to be Pharisees as Paul was and did, shouldn’t we claim our heavenly citizenship instead? I took the original premise to be with following commands we feel are opposed to our Christian beliefs. I believe a person can use “conscientious objector” status in a military setting, although there may be persecution involved if we do. We are not promised no persecutions – in fact that is something we should expect. And in this country at least we have the right to speak out against actions or ideas that seem to be opposed to God’s thoughts. We may not have any real power to change things, but at least we can make claim to opposing ungodly actions or decisions. And again we may face persecution and ridicule for our beliefs, but that doesn’t mean we should stop speaking out. Am I offbase in this thinking?
Jeanne,
While your latest comment did remind me that I hadn’t addressed this point on my blog, I wasn’t trying to directly address it with this post.
Personally, I feel that both Paul’s Pharisaism and his Roman citizenship were part of what he considered to be rubbish in comparison with knowing Christ. And I definitely agree with the point about heavenly citizenship; I think that’s the point of Philippians 3.
As for speaking out, I’m for it. It’s the partisanship that bothers me. When we align ourselves with a political group, a government, whatever human organization, we lose our objectivity. Christians should speak out as concerned outsiders, not as direct participants.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Nick, are you suggesting that we go around causing arguments? Seems like Christians are already pretty good at that. ;-)
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Lets look at the Pharisee: A legalistic and separatistic group: Strict but often hypocritical. Design rules and regulations to govern the lives of the people and commit “acts of righteousness” to be seen by the people. Yet we know John the Baptizer called them “You brood of vipers” and Jesus called them “hypocrites”. I’ve learned not to be dogmatic but I currently don’t see how Christians can live as Pharisees. In reading this post and the past few posts: Willingly Deceived and Deceit, lies and waterboarding; we Christians really need to focus on not “looking at things from a human point of view”-Lets Get Spiritual. And I admit that this is not an easy task especially if we don’t understand when we are being more human than being spiritual.
Bob,
I find part of the problem to be the fact that the material world is so “in our face,” while the spiritual world, by its nature, is unseen. Our senses become overwhelmed by the tangible.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I believe I see your point, Tim. I just don’t think it was the point that Paul was making. It’s not as though he was telling them he was a practicing Pharisee. He was just letting them know, with respect to the resurrection “issue” that had historically been a point of contention between Pharisees and Sadducees, he was a true-blue, died-in-the-wool Pharisee.
He often used his heritage and experiences to establish common ground with his hearers. He also utilized these to set forth contrasts between him and his listeners. He was even so bold as to say in the meeting of the Areopagus, “…what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.”
My sense is that Paul was not advocating for Pharisaism any more than the reformed drunkard is commending alcoholism when he says, “My name is Bill and I am an alcoholic…” It seems that Paul’s general practice was to use any and all of his life-experiences to advance his kingdom calling, while remaining loyal with every fiber of his being to the one who delivered him from the dominion of darkness and transfered him to the kingdom of His beloved Son.
Bill,
That’s an interesting take. I don’t think that Paul was advocating Pharisaism any more than he would have encouraged people to claim to be Roman citizens. Those were both things that Christians would have left behind.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Guys, look at what actually happened! Cover over the chapter break with your finger if it helps. Look at the drama!
Of *course* he wasn’t advocating Pharisaism, although there is absolutely nothing within the lifestyle or doctrine of an orthodox Pharisee that would make it, in and of itself, anti-Christian. Being a Pharisee is no different than following the Rule of Benedict or making any other sort of vows. Neither one will earn you a penny’s worth of grace, but are both honorable ways of striving to live a pure and self-controlled life.
But back to the drama! Paul tells his conversion story and starts a riot. The Roman officer, thinking Paul is a Zealot, decides to use the 1st century version of waterboarding to find out the truth. As he’s being strapped down, then and only then does Paul whip out his Roman citizenship card (I’d have had that bad boy hanging around my neck like Flavor Flav’s clocks — Paul’s a better man than I am). He uses his Roman citizenship only to further his life’s mission to preach the gospel to Caesar and beyond.
The tribune calls everyone together, and Ananias commands Paul to be struck. Paul, no stranger to sarcasm, pops off with something like, “I couldn’t tell he was high priest. He wasn’t acting much like a high priest. How was I supposed to know?” Then he sets the two parties against each other, knowing that whatever anyone thinks about the Christ, the Pharisees will back him because of the resurrection of the dead (see 23:9). Because let’s be honest — is he REALLY on trial JUST BECAUSE he believes in the resurrection? That’s not even half of it — the Pharisees certainly don’t want him killed because he believes the resurrection, and it isn’t the prime motivator of the Saduccees either. It isn’t UNTRUE, precisely, but it is a convenient interpretation of events that serves the gospel.
Basically, he starts another riot! Paul knows that this conspiracy is tenuous at best, and he knows precisely where the fault-line is. Like a master sculptor, he lays the chisel, gives it one solid tap, and shatters this union of hard-hearted men who could had just said, “No he isn’t! He’s on trial for sedition, for preaching another Kyrios!” But they foolishly argue amongst themselves, and the tribune is forced to carry him away. Like his Roman citizenship, Paul uses his membership in the Pharisee party only to further his mission.
My favorite part is just how savvy Paul is about how things work in the real world, and how he’s totally not above playing the sides against each other to advance the gospel. One more episode of “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”
Tim, thanks for starting me thinking about this. I really appreciate your total involvement in the scriptures even if it sometimes is somewhat controversial.