Two Pharisees: Two Responses to Jesus

Introduction

Who were the Pharisees? You can search the entire OT and find not a single reference to them. They were a Jewish sect that arose during the Intertestamental Period, promoting religious purity in opposition to the secularization and Hellenization of the Jewish people and their religious and political leaders. The name “Pharisees” means “separated ones” or “separatists.” They were strict adherents to the Law of Moses and protectors of the Jewish way of life. They sought to build a protective “fence” around the sacred Law by creating additional rules and regulations known as the “traditions” of the elders (Matt. 15:2-6; Gal. 1:14).

The Pharisees in general are probably best remembered for their hypocrisy and hostility toward Jesus and the early church. However, not all Pharisees or pharisaic tendencies were bad. Besides the hard-core adversaries, there were more moderate Pharisees,¹ two of whom are the subject of our current study.

Introducing Nicodemus the Pharisee 

The name Nicodemus is a combination of nîkos (“victory”) + dēmos (“people”), meaning “victorious among the people,” a noble name fairly common among both Jews and Gentiles. Only the Gospel of John mentions Nicodemus by name, in three separate passages (chaps. 3, 7, 19). He is described as “a ruler of the Jews” (John 3:1), thus a religious leader, a prominent teacher (v. 10), and a member of the illustrious Sanhedrin (cf. 7:50). Nicodemus is first introduced in the context of Jesus having traveled to Jerusalem, where “many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did” (John 2:23).²

“This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, ‘Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him’” (John 3:2). It is significant that Nicodemus addresses Jesus as “Rabbi,” a title of supreme honor and respect among the Jews, reserved for the most esteemed among Jewish teachers,³ similar to addressing the Prime Minister of New Zealand as “the Right Honorable,” or a high-ranking Māori chief, “Ariki.”

It was apparently important to John to mention more than once that Nicodemus “came to Jesus by night” (repeated in 7:50 [N/KJV] and/or 19:39). This subtle detail adds very little to the storyline, and no explanation is given. But John places much emphasis in his Gospel on the distinct contrast between spiritual “light” and spiritual “darkness” (1:4-9; 3:19-21; 5:35; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35-36, 46), including the metaphoric sense of “night” (9:4; 11:9-10).⁴

At this point in John’s record Nicodemus was in the early stages of his faith and struggled to distinguish between the physical realm and the spiritual realm, between natural birth and the new birth, between worldly darkness and heavenly light. Jesus concludes the conversation by informing Nicodemus: “But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God” (3:21). Nicodemus was much more enlightened after his encounter with Jesus than at the beginning.

As John’s narrative continues, we see the understanding and faith of Nicodemus grow. A couple of years later, while other Sanhedrin leaders were deriding and plotting against Jesus, Nicodemus takes a stand for what is right and is ridiculed by his colleagues (7:45-52). About three years after his first encounter with the Lord, despite the inherent risk, he joined Joseph of Arimathea (a “secret” disciple) to ensure that Jesus had a decent burial (19:38-42).  

Introducing Simon the Pharisee

The name Simon is the Greek form of the Hebraic Simeon, derived from a Hebrew expression meaning “he has heard” (Gen. 29:33), an implicit allusion to answered prayer with the broader sense of hearing or listening. This was a common name among first-century Jewish males.

Simon the Pharisee is introduced in Luke 7:36-50, the only time in the biblical record he is mentioned by name. He is not to be confused with other men who wore the same name nor should this account be conflated with similar episodes that occurred at different times and places.

Contextually, Jesus appears to have been in Galilee and had just declared, “And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me” (v. 23). The crowd that was present included tax collectors who had been baptized by John, as well as Pharisees and law experts who had not, having “rejected the will of God for themselves ...” (vv. 29-30). At least some of them were accusing Jesus of being “a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (v. 34).

Nevertheless, not every Pharisee was so dismissive, and one of them, Simon, invited Jesus to his house for a meal. In recounting the event, in a very impersonal way, Luke refers to the man merely as “one of the Pharisees” (v. 36) and “the Pharisee” (v. 39). It is only after the recorded words of Jesus calling him by name (v. 40) that Luke then refers to him by name (vv. 43-44).

The scene is interrupted by a woman of the city described as “a sinner” (v. 37). She is unnamed, and the nature of her sins is not disclosed. She was crying profusely. Whether these were tears of remorse or tears of gratitude, the text does not say. The verb tenses indicate that she was a sinner in the past (v. 37) and had been forgiven and continued to be forgiven in the present (vv. 47, 48, 50).⁵

She washed the feet of Jesus with her tears, wiped them with her hair, kissed and anointed them with fragrant oil (v. 38). The Pharisee, as Luke describes him, was thinking to himself, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner” (v. 39). That she may have been a forgiven sinner was not Simon’s concern.

“And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you.’ So he said, ‘Teacher, say it’” (v. 40). Notice that Simon did not call Jesus by name, nor did he respectfully address Jesus as “Rabbi,” as Nicodemus had done. In his thoughts Jesus was merely “this man” (v. 39), and in his verbal address Jesus was simply “Teacher” [Didáskalos], without the inherent honor and reverence the more formal title would have conveyed.

Obviously Jesus knew not only the moral and spiritual condition of this woman but what Simon was thinking. So he told a parable about two debtors, one of whom was much deeper in debt than the other, neither of whom was able to pay. The gracious creditor “freely forgave them both” (vv. 41-42), and the one who had been forgiven the most naturally loved the most.

Jesus then contrasted the two debtors currently in his presence: one an accused sinner, the other a self-righteous religious leader oblivious to his own sins. One was remorseful, penitent, and thankful; the other indifferent and disrespectful. One demonstrated love, commitment, and faith; the other was noncommittal. One was forgiven and saved. The other was not.

Comparing the Two Pharisees

On the surface, Simon’s response to Jesus seems more commendable than that of Nicodemus. Simon approached Jesus openly, Nicodemus in secret. Simon invited Jesus into his home, Nicodemus did not. However, as Jesus himself affirms, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). This statement was made shortly before Nicodemus took a stand for Jesus behind closed doors (vv. 25-52).

Nicodemus came to Jesus intentionally, while Simon’s encounter was incidental. Nicodemus came with sincerity, Simon with mere curiosity. Nicodemus approached Jesus with humility, whereas Simon maintained his prideful arrogance. Nicodemus was respectful, Simon was dismissive. Nicodemus was convinced by the evidence the Lord presented, while Simon was unmoved and noncommittal. Nicodemus was in the early stages of his faith that continued to grow, yet Simon failed to even begin his faith journey.

Conclusion

Among the Pharisees of the first century, there were two extremes: (a) the hypocritical, evil, violently opposed to Christ (Matt. 23); and (b) those openly receptive to the gospel and publicly zealous for Christ (Phil. 3:3-14). Neither Simon nor Nicodemus fits into either category. Like many of us today, between these extremes are (a) those, like Simon, who have the opportunity to follow Christ but lack conviction, reject the invitation, and remain lost in their sins; and (b) those like Nicodemus, quietly serving the Lord without a great deal of recognition but faithful nonetheless.

Let’s remember from the account of Jesus’s interaction with Nicodemus: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life .... But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God” (John 3:16, 21).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Consider, for example, Joseph of Arimathea, Gamaliel, and Paul (Matt. 27:57-60; Acts 5:33-40; Phil. 3:5). Since the Pharisees correctly acknowledged God’s power to raise the dead (Acts 23:6-8; 26:5-7), they were prime candidates for the gospel and a number of them did become Christians (Acts 2:41; 15:5). See K. L. Moore, “A Closer Look at Pharisaism,” Moore Perspective (16 Nov. 2013), <Link>.

     ² Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are from the NKJV.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, “Education of Jesus the Rabbi,” Moore Perspective (8 Feb. 2017), <Link>. The scribes and Pharisees loved to be seated in the highest places of honor and to be called, “Rabbi” (Matt. 23:6-7).

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, “And It Was Night,” Moore Perspective (23 Dec. 2020), <Link>.

     ⁵ She “was” [ēn] a sinner (v. 37), the imperfect tense conveying repeated action of the past. Jesus affirmed that her sins “have been forgiven” [aphéōntai] (vv. 47-48), the perfect tense conveying past action with ongoing results. When Jesus said to her, “Your faith has saved [sésōkén] you” (v. 50), again the perfect tense conveys past action with ongoing results.

*Prepared for the Christian Family Camp hosted by the church in Palmerston North, New Zealand (16th–19th January 2026).

Related Posts: A Closer Look at Pharisaism, John 3:16

Related articles: Lance Mosher, When being a Pharisee is a Good thing  

 

Image credit: https://medium.com/@Grailen_Made/the-three-crucial-crossroads-mastering-lifes-essential-decisions-a334ee5e8d7d 

God’s Purpose for Israel in the Old Testament

God’s purpose for Israel began with the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12:1-3; 18:17-19; 22:17-18), renewed in Isaac and Jacob (26:3-5; 28:13-15) and their descendants (46:3; 48:3-4; 49:10), intended as a blessing to “all the families [nations] of the earth” (12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). Having delivered the Israelites from Egyptian bondage and reminding them of the covenant made with their forefathers (Ex. 2:24-25; 6:1-8), the Lord spoke through Moses (Ex. 19:3-9) reaffirming divine authority and providential care for his covenant people, along with expectations of obedience (vv. 3-6). Yet their selection in no way meant the exclusiveness of a single-nation God.

A Kingdom of Priests

“And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation …” (Ex. 19:6a). A priest serves in a mediatorial role between fellow-humans and God, so an entire priestly kingdom implies “Israel’s mission as that of bringing other peoples to the Lord…”¹ As “a holy nation,” the holiness of God was to be displayed through his people, as “Israel was called to be the vehicle of the knowledge and salvation of God to the nations of the earth.”² To this solemn mission the post-exodus Israelites pledged their obedience (v. 8).

Unfortunately, God’s people did not remain faithful to their covenant agreement (1 Kings 19:10; Jer. 31:32; cf. Jer. 7:25-28; Psa. 95:8-11; Acts 7:51-53) and suffered the consequences, including a divided nation (1 Kings 12–2 Kings 17), Assyrian exile of the northerners (2 Kings 15–17), and Babylonian exile of the southerners (2 Kings 23–25). Nevertheless, God still loved his people and sought to bring them back to obedient faith, continuing to work with them to fulfill his overall plan.

God’s “Witnesses”

Through Isaiah, the Lord issued stern warnings of judgment (Isa. 1–39), as well as messianic hope (chaps. 40–66). The restoration of his covenant people was assured (43:1-7), and they in turn were to be his “witnesses” to the nations (43:8-13; cf. 44:8). A witness is superfluous without a testimony and those to whom the testimony can be conveyed. Here “all the nations” are to be on the receiving end of Israel’s testimony.

Yahweh has such [witnesses] available – his own special people. In fact that is in a sense their very destiny. Israel is not to be a mighty worldly power dominating other nations and exercising world-empire. She is to be witness to what God has done for her, witness by her very existence and witness by the testimony that she can bear orally. By thus witnessing she fulfils her calling of being God’s ‘servant,’ whom he has chosen.³

The responsibility of the Israelites to be God’s witnesses was based on what he had done and was doing for them (43:10-25), and simply because of who he is (44:6-8). “This people I have formed for myself; they shall declare my praise” (43:21).

The God of All People

The approximately 175 allusions in the Psalms to the universality of God’s reign demonstrate the extent of his interest and care. “In the Psalms there are seventy-six references to the ‘nations’, even though the Psalms are part of the worship of Israel. And if you add references to ‘all the earth’ and ‘the peoples’ it is quite startling to see how much the Psalms teach us of God’s concern for all mankind.”⁴

In 1 Chronicles 16:7-36, when the ark of God was returned to the tabernacle, David’s song of thanksgiving shows his awareness of the universality of God’s reign (esp. vv. 8, 14, 23, 24, 28, 30, 31, 33). David realized that Yahweh is not limited to the people of Israel alone. In 1 Kings 8:38-43, at the dedication of the temple, Solomon’s prayer evinces an awareness of the Lord’s purpose for his people, showered with grace and blessings as they submit to his holy will (vv. 38-40). Solomon prayed for the “foreigner, who is not of your people Israel” (v. 41a), foreseeing God’s message spreading to distant lands (vv. 41b-42), “that all peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel …” (43). Note also 1 Kings 8:60; 10:1, 9.

Jonah was a Jewish prophet sent to preach to a non-Jewish people (Jonah 1:1-2), a clear reflection of the Lord’s willingness to save even heathen nations who submit to him as the universal God of the entire earth.

The book of Jonah is so significant for understanding the biblical basis of mission because it treats God’s mandate to his people regarding the Gentile peoples and thus serves as the preparatory step to the missionary mandate of the New Testament. But it is also important for catching a glimpse of the deep resistance this mandate encounters from the very servant Yahweh has chosen to discharge his worldwide work.⁵

Granted, Jonah was a reluctant missionary, but the point is the Lord’s concern for all people and his willingness to proactively give them an opportunity to come to him. Jeremiah was appointed “a prophet to the nations” (Jer. 1:5b). In fact, God’s blessings were always meant to include the Gentiles, anticipating a time when “the nations” would bow to the Creator.⁶  

First-Century Jews

That at least some Jews understood their God-given purpose is apparent in their proselytizing efforts. Jesus acknowledged that the scribes and Pharisees were known for traveling great distances to win converts to Judaism (Matt. 23:15). In the first century AD, there were a number of proselytes (Acts 2:10; 6:5; 13:43) and semi-convert God-fearers (Acts 10:2; 13:16, 26; 17:17; 18:7).

In Rom. 2:17-20, Paul reiterates God’s intended purpose for Israel. Their privileged status necessarily came with great responsibility: a guide to the spiritually blind,⁷ a light to those in spiritual darkness,⁸ an instructor of the foolish (morally and spiritually uninformed), a teacher of “children,” not literally, but the immature, clueless, uninstructed in God’s way (cf. vv. 21a, 22a; compare Jonah 4:11; Matt. 18:5). This highlights a significant expectation and duty that stems from divinely-gifted prerogatives. The people of Israel, having been granted access to the special revelation of the divine will, were necessarily obligated to share that knowledge with others.

Conclusion:

Missionary work was not something that developed in the latter (Christian) stage of God’s plan but has always been an integral part. Although Israel’s mission was often neglected and unfulfilled, it was God’s purpose for them nonetheless.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Clyde M. Woods, People’s OT Notes: Genesis–Exodus 1:175.

     ² C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the OT 2:98-100. “It is here that Israel’s missionary role became explicit … The whole nation was to function on behalf of the kingdom of God in a mediatorial role in relation to the nations…. Unfortunately for Israel, they rejected this priesthood of all believers …” (W. C. Kaiser, “Israel’s Missionary Call,” in R. D. Winter and S. C. Hawthorne, eds., Perspectives on the World Christian Movement 29).

     ³ H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Isaiah 84.

     ⁴ M. Griffiths, What on Earth Are You Doing 12. Note, e.g., Psalm 67; also 22:27-28; 33:5-12; 57:9; 66:7; 72:11, 17; 82:8; 86:9; 96.1-13; 108:3; 117:1-2.

     ⁵ J. Verkuyl, “Biblical Foundation for the Worldwide Mission Mandate,” in R. D. Winter and S. C. Hawthorne, eds., Perspectives on the World Christian Movement 40.

     ⁶ Cf. Psa. 22:27; 72:11, 17; 86:9; Isa. 2.1-4; 9:1-2; 42:1-6; 49:6; 51:4; Jer. 16.19-20; Zech. 8.20-23; Mic. 4.1-4; Hab. 2.4, 14, 20; et al.

     ⁷ Isa. 42:6-7; 49:6; cp. Matt. 15:14; Acts 26:18.

     ⁸ Echoing Isa. 49:6; cf. Isa. 11:10; 34:1; 42:6; 55:5. Paul’s commission as an apostle to the Gentiles not only parallels the commissioning of OT prophets (Gal. 1:15-16; cf. Isa. 49:1-6; Jer. 1:5) but “was in fulfillment of Israel’s own obligation to be a light to the Gentiles.... What Israel had not yet fully delivered Paul saw to be his task, but precisely as the fulfillment of Israel’s task” (J. D. G. Dunn, “In Search of Common Ground,” in J. D. G. Dunn, ed., Paul and the Mosaic Law 328).

Related Posts: Universal Priesthood of Believers

 

Image credit: https://x.com/KraantiKumar/status/1711883004669227441 

The Universal Priesthood of Believers

Introduction

A priest is one who ministers, offers sacrifices, and acts as a mediator between God and fellow-humans (Deut. 27:9, 14). The concept of priesthood runs throughout history and appears to have been a fundamental part of God’s dealings with mankind. Some form of mediatorial priesthood seems to have existed from the earliest times, the duties of which were discharged by those who occupied positions of leadership.

Cain and Abel made offerings to the Lord (Gen. 4:3-4; Heb. 11:4). Noah “built an altar to the LORD ... and offered burnt offerings on the altar” (Gen. 8:20).¹ Job offered burnt offerings for his children (Job 1:5). Abraham built an altar and offered a ram for a burnt offering (Gen. 22:9-13; cf. 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18). Melchizedek was “the priest of God Most High” (Gen. 14:18-20; Heb. 7:1-10). Jethro was “the priest of Midian” (Ex. 2:16; 3:1).

Following their deliverance from exile in Egypt, a priesthood limited to Aaron and his family was established among the Israelites (Ex. 28 ff.). Aaron was the first high priest, succeeded by others; on the Day of Atonement the high priest would enter the Holy of Holies to make atonement for the sins of the people (Lev. 16; Heb. 9:7). Priests offered daily sacrifices, and the people of Israel approached God through these intermediary priests (Num. 15:25).

In addition to the Aaronic priesthood, there was also a form of national priesthood. Israel was to be “a kingdom of priests” (Ex. 19:4-6), i.e., the mediatorial link between God and the nations, bringing the knowledge and salvation of God to the peoples around them.

The New Testament Concept of Priesthood

There is now only one High Priest for all ages: Jesus the Christ (Heb. 4:14; 7:23-28). Unlike the old system where daily sacrifices were necessary, Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice “once for all when he offered up himself” (Heb. 7:27). When this was accomplished at Golgotha, “the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom” (Mark 15:38). The veil had separated the people from God’s presence (the Holy of Holies), and they were denied direct access to him. Only the high priest was allowed to go beyond the veil to represent the people before God (Heb. 9:1-8).

The splitting of the temple’s veil from top to bottom at Christ’s death seems to have symbolized free access to God through this great sacrifice (cf. Heb. 4:16; 9:12). Now instead of an earthly priest serving as mediator between God and his people, all Christians have direct access to God through Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5-6; Heb. 10:19-22).

A Kingdom and Priests to Our God (Revelation 1:5-6; 5:9-10)

The Lamb was slain and resurrected, “and washed us from our sins in his own blood”; “And redeemed us to God by your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (1:5; 5:9). He then made us “a kingdom” (1:6; 5:10; cf. Col. 1:13-14) and “priests to our God” (1:6; 5:10; cf. Isa. 61:6; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9). All Christ-followers have direct access to God (through Jesus) and serve as mediators between God and those who are not Christians. We “reign on the earth” (5:10) in the sense that we are connected to, represent, and proclaim the sovereignty of Christ (cf. 20:4; Rom. 5:17; 1 Cor. 4:8; 2 Tim. 2:12).

A Holy/Royal Priesthood (1 Peter 2:1-10)

This passage is applicable to all who “have tasted that the Lord is gracious” (v. 3). As Christ is “a living stone” (v. 4), we also are “living stones” (v. 5). Contrary to the lifeless, inanimate stones of the natural world, these stones are living, having received spiritual life from their union with the living foundation-stone (cf. 1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:5). These living stones are not scattered or piled up but are joined together to build “a spiritual house” (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 1:20-22).

Those who comprise the Lord’s church are described as “a holy priesthood” (v. 5). All Christians are “priests,” do not need a human mediator (in addition to Christ), and can therefore approach God directly via our great High Priest. The adjective “holy” signifies a separation from the ungodly world and a steadfast dedication to God. As a holy priesthood, the church is “to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

The priesthood is spiritual and the sacrifices are spiritual, acceptable only as they are offered through our High Priest, Jesus Christ. These spiritual sacrifices include:

o   Praises (Heb. 13:15).

o   Prayers (Rev. 5:8; cf. Psa. 141:2).

o   Benevolent giving (Heb. 13:16; Phil. 4:18).

o   Righteous living (Psa. 4:5).

o   Ourselves in service to God (Rom. 12:1-2).

The Lord’s church is also described as “a royal priesthood” (v. 9). We are “a chosen generation,” sharing a common heritage through the new birth (1 Pet. 1:23) which transcends all natural distinctions of ancestry, race, culture, etc. Our priesthood is “royal” in that we belong to and function as part of the King’s family.

Priesthood involves service. While the qualifier “holy” (v. 5) is indicative of our service to God, “royal” (v. 9) is indicative of our service to the world. We are “a holy nation, his own special people” (cf. Ex. 19:5-6), and the purpose of the royal priesthood is “that you may proclaim the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.”

Our privilege as God’s people is not for our own personal gratification. We make known the praises of God by our holy lives (1 Pet. 2:12; 3:1) and by our words (Mark 16:15; Acts 8:4). The “praises of him” involve God’s praiseworthy virtues, deeds, power, glory, wisdom, grace, mercy, love, holiness, i.e., all that God is and all that he does. Our purpose as a priesthood is to bring God to all people and all people to God. Our purpose is based on what God had done for us.

We are called by the gospel (2 Thess. 2:14), which is God’s invitation to the world to be reconciled to him. We are called out of spiritual darkness, thus freed from sin (John 3:19; Rom. 3:10; 1 John 1:5), into the marvelous light of his salvation (John 3:21; 2 Cor. 4:6).

Conclusion

From earliest of times God has utilized some form of priesthood to aid in the accomplishment of his will, today in the form of the holy/royal priesthood of all believers. With the privilege of being God’s people comes responsibility to God and to the world.²

Who are we? A holy priesthood, a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, his own special people. What is our purpose? To offer up spiritual sacrifices and to proclaim his praises. Why? Because God has called us out of darkness into his marvelous light. As a holy priesthood we have responsibilities to God; as a royal priesthood we have responsibilities to the world.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.

     ² “The priesthood of all believers ... means that every Christian has immediate access to God, that he serves God personally, and that he ministers to others and that he has something to give” (Edwin Blum, “1 & 2 Peter,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews–Revelation 230).

Related Posts: God's Purpose for Israel in the OT

 

Image credit: https://ebonyjohanna.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/paintings_189.jpg