Whether you are a person who thrives on the latest or whether you disdain anything "new" since your childhood, one thing is certain. The rate at which your life is being propelled into entering new territory is perhaps the greatest since God created man. At times one receives the impression that for some people "everything new is bad," while for others "everything new is good."

Although the rate of change we are experiencing may be unprecedented, how one responds to new ideas and possibilities is not new. Did you know that during Jesus' life time one's belief regarding how one should apply divine authority to handling change determined whether one would end up sympathetic to the Pharisees or to the Sadducees? Let's take a closer look.

Brief Outline of the Sadducees(1)

1. Following Deuteronomy 17:8-13, the Sadducees, whose base of power was the wealthy priests and the aristocracy, believed that only the priests had been given the authority to interpret and apply the Torah.
2. The Sadducees only accepted the Torah (Mosaical Law) as containing divine doctrinal authority. Whether or not this determination was made shrewdly (the Torah is conveniently priestly friendly), this policy led the Sadducees to reject any new source of doctrinal understanding or authority, including: "the Writings and the Prophets," the oral law of the Pharisees, and concepts such as the resurrection and angels. Accordingly, Jesus met the Sadducees on their own ground when he used a text from the Torah (Exodus 3:6) to respond to their question regarding the resurrection. Matthew 22:23-33 If Jesus had appealed to one of the more obvious texts in Isaiah or Daniel, they would have summarily dismissed him.
3. Perhaps the key to understanding the Sadducean attitude toward change lies in their belief that the unchartered territory of new experiences existed beyond the scope of religious doctrinal authority of Torah. In other words, the Torah neither approved nor rejected new ideas. What this meant in regards to everyday life was that with the continual accumulation of new situations and ideas, the sphere of religious doctrinal influence became less and less relevant. Scripture did not apply to these new situations, concerns and ideas.

   This arrangement permitted them to use a religious sophistication to play the conservative traditionalists on the one hand by protecting their self interests in the status quo, while being liberal in accepting the cultural influences and innovations of Hellenism which were also at times beneficial to their self interests.

What we discover is that one of the fundamental differences between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was how each group believed that divine authority could be or should be applied to handling new ideas and situations. Whereas the Sadducees claimed that Torah did not apply to anything new thus resulting in restricting divine influence from commenting on any new idea or practice, the Pharisees sought to bring all of life under God's rule as contained in the Mosaical Law (Torah).

Brief Outline of the Pharisees(2)

• Who did the Pharisees consider qualified to interpret and apply the Law to new situations?

Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees believed that the Torah (Genesis - Deuteronomy) had been given to the community and therefore any competent person was capable of interpreting it. Since the scribes were the official scholars of the Torah, the Pharisees often followed the scribes interpretations. It is no accident that the phrase "scribes and Pharisees" appear so frequently in the Gospels. They enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship.

Although they accepted the entire Old Testament (Tanak) as being inspired by God, the Torah was understood to hold a position of greater authority since it was regarded as being binding. The rest was regarded as being supplementary. Torah also received greater honor because it was believed that Israel's previous failure to observe Torah had been the reason for their Babylonian captivity in 586 B.C.

• What sources of authority did the Pharisees use in order to know how to respond to something new?

When it came to sources of authority, the Pharisees accepted Torah (written law/teachings) and Tradition (oral law/ teachings - see Mark 7:3,5) as being equally authoritative. They reasoned that in order for the applications of the Law (traditions) to carry any binding force, they must possess the same weight and force of Torah. But in practical terms, it was Torah as interpreted through the oral law (Tradition) which counted. Aboth 3:12

• What goals did the Pharisees consider important in deciding how to engage new situations and ideas?

Unlike the Sadducees whose rigid use of Torah increasingly made the Law an archaic relic of the past, the Pharisees were open to new doctrinal developments because they believed that the Torah should be a relevant social force. They considered the traditional code as being capable of being expanded to address new circumstances or even being reinterpreted according to new beliefs. Such new meanings which could assure relevancy were achieved by allowing the Torah to be amended by the oral law. Whereas the Torah provided continuity, the oral law (traditions) provided the principle of progress and development.

On the one hand, this openness in accepting doctrinal developments beyond the Torah allowed them to erroneously accept certain traditions which Jesus said nullified God's Law (Mark 7:13). However, since they did not limit the source of their doctrinal authority to the Torah, they correctly embraced the teachings within the rest of the Old Testament which lead them to an understanding of the resurrection of the body, the last judgment and rewards and punishments after this life.

Jesus' Response to How the Pharisees and Sadducees Applied Scripture

• Which Scriptures are useful for doctrine?

Whereas the Pharisees accepted all of the Old Testament (Tanak) as being useful for doctrine, the Sadducees considered only the Pentateuch (Genesis through Deuteronomy) authoritative for doctrine. Jesus' use of the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms as a basis for doctrinal understanding revealed that he accepted all of God's inspired Word as authoritative for doctrine. Matthew 5:17-18; 12:13; 12:36; Mark 7:6, 10:19; 12:29-31

Paul's statement in 2 Timothy 3:16 that "All Scripture is God breathed and is profitable for teaching, for refuting errors, for correcting faults, and for training in righteousness" echoes Jesus' practice. Although Paul wrote this in reference to the Old Testament, the principle he describes also applies to the New Testament.

• God's Word Period OR God's Word as Understood and Applied Through a Human Source of Authority?

To keep God's written word relevant, the Pharisees used a body of oral traditions to explain how Scripture was to be understood and applied. By quoting Isaiah 29:13 in response to the question, "why do your disciples not walk according to the traditions of the elders" (Mark 7:5), Jesus sided with the Sadducees in rejecting the Pharisaical method of interpreting and applying Scripture through an authoritative human source. Jesus then added, "Thus you break the commandment of God, in order that you may keep your traditions" and "you nullify the word of God by your tradition" Mark 7:9, 13

Don't be fooled into believing that the Pharisees deliberately sought to cast aside God's command and that their reasoning would have been shoddy. Undoubtedly, their motives were honorable, and from a human point of view their reasoning would have been attractive to even educated people. Consider the abilities of Paul who before his conversion had been a Pharisee. People don't change. Even today some educated people accept teachings which directly go against the clear teaching of Scripture because they accept a body of human reasoning (i.e. tradition) as being the means through which they interpret and apply scripture. If one interprets Scripture based upon prior assumptions which are in conflict with scripture, undoubtedly the result with be a distorted understanding of Scripture. Thus they too nullify God's Word for the sake of human authority.

• Lessons from a Pharisaical Conflict over Divorce

In Matthew 19:3, the attempt was made to drag Jesus into the then current hot theological disagreement among the Pharisees regarding divorce. In an effort to make the text relevant to the present, the Pharisees were debating about the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1. Shammai claimed that divorce was only permitted in cases of sexual immorality. Hillel, on the other hand, interpreted this verse to mean that if the husband was displeased with his wife because he found something within her to be unseeming or unclean he could divorce her. Although Jesus agreed with Shammai's conclusion (Mt 19:9), his reasoning was different. Jesus interpreted the Law based upon God's purpose for marriage which He had revealed at creation and which was available in the written word but outside of Mosaical legislation (Gen. 2:24). In terms of methodology, the ultimate source of authority was God's purpose as revealed in the written word, not the Law.

Jesus' answers reveal that the principles he used distinguished himself from the Pharisees and Sadducees. In handling new ideas, the Sadducees were right to reject the Pharisees' elevation of human sources/ traditions to the position of authority and to reject the meaning the Pharisees had given Scripture. However, their methodology which made Scripture less and less relevant to everyday life was wrong. Conversely, the Pharisees were right in trying to keep the Scriptures applicable, but their method of making a human source equal or superior to the written word was wrong. Jesus treated the written word as authoritative, "but the great fundamental principles therein take precedence and provide the standard by which it is to be interpreted and applied."3

Modern Day "Pharisees" and "Sadducees"

When it comes to handling change, new ideas and situations, what might a Sadducee or a Pharisee look like today?

It appears that if a Sadducee were alive today:

• Apparently, he would be someone who would consider the silence of scripture as a providing him a "green light" to proceed providing that the area under consideration had nothing to do with the pigeon hole called "religious doctrine."
• Although he would go to worship services, his goal in life would be to protect his social and financial interests.
• Apparently the sphere of God's influence upon his life would continually be diminishing as culture continued to change.

It appears that if a Pharisee were alive today:

• He would not allow new ideas and situations to remain beyond the scope of God's rule. Using scripture and tradition, he would try to discover how God would want him to respond to this new development.
• In order that his religion might be a relevant social force he would be open to new doctrinal developments.
• Apparently his means for achieving relevancy and new doctrinal developments would be to filter Scripture through some human tradition thus making Scripture subservient to whatever assumptions, human reasoning and agenda was responsible for forming the tradition. Scripture as understood through the Tradition would then be presented as "God's authoritative Word."

For an analysis of one reason why Jesus attacked the Pharisees consider "The Jesus Whom We Find Embarassing" or for an analysis of Jesus' response to the Pharisaic obedience of the Law check out "Going Beyond Simplistic Answers" or "The Invisible Magic Stamp."

1Adapted from E. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, pp. 481-487.

2Ferguson, pp. 481-485, 505-508

3Ferguson, p. 485.

Barry Newton, Copyright © 1998

No portion of this material may be reproduced in any form for commercial purposes without the written permission of the author.