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 

A Closer Look at Pharisaism

     The Pharisees (the name meaning “separatists”) were a prominent Jewish sect who exercised significant influence among the people of Israel during the time of Christ and his apostles. They are probably best remembered for their antagonism against Jesus. Because of their infamous reputation, the label “pharisaical” has become a derogatory accusation often generating prejudicial feelings toward those to whom it is applied.

Positives

     To set the record straight, not all Pharisees or pharisaic tendencies were bad. Since they correctly acknowledged God’s power to raise the dead (Acts 23:6-8; 26:5-7), they were prime candidates for the gospel. Many of them did become Christians (Acts 2:41; 15:5), the most notable of whom was Saul of Tarsus (Acts 23:6; 26:5). Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Jewish Supreme Court (Mark 15:43), may very well have been a Pharisee. He is described as “a good and just man,”¹ who refused to consent to the Lord’s death (Luke 23:50-51). He and another Pharisee, Nicodemus, prepared the body of Jesus for burial in Joseph’s own tomb (Matthew 27:57-60; John 19:38-42). Both of them apparently became followers of Christ.² A Pharisee named Gamaliel (Paul’s former teacher) dissuaded a murderous plot against the Lord’s apostles (Acts 5:33-40).

     Because of their reputation for being meticulous students of God’s word, Jesus told the people, “whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do …” (Matthew 23:3). Unlike Jonah of old, the Pharisees were extremely mission-minded, taking seriously their God-ordained role to ensure “that all peoples of the earth may know [his] name” (1 Kings 8:43). Their evangelistic fervor was noted by Christ when he said they “travel land and sea to win one proselyte” (Matthew 23:15). The Lord even endorsed their prudence in not leaving undone the minute details of the law (Matt. 23:23). Being “zealous toward God” (Acts 22:3) is an apt description of many Pharisees.

Negatives

     In spite of all these good qualities, however, the Pharisees in general still missed the mark. In Matthew 23 Jesus condemned their persistent failure to implement in their own lives what they taught others to do (vv. 3-4). They were characteristically arrogant, selfish, hypocritical, oppressive, pretentious, and inconsistent (vv. 5-22). They neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith (v. 23). They were internally impure, self-indulgent, and lawless (vv. 25-28). They were even guilty of persecution and murder (vv. 29-37). How is it possible, considering their apparent devotion to the law, that they could rationalize such gross disregard for the law?

     The apostle Paul, a former Pharisee himself, in his epistle to the saints at Rome, may offer some insight. The Pharisees, like most other Jews, probably would not have denied their obvious infractions of the law. But as God’s chosen people (as they regarded themselves), their presumption was that, unlike the Gentiles, they would escape condemnation and they accordingly failed to recognize their need for repentance (Romans 2:1-5). They naively believed that their election, circumcision, and covenant protected them against the consequences of neglecting to fully observe the law (Romans 2:17-29; Philippians 3:4-6). Simply because they were Abraham’s descendants, despite all their willful transgressions, they blindly relied on God’s grace to save them (Romans 3:1–6:2).

Conservatism or Hypocrisy? 

     The Pharisees were not denounced because of their “conservatism,” or their zeal for God and his law, or their emphasis on obedience, or their efforts to make converts. They were condemned, in short, because of their evil hearts and impure lives. They hypocritically said one thing and did another. They went beyond God’s law with their human doctrines and traditions and lived in blatant violation of divine precepts (Matthew 15:1-9). No wonder the charge “pharisaical” is such a burning indictment!

     If you want to criticize someone for being, in your estimation, too “conservative,” the derogatory accusation “Pharisee” is misapplied. A Christ-like criticism would not be aimed at a person’s conscientious attempts to conserve the word of God. It would be directed toward hypocrisy, arrogance, oppression, impurity, and disobedience. Using God’s grace to excuse or justify one’s failure to live up to the divine standard is more pharisaical than seeking to understand, obey, and defend God’s truth.

Modern-day Application
     Consider, for example, controversial issues such as divorce and remarriage.³ It is ironic that when one takes at face value the Lord’s instructions – accepting, observing, teaching and defending them without compromise – he runs the risk of being labeled “legalistic” or “pharisaical” because of his strictness and perceived lack of sympathy for those in unbiblical relationships (cf. Mark 6:18). The irony is that Jesus’ recorded discourses on the subject (Matt. 5:32; 19:4-9; Mark 10:6-12; Luke 16:18) are always in response (and opposition) to the lax attitudes of the scribes and Pharisees toward the divine will (Matt. 5:20, 31; 19:1-7; Mark 10:1-2; Luke 16:14-15). Searching for loopholes and twisting or watering down the Lord’s teachings is the pharisaic approach.

     Healthy debate can be beneficial, but not when prejudicial labels are carelessly hurled at those with whom we disagree. I may be regarded as “legalistic” by those on my left and “liberal” by those on my right, but at the end of the day what do these epithets really communicate? They say more about those who apply them than about those to whom they are applied. If we can be more specific when addressing the inevitable concerns, reasoning together with open Bibles and open hearts, much good can be accomplished and unnecessary harm averted. May godly attitudes and Christian behavior prevail among the Lord’s people.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ All scripture quotations in English are from the NKJV.

     ² According to legend, Joseph of Arimathea was sent by the apostle Philip to Great Britain in 63 to establish the Lord’s church.

     ³ See Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage.

Related Posts: Labeling "False Teachers"

Related articles: Wes McAdams' You May Not Be Conservative; Ben Giselbach, When 'Book, Chapter, Verse' Becomes a Bad Thing; Lance Mosher, When being a Pharisee is a Good Thing

Image credit: http://www.catholicchapterhouse.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/pharisees.jpg

When did Jesus annul the Jewish ceremonial food restrictions?

     The Pharisees and scribes, who regarded unwashed hands as being defiled or ceremonially unclean, took issue with Jesus when they saw some of his disciples violating the tradition of the elders by eating bread without having washed their hands in the customary manner (Mark 7:1-5). The Lord responds by confronting the hypocrisy of these critics, who were paying lip service to God without dedicated hearts and were elevating their traditions above God’s word (vv. 6-13). Jesus then assures a crowd of listeners that "there is nothing from outside a man entering into him [i.e. food allegedly contaminated by ritualistically unwashed hands] which can defile him; but the things coming out of a man [i.e. sinful words and actions] are the things defiling him" (v. 15).¹ When the disciples asked for further clarification, Jesus explains: "everything from the outside entering into a man cannot defile him, because it does not enter into his heart but into the stomach and goes out into the latrine" (vv. 18-19a).

     The difficulty is determining the significance of the next phrase, katharizōn panta ta brōmata, lit. "purifying all foods" (v. 19b). The first problem concerns a variant in the text. The favored reading of most text critics is katharizōn, the masculine participial form of katharizō (to "cleanse" or "purify"), thus connoting "[he] purifying all foods." However, the majority of Greek manuscripts have the neuter form katharizon, conveying the sense of "[it] purifying all foods." This raises the question: is the participial clause to be understood as a continuation of Jesus’ statement (N/KJV) or as Mark’s parenthetical commentary on the implication of what Jesus has said (ASV, ESV, etc.)? In other words, is it Jesus or is it the process of waste elimination that ceremonially purifies?
     If the neuter katharizon is the correct form, in what sense could defecation purify all foods? Perhaps this was the Lord’s commonsense way of showing that irrespective of how one views food as it enters the body (whether eaten with washed or unwashed hands), it is all the same on the other end. In fact, according to rabbinic opinion, excrement was not considered ceremonially impure (m. Maksh. 6.7; t. Miqw. 7.8; y. Pesah. 7.11; Sifra Mes. Zab. § 1.12-13). Jesus was merely illustrating that the pharisaical emphasis on traditional hand-washing rituals is not the determining factor for whether or not food is kosher.
     But what if the masculine katharizōn is the correct reading? Did Jesus disavow and set aside the Mosaic dietary regulations? We must be careful not to stretch these words beyond their original intent. In the context of this discussion, the topic is not clean versus unclean foods (as per Leviticus 11, etc.), but rather the ceremonial washing of hands, cups, copper vessels, etc. derived from human traditions (Mark 7:1-5). When Jesus speaks of "nothing from outside a man entering into him which can defile him" (v. 15), and "everything from the outside entering into a man cannot defile him" (v. 18), and "all foods" (v. 19), he is speaking of all the foods that the Jews in general and his disciples in particular were accustomed to eating. The context limits the "nothing," "everything," and "all foods" to what the Pharisees were claiming to be defiled because of contact with unwashed hands or containers.²
     Jesus was not setting aside the law of Moses (cf. Matthew 5:19; 8:4; 19:17-19) but rather the traditions of the Pharisees. Apparently this was understood by Peter, having personally heard the Lord speak these words, since he later declares: "I have never eaten anything common and unclean" (Acts 10:14). It was not until Christ’s new covenant was instituted that the Jewish dietary laws were abrogated.
--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
     ¹ All scripture quotations in English are the author's own translation.
     ² For example, later in the chapter when it is said of Jesus, "he has done all things well" (v. 37), would this literally include all things universally, e.g. theft, lying, murder, etc.? The context limits the "all things" to only the activities in which the Lord had personally been engaged.

Related Posts: Is the Law of Moses Still Binding?, Asceticism Vs. Everything Holy (1 Tim. 4:4-5), Paul's Haircut and Vow (Acts 18:18)