Forgive the length, but PLEASE CONSIDER THE WHOLE POST!
I think the law causes contention among Christians because - like a few have said - the relationship is not properly understood between the law, the Holy Spirit, Grace, and Christ. I also read words like "Pharaseeism" and "Legalism" for a supporter of the law...so I think it's important to understand what the Pharisees actually represented. Because if we miss this we (kind of) miss the whole point of the contention between Christ and the Pharisees, and we misread the context of scenes like Acts 15:5-10 (note: The Pharisees stood up with this demand for fleshy circumcision).
{by the way, my CAPS are simply to make strong emphasis; to drive the points I’m making home for all readers}
---
The Pharisees were NOT...NOT...NOT "strict observers [or even normal observers] of the law of God".
If the opposite of the above statement is established as our '
baseline understanding' (that the Pharisees were "
the keepers of God’s law"), then it becomes necessary (when we consider the problems Christ had with them) to assume that somehow there’s something wrong with God’s law (as in either it's not sufficient or it's old, etc.). The minds begins to try to justify why Christ could ever have a problem with these men if these men were the law's advocates and leader of a religion that Christ was born under.
But this was
NOT Christ’s contention with the Pharisees, nor was the Pharisees’ "beef" with Christ "him breaking God’s Law"...even though that’s what they’d often suggested/accused him of. We have to rewind because - like Christ said - on the wrong foundation a house can not stand.
----
In a masterful switch, the spirit of deception has misled us by swapping both parties’ stances, because the truth is:
(a) Christ is actually the “STRICT keeper of God’s law”, while...
(b) The Pharisees are actually the ones breaking God’s law at every turn.
Christ is the one who was
perfectly sinless, not the Pharisees. Sin isn't defined as some moral/spiritual corruption. Sin is (the act of) "breaking the law of God"...and Christ DID NOT DO THAT. This fact alone proves that He alone is the “
STRICT observer of God’s law”;
so isn't he the "Legalistic" one by definition? Unfortunately, you may reject this label because it carries a negative connotation since it's presumed to challenge grace...but it's no less true. Christ alone is the keeper of the law. The High Priest ordained by God (not by man). And he never...EVER broke God's law or taught anyone to break it.
However,
The Pharisees were NOT observers of the law, but sinners (remember sin = breaking the law). For instance, the Pharisees brought the adulterous woman to Christ for judgment but *they* were guilty of sin so they left
never stoning her ("
he who’s without sin cast the first stone"). The Pharisees were "anything but" keepers of the law. They did NOT follow the law, but followed
THEIR OWN man-made rules & regulations CONTRARY to God's law.
**The Prushim**
The Hebrew name of the Pharisees was Prushim meaning "separated ones"...but it begs the question "separate from whom?" And *how* did they separate themselves? Well to answer this one must recall the law of God as it pertains to the Temple:
When anyone intended to make a sacrifice in the Temple of God, they were required to enter into a
state of purity; because
no one can EVER approach Father Yah presumptuously (much can be preached against this generation from this fact alone, but I digress). If a person wanted to enter the temple they had to 1) confess their sins, 2) baptize themselves, and 3) change their clothes...every time. Only then was a person “holy” to enter the temple.
Once in there, portions of the animal sacrifice were designated to God, to the priest and to the bringer of the sacrifice to eat (respectively), and it would be considered “sanctified meat”.
The Prushim, in their desire live in a perpetual state of purity (separated from lay-folk), self-righteously established THEIR OWN system of maintaining their holiness where they made hundreds of rules to govern things like:
- What constituted “forbidden work” on Sabbath
- How far one could walk on the Sabbath
- How to wash when one eats regular meals
- The type of utensils one could use, etc.
The Prushim/Pharisees then said these rules are
"TAKANOT" (translated in the bible as “traditions” but ACTUALLY means “
laws enacted by the rabbis which change or negate the Law of God, said to carry the same weight of authority as the law given by God himself through Moses”). They claimed their Takanot was the “secondary fence” around the law so if people followed their rules they wouldn't break the law of God. They also said
when they enact a new Takanot even God himself must obey the verdict, and that only through their Takanot can one properly understand the scriptures of Torah (sound familiar??). Eventually, these laws became known as "Oral Torah" which was later codified into The Talmud...but this was after the destruction of the Temple.
In Christ's day the Pharisees/Prushim controlled the Sanhedrin (the governing body) so EVERYONE was required to follow the Takanot of the Pharisees or they would be accused as if they broke God's Law (i.e. the Law of Moses) and then punished...so mostly everyone was under the bondage of this government-religious system. The Prushim/Pharisees taught that one can be forgiven for breaking a commandment but
one would NEVER be forgiven if they broke Takanot. But Christ came to set people free from this bondage.
Takanot that Christ willfully broke (where Pharisees accused him of breaking God's law as a result):
- Using ritual cleansing water pots for wedding wine
- Making mud on the Sabbath
- Putting saliva on eyes on the Sabbath
- Walking further than a “Sabbath’s day’s journey” on Sabbath
- Picking up a mat outside on Sabbath (without making boundaries of one’s home outside called "
law of the eruv")
- Healing on Sabbath
- Picking grain to eat on Sabbath (when there’s actually a provision ALLOWING this in the Law)
- Not ritually washing hands before eating bread
- Not reading at least three verses when reading from scripture in the synagogue (Christ stopped reading Isaiah 61:1-2 before finishing verse 2)
- Preaching without going through their schools to become a "licensed" priest
- Preaching against any Takanot
NONE of these rules are found in God's law, but actively following ANY of them breaks God's law (making Pharisees and their obedient lay people sinners) because "
No one is allowed to ADD TO or SUBTRACT FROM the law of God". Yet the Pharisees accused Christ of breaking God's laws (and being a sinner) when he taught the law of God over their rules.
Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
Deuteronomy 12:32
What thing so ever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
The "Separated Ones" (Prushim/Pharisees) rejected Christ as "The Prophet" that was to come because they were so convinced he was a sinner because Christ regularly broke their rules, which in their minds was God's Law by their authority. Also, being a
supposed child of Joseph out of wed-lock (a "child of fornication") who lives in the Galilee (area of gentiles), Christ was assumed by them as "illegitimate" to that prophecy. And this "illegitimate" prophet was teaching EVERYONE to also break the Takanot of the Pharisees, emptying synagogues by droves.
John 16:2
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time comes, that whosoever kills you will think that he does God service.
But Christ WAS the prophet to come, coming to correct people's misunderstandings.
Deuteronomy 18:18-20
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death."
Deuteronomy 13
[a]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
And he never came speaking contrary to God's law.
Christ then said in
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
So Christ practice "legalism" (strict obedience to God's law) while the Pharisees practiced "phariseeism". The Messiah said
his yolk is easy by comparison to the Prushim's yolk who put burdens on people too heavy to bear. This is the context of what Peter says against the Pharisee's demand in Acts 15:10:
Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?
