quote:

---

John Earp

And so you would also have to agree that for God's love to be real love, it would likewise have to be chosen, correct?

Iconoclast

Yes. I believe that God chooses to be FOR us. He wants to give us all eternal life.

---

quote:

---

John Earp

My reason for bringing it up is precisely because Icon had repeatedly asserted that anyone (especially me) who did not agree with him on the "there is no Christian ethic" thing was "stuck in the legal view," and was thinking like the Pharisees.

Iconoclast

A key problem of the stolen knowledge of good and evil is that the fruit of this knowledge is that we accuse others of transgressing this knowledge. Accusation is felt as condemnation and as judgment which separates us. It presupposes that we are not FOR the other but AGAINST the other.

John, I apologize for accusing you of being "stuck in the legal view." It is not my intent to come across as being against you. Quite the opposite.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

---

quote:

---

My reason for bringing it up is precisely because Icon had repeatedly asserted that anyone (especially me) who did not agree with him on the "there is no Christian ethic" thing was "stuck in the legal view," and was thinking like the Pharisees.

---

Right. I see what you are saying here. Basically he was saying that you were thinking like a Pharisee and that you were “stuck in a legal view” (of salvation?) because you did not agree with him that “there is no Christian ethic.” That is, you believe that there is such a thing as a Christian ethic. Ok. That’s cool.

Also, you were responding to some of my stuff about how one could have good intentions and yet be legalistic. My point though, in saying that the spiel on Pharisees is beside the point of this thread, is that we could have this conversation on ethics without referring to the Pharisees at all. But seeing as we have brought them up, (time and time again) I will deal with it. Again, John, if we are to understand the Pharisical situation in the Bible, we need to understand them within the context of their own time. Their historical situated-ness. I would contend that to understand them, we will understand more fully the whole issue of the Torah (law) and its relation to grace and what this means for Christians concerning ethics today. Ok. On to some GOOD stuff.

Piety of Hebraic Judaism

Basically, there are two views concerning Pharisaism. One side sees them as being “legalistic” (mostly Christians), while the other side (mostly Jews), sees them as having a deep inward piety lacking externalism, superficiality, devotion, etc.

Externalism: Testimony of the Talmud, Gospels and Josephus

Now when one looks at the externalism of the Mishnah and the quibbling casuistry of major portions of the Gemaras, this has caused many to think that that all Jewish piety was formalistic and external. The gospels and Josephus also portray much that is formalistic and external, i.e. (the gospels) clashes between Jesus and the Pharisees over Sabbath observance, ritual purity, the story of the Prodigal son, with the most damning material from John the Baptist’s denunciation of the Pharisees as a “brood of vipers” with their external descent from Abraham, Jesus’ characterization of them as evil while appearing to be good Matt 12:33-37, Jesus application to them of Isaiah 29:13, his listing of “woes” and pronouncing the scribes and Pharisees as “hypocrites” Matt 23:1-35, Luke 11:39-44, (Josephus) an account of the Jerusalem Pharisee Ananias who hypocritically used the pretense of a religious fast to accomplish his political ambitions, in a Jewish war where sacred seasons in Jerusalem were often used by the religious leaders for purposes of sedition and political advantage may show that this happened on more than one occasion.

What this shows is that there were bad apples in the predestruction Hebraic Judaism.

Inwardness and Prophetic Spirit: Testimony of the Talmud, Gospels and Josephus

What is most difficult for Christian scholars to see is that of the inward piety of the Pharisees in the predestruction period. Not all was externalism. For an example we have a statement by Antigonus of Socho who is classed a proto-Sadducee but is listed with the pillars of Pharisaism—“be not like slaves that minister to the master for the sake of receiving a bounty, but be like slaves that minister to the master not for the sake of recieiving bounty; and let the fear of heaven be upon you.” This seems to have been understood by the rabbis as an appeal for inward motivation in service to God. Mish Aboth 1:3

Then there is discussion of proselyte baptism by R. Johanan b. Zakkai where one did not really become clean by the water of separation nor unclean by a corpse, yet the provisions regarding cleanliness must be kept since this is the will of God. That is to say, that the performance of external rites is rooted in the divine will and request, not the efficacy of the action itself. Zakkai even commends his student that a good heart is the foundation of all good and an evil heart of all evil. Mish. Aboth 2:9

There is evidence from several sources that one must start from the mercy and love of God, returning that love and manifesting it to one’s fellow man, if religion is to be meaningful. Probably the most important factor in contributing to impressing this on the consciousness of the Jew in the predestruction period was that of the recitation of the Shema. That is AFTER the recital on the unity of God and BEFORE the commands regarding obedience, Deut 6:5 was repeated. The same elements of:

1) Confession to God
2) Love from God to man and/or man to God
3) Obedience to God’s instruction appear in the same order in the Shemoneh Esreh and in the enumeration of the 613 commandments.

Hillel made much a due about the hesed (mercy) of God both as revealed by God to man and as ought to be manifested by the man of God to his fellow men. There are at least two Talmudic passages that speak of the proper and best motivation in the religious life as being that of the love of God—B. Sot 31a and B. Shab. 88b. Even those who dispute the element of inwardness as a real factor in pre-destruction Hebraic Judaism must agree that the love of man was considered by Hillel as a kernel of the entire Jewish teaching. We could conclude that the statements ascribed to Hillel show him to have possessed a true inward spirituality, whatever one says about the rest of Judasim. The fact that Zakkai’s students is credited with similar sayings as that of Hillel and the same sentiment found in the “Letter of Aristeas” makes it probable that the concept of love and consideration for one’s fellow man had a broader acceptance within early Pharisaism then we sometimes think.

Though the gospels and Josephus show a negative picture, there is still the recognition within those sources of what may be called a more noble element in Palestinian Pharisaism. For example, in the Gospels, there is one scribe who is in agreement with Jesus that to love God and one’s neighbour was of far greater importance than all external action. Mark 12:28-34. Not all Pharisees are presented as being bitter against Jesus, Luke 13:31; Mark 15:43; John 3:1, 19:39 and POSSIBLY (as John says) Luke 14:1.

Correlating both the Formalistic and the Inward Spirit

Now there have been various perspectives regarding the relation of these factors of which I won’t get into but only in passing.

1. Some Jewish scholars have shrugged off the baser elements and have said that it was simply “a humorous by-play to enliven the interest of a languid audience.”
2. Some of the denunciations are exaggerated to the realm of the incidental.
3. Christian scholars have agreed with these two points and then insist that the Jewish religion “was…as bright and happy a religion as the world has seen.”
4. It has been suggested that at one and the same time, a Jew could believe that love was the only acceptable motive for service and yet have a motive that tries to win God’s favor by reward.

Some Problems but VERY IMPORTANT

When dealing with the “spiritual climate” of any community it is not enough to weigh the good against the bad and accept the verdict of the weightier quantity. As one scholar has pointed out, “Theology is more than mathematics.” That is to say, that when dealing with the arena of spiritually we are dealing primarily with motives, not simply with expressions. Yet, when setting out to investigate motives, ONE ONLY HAS THE EXPRESSIONS AS FACTUAL EVIDENCE ON WHICH TO BASE ITS JUDGMENTS. That is, one must realize in their investigation that there are differing outlooks and orientations and must accept the fact that this is not only true of the individual but it is true within a given group or community!

Now, these differing orientations can be classified in two categories. These are:

1. Acting-makes religion a means in order to.
2. Reacting-sees religion as an expression because of.

What this means is that in both of the above cases, an action takes place. In the first category, the action is spontaneous performance of either the individual or the community intended to produce IN RESPONSE TO IT a performance on the part of the deity. In the second category, the action of the man is an action in response, a REACTION. It is God who is really the “leitourgos,” (minister) in the HIGHEST SENSE. The individual or the community only says, “Amen.”

In the end, even these “orientations” cut across all EXTERNAL LINES and because the nature of knowledge is such that we can know nothing fully, precision of identification becomes next to impossible. We are forced to make value judgments and view the detail in their total perspective AS BEST WE CAN. And this is how we should endeavor to understand the piety of the Pharisees. That is, even within the piety of the Pharisees we see differing orientations. This is why you will see both sides portrayed even in the Gospels (aside from all the other sources, i.e. Talmud). What we see are distinctions “in contrast.” That is we see an “acting legalism” and a “reacting nominism” (inward piety). To both classes? The Law was important, but it was important for different reasons. And, seeing that such occurs, there is always the temptation to pinpoint individuals who portray such tendencies (both sides) and determine the extent of the influence of each element over ALL of Pharisaism. Ultimately, all we can say is that within Hebraic Judaism, there was both a formalistic piety and an inward piety.

The Nominist

Having said all that, we will leave the portrayal of the legalist as is, but look a little closer into that of the nominist.

First, some misrepresentations should be noted.

1. Fidelity to the law should be equated with legalism.
2. A religion that stresses fidelity to the law is necessarily EGOCENTRIC and not THEOCENTRIC.

These charges have been refuted by the evidence at Qumran, by known non-canonical writings and even the Talmudic literature itself. For example, the Essene group was a heck of a lot more detailed in its legislation and more rigid in its observance than Pharisaic Judaism. Yet, there is evidence of nominism and a prophetic spirit. While there is evidence of being scrupulous for ritual purity, there is no suggestion that this is merely mechanical or merely external observance. The evidence suggests that the emphasis is on God’s “hesed’ and from this basis, “spring true righteousness, true motivation and true strength to be pleasing unto Him in obedience to His commandments.” Above all of this, a mere formalistic piety is strongly condemned. Though they possessed great assurance of their own election and were convinced that true revelation of the meaning of the Law and the Prophets was given to them? They were also acutely aware of their own sinfulness and possessed great humilty. The Essenes thought that they needed to depend on God alone for righteousness, wisdom and strength and theirs was an attitude of seeking God, “with all their heart and with all their soul.” That is to say, that the community was aware of itself as being under the Law and yet as a “household of the Spirit.” Hence, they did not see a tension between life under the Law and life under the Spirit.

What this means in terms of Pharisaism is:

1. Qumran literature shows that fidelity to the divine Law does not necessarily imply for a Jewish group a legalistic and egocentric piety.
2. There is a “common subsoil”-- that of Maccabean Hasidim. Basic elements would have been common to both communities.

What this shows more than ever before is that the NOMINISTIC PHARISEE was truly spiritual and noble. That his faith was wholehearted trust in God AND fidelity to instruction, his emphasis, AS OPPOSED TO THE LEGALIST was upon God and trust in Him. Though God demanded obedience? This meant something else—proof and expression of an intimate trust and love toward God. This kind of faith was “of value on in so far as it is productive of faithful action. Faith or “emunah” was both “trust in” and “fidelity to.” The emphasis though was always on the former without negating the importance of the latter. And in his endeavor “to make a hedge about the Torah,” that is to create as were “applied prophecy” (traditions) “so that man might be saved from transgression before it is too late” the noministic spirituality was probably hidden under a mass of legislation (good intentions, yet still legalistic?). As Christians, we would have some problems with this obviously, but, behind it, glowed the Shekinah.

In the end, the problem is not really a question of legalism verses love or externalism verses inwardness, but one of promise and fulfillment. We need not view early representatives as entirely legalistic. The conversion experience which took place in many of the early JEWISH Christians was not necessarily one of abandonment. That is, abandoning an “acting religion” for a “reacting faith” from outward to inward piety. The primary tension of Judaism, which dominates all Old Testament and Jewish thought is that of promise and fulfillment. And this is what the early Christians found in Christ.

P.S. Iconoclast, I will get on to more of the “ability of our detectors” thingy hopefully soon. Sorry man, only so much time.


Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16




Edited by - BBBCanada on 06/07/2003 3:21:53 PM