Moore Perspective: 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.