Have Some Christians Become Like the Pharisees?
The Letter of the Law vs. Intent of the Law
Oct 26, 2008
It's not unusual in most Christian-based debates to have people grab hold of one passage or another from scripture to back up their stance in a disagreement. How many times have you heard, "The Bible says..." and someone rebukes them by going, "But the Bible also says..." Disagreeing on scriptural interpretation is nothing new--especially when scripture seems to contradict itself from one passage to the next. So what is a Christian to do when these apparent "conflicts" in scripture appear? In an effort to back up their stance, do Christians sometimes make the mistake of the Pharisees in that they focus too heavily on the "letter" of scripture rather than its intent?
Learning from the Pharisees and Sadducees
In Jesus’ day, the religious leaders were sticklers for the letter of law. For instance, the Sabbath law said people were not supposed to work on this day and were to observe it as a holy day of rest. The interpretation that grew out of this law was that one must refrain from any activity that resembled “work.” There were guidelines put forth in the Talmud that dictated what exactly “work” entailed. Healing was also seen as being strictly forbidden and seen as “work.”
Then Jesus came along and corrected this teaching when he healed a man on the Sabbath and allowed his disciples to pick grain in the fields so they could eat—refraining from justice and mercy was not the intention of the law. In fact, the “intent” of the law was that the Sabbath was a gift. God set aside a day for rest, acknowledging the human need for rest and worship. It did not mean you neglected helping others simply because it was the Sabbath.
Straining Gnats
In response to all the legal nit-picking of the Pharisees, Jesus informed them, "You strain gnats but swallow a camel!" (Matt. 23:24) The reference is to Leviticus 11:10 that forbids the eating of anything that swarms. The Pharisees would strain their drinks in order to ensure they didn't eat gnats. However, while they were "gnat-picking," they were ignoring justice, mercy and faith. The religious leaders were so concerned with the "little things" that they missed the larger points of scripture.
Parallels in Today's Christianity
Unfortunately, some Christians have a tendency to fall into these same "gnat-picking" issues when it comes to their adherence to scripture--following the "letter" of scripture, but missing its "intent." They focus so heavily on single passages at the expense of the gospel and Jesus' two greatest commandments: loving God and loving one's neighbor. Scriptural "regulations" thus must always be read in light of Christ and his commands.
Naturally, stating that perhaps certain parts of scripture are "more important" than other parts of scripture invites the criticism that to do so is not being "true" to scripture. Yet, Jesus himself engages in this activity. In addition to the Sabbath, there are many places where rather than following the 'letter of the law,' Jesus opts for mercy rather than punishment. Jesus was not ignoring or defying scripture, he simply understood its intent and purpose, which was being abused by its interpreters. For example, an "eye for an eye" was not a command as it had been interpreted, but its intent was simply to keep the punishment from being harsher than the crime.
Scripture itself reveals that to take every passage as equally authoritative raises problems. For instance, many places in scripture state that those who are faithful and follow God's commandments will be prosperous. Yet, other places state that to be conformed to Christ is to be self-sacrificing and not care about the material things. In Deuteronomy 24:16 it says that a man should be the only one punished for his sins, yet Isaiah 14:21 says the man and his sons should all be killed. Which should be followed?
Context, Context, Context
One of the ways to determine how applicable certain passages are to our modern world is understanding their context. Many seeming "contradictions" between one passage or another can be "resolved" when viewed in light of their context. What was going on? What circumstances surrounded this statement?
Does this mean there are parts of the bible that are "wrong" or untrue? No, it means there are parts of the bible that were written for specific times, places and people. For instance, if the overall intention of a passage is to retain "good order," how to keep that good order today may differ somewhat than how it was handled two thousand years ago. Circumstances, and problems, change. All of scripture is still "God breathed," but that does not mean that God's word doesn't speak anew into different situations with different answers that fit individual circumstances. Case in point, the inclusion of Gentiles into the promises of God made dietary laws essentially obsolete (Acts 10:10-15). The importance of the gospel being preached overrode the rules regarding food.
Themes in Scripture
There are, however, some themes that weave their way through the whole of scripture. Primarily, that which shows forth Christ, and as Christ tells us: "The weightier matters of the law [are] justice, mercy, and faith." (Matt. 23:23) Individual passages should be read in light of these overarching themes and motifs. Scripture thus interprets scripture. Jesus' point then is that if the "regulation" gets in the way of the gospel, justice, mercy or faith... it's a far better thing to swallow the gnat!
Admittedly, it can be a slippery slope determining which passages are more important than others, and certainly doesn't mean one simply "ignores" parts of scripture if one doesn't like them or because they make one uncomfortable. They must be faithfully engaged and tested against the WHOLE of scripture for consistency, context, intent, and the "weightier things of the law" before they become " sound doctrine."
