Legalism and Pharisaism

[Anthony Pritchard]

Legalism and Pharisaism: Climbing Up Some Other Way

Legalism is not a careless accusation to throw at anyone who loves Scripture or seeks to obey Christ. Legalism is a specific spiritual error defined by Christ Himself. It is the attempt to enter the sheepfold by a path God did not provide. It is salvation by climbing. Christ sets the principle plainly at the beginning of John 10. He says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber” John 10:1. Legalism is climbing up some other way. It is approaching salvation through human effort, human merit, human rule keeping, and human performance. Christ identifies the door without ambiguity. He says, “I am the door” John 10:9. Any other way is illegitimate. Any other way is theft. Any other way is robbery. Legalism is salvation by climbing instead of salvation by Christ.

Legalism is emphasizing a system of rules and regulations to achieve salvation. It is not obedience. It is not holiness. It is not discipline. It is not church order. It is specifically the belief that salvation is obtained or maintained by human performance. Paul exposes this error directly when he writes, “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh” Galatians 3:3. Legalism is the attempt to be made perfect by the flesh. It is climbing up some other way.

Sometimes one is accused of being a Pharisee. But the Pharisees were not known for obedience to Scripture. They were known for elevating tradition above Scripture. Their error was not too much Scripture. Their error was too little Scripture and too much tradition. Christ confronts them directly. “But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition” Matthew 15:3. The Pharisees did not love truth. They loved tradition. They replaced the commandment of God with the tradition of men. That is Pharisaism. It is not the same as legalism, but it is related. Both errors substitute human authority for divine authority. Christ exposes their heart again when He says, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me” Matthew 15:8.

Legalism and Pharisaism must be distinguished. Legalism is salvation by climbing. Pharisaism is replacing Scripture with tradition. Legalism says salvation is achieved by rules. Pharisaism says rules of tradition override Scripture. Legalism climbs up some other way. Pharisaism blocks the door with human tradition. Both errors deny Christ as the door. Both errors attempt to enter the fold without Him.

The plain sense of Scripture is clear. Legalism is not careful obedience. Legalism is not holiness. Legalism is not discipline. Legalism is not doctrinal precision. Legalism is salvation by climbing. Pharisaism is tradition over truth. Christ is the door. Christ is the way. Christ is the entrance into the fold. Any other way is climbing. Any other authority is tradition. Both are condemned by Scripture.

In Closing

Legalism and Pharisaism both drift from Scripture. One drifts by climbing, the other drifts by substituting tradition for truth. Both move the soul away from Christ as the door. This short treatise traces the ways men depart from the plain sense of Scripture, and legalism is one of the oldest departures. It is the attempt to enter the fold by effort instead of by Christ. Pharisaism is another. It is the attempt to honor God with tradition instead of obedience. Christ exposes both errors with the same clarity. Salvation is through Him alone. Truth is through His word alone. Any other way is climbing. Any other authority is tradition. Both are departures from the path.

~Tony

© A.K. Pritchard 2010 -

Free to use with proper attribution

 

[Logos1560]

Roger Beckwith asserted: “The Pharisees upheld oral tradition” (Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian, p. 174). Roger Beckwith wrote: “The upholders of tradition were the Pharisees, not the Sadducees, who rejected tradition and claimed to follow Scripture alone” (p. 177). Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein wrote: “Throughout the centuries, the rabbis, in their role as interpreters of God’s Torah and conveyors of the oral tradition, often extended the biblical law by establishing gzerot, or ‘fences,’ around it, so the core law itself would be less likely to become violated” (What You Should Know about Jews and Judaism, p. 47). Paul Wegner noted: “Rabbi Akiba described ‘tradition’ (massoret) as ‘a fence about the law’” (Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism, p. 106).

Roger Beckwith observed: “The characteristic additions which Pharisaic tradition makes to Scripture are its preventative measures—the ‘making of a fence around the Law’ so as to ‘keep a man far from transgression’ (Mishnah Aboth 1:1, Berakoth 1:1)” (Calendar, p. 183). Roger Beckwith pointed out that tradition “readily develops a life of its own; for it tends to add to Scripture where Scripture is restrained, and to adapt Scripture, not just to changing conditions but to the weakness of the flesh; and these developments are liable, in time, to become sacrosanct, and to resist attempts to test and correct them by Scripture” (pp. 182-183). Roger Beckwith wrote: “The characteristic adaptations of Scripture which Pharisaic traditions contains are admitted to ‘make void the Law’ but only because ‘it is time to work for the Lord’ (M. Berakoth 9:5), i.e. because of the exigence of the times” (p. 183).

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein wrote: “One of the central ingredients of Pharisaic doctrine was the affirmation that already from the time of Moses and Sinai there was an oral tradition elucidating and accompanying the written one” (What You Should Know about Jews and Judaism, p. 36). Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein wrote: “The Pharisees affirmed both the oral and the written traditions, viewing them equally as the divine Word of God” (p. 254). Nehemia Gordon wrote: “The most fundamental doctrine of Phariseeism is the belief in the Oral Torah, sometimes called the ‘Oral Law’. The Talmud explains that this ‘Oral’ Torah was revealed to Moses in a second revelation at Mt. Sinai. According to the Midrash, this ‘second’ Torah was given orally to keep it out of the hands of the Gentiles” (Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus, p. 12). Nehemia Gordon observed: “One of the most profound changes in Phariseeism since the 1st Century CE is that the Oral Torah has been written down” (p. 13). Nehemia Gordon wrote: “The second fundamental principle of Rabbinic/Pharisaic Judaism is the belief that the Rabbis have absolute authority to interpret Scripture, and what they say in religious matters is binding, even if it is known to be factually untrue” (p. 14). Nehemia Gordon wrote: “My rabbi’s conclusion from all this was that the interpretations of the Rabbis even superseded a direct decree from God himself” (p. 16).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

Roger Beckwith asserted: “The Pharisees upheld oral tradition” (Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian, p. 174). Roger Beckwith wrote: “The upholders of tradition were the Pharisees, not the Sadducees, who rejected tradition and claimed to follow Scripture alone” (p. 177). Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein wrote: “Throughout the centuries, the rabbis, in their role as interpreters of God’s Torah and conveyors of the oral tradition, often extended the biblical law by establishing gzerot, or ‘fences,’ around it, so the core law itself would be less likely to become violated” (What You Should Know about Jews and Judaism, p. 47). Paul Wegner noted: “Rabbi Akiba described ‘tradition’ (massoret) as ‘a fence about the law’” (Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism, p. 106).

Roger Beckwith observed: “The characteristic additions which Pharisaic tradition makes to Scripture are its preventative measures—the ‘making of a fence around the Law’ so as to ‘keep a man far from transgression’ (Mishnah Aboth 1:1, Berakoth 1:1)” (Calendar, p. 183). Roger Beckwith pointed out that tradition “readily develops a life of its own; for it tends to add to Scripture where Scripture is restrained, and to adapt Scripture, not just to changing conditions but to the weakness of the flesh; and these developments are liable, in time, to become sacrosanct, and to resist attempts to test and correct them by Scripture” (pp. 182-183). Roger Beckwith wrote: “The characteristic adaptations of Scripture which Pharisaic traditions contains are admitted to ‘make void the Law’ but only because ‘it is time to work for the Lord’ (M. Berakoth 9:5), i.e. because of the exigence of the times” (p. 183).

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein wrote: “One of the central ingredients of Pharisaic doctrine was the affirmation that already from the time of Moses and Sinai there was an oral tradition elucidating and accompanying the written one” (What You Should Know about Jews and Judaism, p. 36). Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein wrote: “The Pharisees affirmed both the oral and the written traditions, viewing them equally as the divine Word of God” (p. 254). Nehemia Gordon wrote: “The most fundamental doctrine of Phariseeism is the belief in the Oral Torah, sometimes called the ‘Oral Law’. The Talmud explains that this ‘Oral’ Torah was revealed to Moses in a second revelation at Mt. Sinai. According to the Midrash, this ‘second’ Torah was given orally to keep it out of the hands of the Gentiles” (Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus, p. 12). Nehemia Gordon observed: “One of the most profound changes in Phariseeism since the 1st Century CE is that the Oral Torah has been written down” (p. 13). Nehemia Gordon wrote: “The second fundamental principle of Rabbinic/Pharisaic Judaism is the belief that the Rabbis have absolute authority to interpret Scripture, and what they say in religious matters is binding, even if it is known to be factually untrue” (p. 14). Nehemia Gordon wrote: “My rabbi’s conclusion from all this was that the interpretations of the Rabbis even superseded a direct decree from God himself” (p. 16).

Logos, this article concerns New Testament Christianity, not Judaism. The Pharisees of the Gospels are addressed as Christ presents them, not as later rabbinic tradition develops them. What Roger Beckwith, Rabbi Eckstein, or Akiba observed may be of historical interest, but it has no bearing on the New Testament definition of legalism or on Christ’s rebuke in Matthew 15:3. Christ said, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition.” That is the point of the article. It is not an examination of Judaism, rabbinic fences, or the Oral Torah. It is simply a doctrinal treatment of legalism and Pharisaism as Christ defines them in the New Testament. I really have no theological interest in what Roger Beckwith observed or what Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein wrote, outside a purely secular historical setting, their observations have no bearing on New Testament Christianity.

 

[Logos1560]

Logos, this article concerns New Testament Christianity, not Judaism. The Pharisees of the Gospels are addressed as Christ presents them, not as later rabbinic tradition develops them.

What Roger Beckwith wrote concerned New Testament Christianity so it has bearing on it. Perhaps you failed to read carefully.

Roger Beckwith asserted: “The Pharisees upheld oral tradition” (Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian, p. 174). Roger Beckwith wrote: “The upholders of tradition were the Pharisees, not the Sadducees, who rejected tradition and claimed to follow Scripture alone” (p. 177).

Roger Beckwith observed: “The characteristic additions which Pharisaic tradition makes to Scripture are its preventative measures—the ‘making of a fence around the Law’ so as to ‘keep a man far from transgression’ (Mishnah Aboth 1:1, Berakoth 1:1)” (Calendar, p. 183). Roger Beckwith pointed out that tradition “readily develops a life of its own; for it tends to add to Scripture where Scripture is restrained, and to adapt Scripture, not just to changing conditions but to the weakness of the flesh; and these developments are liable, in time, to become sacrosanct, and to resist attempts to test and correct them by Scripture” (pp. 182-183).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

What Roger Beckwith wrote concerned New Testament Christianity so it has bearing on it. Perhaps you failed to read carefully.

Roger Beckwith asserted: “The Pharisees upheld oral tradition” (Calendar and Chronology, Jewish and Christian, p. 174). Roger Beckwith wrote: “The upholders of tradition were the Pharisees, not the Sadducees, who rejected tradition and claimed to follow Scripture alone” (p. 177).

Roger Beckwith observed: “The characteristic additions which Pharisaic tradition makes to Scripture are its preventative measures—the ‘making of a fence around the Law’ so as to ‘keep a man far from transgression’ (Mishnah Aboth 1:1, Berakoth 1:1)” (Calendar, p. 183). Roger Beckwith pointed out that tradition “readily develops a life of its own; for it tends to add to Scripture where Scripture is restrained, and to adapt Scripture, not just to changing conditions but to the weakness of the flesh; and these developments are liable, in time, to become sacrosanct, and to resist attempts to test and correct them by Scripture” (pp. 182-183).

Perhaps you did not read my reply.

First you ignored the boundary of the article and expanded it. I corrected that by stating, “this article concerns New Testament Christianity, not Judaism,” only to have you re‑expand the scope again.

You re‑quote Roger Beckwith, then wander off into Pharisaic tradition, the Mishnah (oral tradition), Berakoth, and Judaism in general.

The issue is not whether Pharisees upheld oral tradition. The issue is the scope of the article. It concerns the Pharisees as Christ addresses them in the New Testament, not the later rabbinic development described in Beckwith or the Mishnah. Christ’s rebuke in Matthew 15:3 is directed at tradition that makes void the commandment of God. That is the point of the article. It is not an examination of Judaism, rabbinic fences, or post‑biblical sources. The discussion is limited to the New Testament presentation of legalism and Pharisaism.

Judaism is not the topic of this post. I do find Judaism a fascinating and informative subject, but please keep it off this thread.

 

[Logos1560]

Perhaps you did not read my reply.

I read your reply, and it did not refute my accurate observation. What Roger Beckwith wrote concerned New Testament Christianity so it has bearing on it. Your article also concerned Pharisaism so Roger Beckwith's comments clearly related to your stated topic.

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I read your reply, and it did not refute my accurate observation. What Roger Beckwith wrote concerned New Testament Christianity so it has bearing on it. Your article also concerned Pharisaism so Roger Beckwith's comments clearly related to your stated topic.

If you wish to discuss Beckwith, Pharisaic tradition, the Mishnah (oral tradition) or Judaism in general, I am open to learn, but not here, I want to keep this on topic.

 

[Logos1560]

My response concerned the stated topic of Pharisaism.