EvangelicalTheological Society

PresidentialAddress

Jackson,Mississippi

November21, 1996

 

                                                         Breadmakingwith Jesus

                                                               RobertC. Newman

 

            "Beware!  Beware the leaven of the Pharisees andthe Saddu­cees!"[1]  said Jesus to his disciples.  "Beware!" 

 

            DidJesus intend this warning just for the twelve in the boat with him?  Or was he aiming at a wider audience?

 

            Sincethe day he spoke these words, Jesus' followers have come to recognize that heis not just a prophet, but also the Author of History.  Did he, as author, design this warningto function as something of a motif in the drama of church history?  Was he doing something like Shake­spearedid in Julius Caesar with the sooth­sayer's warning C "Beware the idesof March"?[2]  Was Jesus preparing us for a majortempta­tion the church would face though­out histo­ry?  I think he was.  I'd like to explore this idea with youthis evening.

 

            CertainlyScripture contains pro­phetic warnings.  Drastic editorial theories are necessary to removethem.  The Song of Moses inDeuteronomy 32 is explic­itly prophet­ic.[3]  So are the blessing and curse passagesof Leviti­cus 26 and Deuter­onomy 28, though at first they appear to bemerely general principles C blessings for obedi­enceand warn­ings for disobedience. Yet looking back over the 3500 years since they were given, we can nowsee an ominous portent in them.  Thesechap­ters are domi­nated by threat­ened disas­ters, with nearly4/5ths of the Deuter­onomy passage and over 2/3rds of the Leviti­cusone giving curses for Israel's covenant disobe­di­ence, and only a fewverses are alloted to the bless­ings promised for obedi­ence.  But this, in fact, is what has actuallyhappened to the nation C the people have facedone disaster after another, yet still have survived.[4]

 

            Onthe other hand, sometimes an apparently specific predic­tion may turn outto be rather general.  Jesus tellsthe Jews, "I have come in my Fa­ther's name, and you do not receiveme; if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him."[5]  Hearing this, we would naturally expectto see some single false Messiah who will be acknowl­edged by Israel.  But there have already been at leasttwo C Bar Kochba in thesecond century and Shabbati Zvi in the 17th, and perhaps one of the Zealotleaders in the first century revolt against Rome.  Yet most of us expect to see an even more impres­siveful­fillment of this predic­tion at the end of the age.

 

Jesus' Warning as an Aphorism

 

            Assumingthat Jesus' warning to beware the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees isprophetic, perhaps it takes the form of an apho­rism,[6]a brief concrete statement which is to be gen­er­alized by some sort ofextension.  This would be ratherlike Benjamin Franklin's proverb, "A stitch in time saves nine."  Ben was not merely giving advice onclothing repair, but telling us that corrective action taken early can preventserious trouble later.  So perhapshere.  The context of our passagein Matthew 16 already indicates that the word "leaven" is to beextended beyond literal breadmak­ing to include the teaching of the two groups.[7]

 

            "Bewarethe teaching of the Pharisees and the Sadducees."  That might be all Jesus meant.  A specific warning about two particu­largroups to those twelve men in the boat. But if so, the Gospel writers don't seem to have followed up on hiswarning.  True, there is Luke'saccount in Acts 15 of the Jerusalem Council rejecting the demands of Phariseeswho had become Christians,[8]and there is Paul's shouted protest against the Sadducees before the Sanhed­rin.[9]  But neither of these explicitly refersto Je­sus' predic­tion, and Paul was not one of those disciples in theboat anyway.  The nearest we cometo a reference to Jesus' warning are Paul's remarks about a little leavenleavening the whole lump (1 Cor 5:6; Gal 5:9), which sound more like a refer­enceto Jesus' parable than to this aphorism. Per­haps we should consider that the the terms "Phari­sees"and "Saddu­cees" are to be gener­al­ized as well.

 

            Asbest we can tell, the Saddu­cees disappear from history after the Jewishrevolt ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70.  So any predictive reference to Saddu­ceeswhich reaches beyond the first century would presumably refer to teachings like theirs.

 

            Bycontrast, there is some real sense in which the Pharisees continue to thisday.  They survived the fall ofJerusa­lem and re-established rabbinic schools in Jamnia and later inGalilee.  They condensed the oraltradition of the first-century Pharisees into the written Mishnah, which laterformed the basis of the Jerusalem and Babylo­nian Talmuds.  And to this day the Babylonian Talmudis the guidebook of Orthodox Judaism. Yet the continuing influ­ence of these literal Pharisees on thechurch ended around AD 100.  Bythat time, the Jewish leader­ship had ejected Messian­ic Jews from thesynagogue, and Christianity and Judaism thereaf­ter went their separateways.  So here, too, not long afterthe end of the first century, Christian contact with actual Pharisees becamerather mini­mal.

 

            So,how far do we extend the terms "Pharisees" and "Saddu­cees"?  If we make them broad enough, Jesus'admonition is just a general warning to beware of false doctrine.  False doctrine, of course, hascertainly been a motif of church history, and an admonition against it isneeded by all Chris­tians.  ButI can't help thinking that Jesus may have had some specific features of thePharisees and Saddu­cees in mind when he gave this warning.

 

            Ifso, what do we know about these two groups?  Well, quite a lot about the Pharisees; not so much about theSadducees.  The New Testamentauthors and Josephus, writing in the first century, speak frequently of thePharisees.  The rabbinic litera­ture,though more than a century later, was written by the successors to thePharisees, even though they don't often use this term.  Apparently "Pharisee" was nottheir own name for them­selves[10]C rather like the terms"Quaker," "Me­th­od­ist," and even "Chris­tian,"which were originally coined by oppo­nents.  These same three sources C the New Testament, Jose­phus, and therabbin­ic literature C also give us whatinformation we have about the Sadducees, as it appears that no Sadduceanwritings have sur­vived.[11]

 

            TheNew Testament nowhere defines the terms "Pharisee" or"Sadducee,"  though itdoes provide enough material for us to make a sketch of each.  We will come back to this by and by.  But first let us look at Josephus andthe rabbinic literature.

 

Josephus on the Sadducees and Pharisees

 

            Josephus,writing for pagans with no back­ground in Jewish affairs, describes bothPharisees and Sadduceess in a couple of significant passag­es plus severalscat­tered remarks.  Listingthese two groups with the Essenes as the three main sects of Juda­ism,[12]Josephus claims he person­ally tried out all three before deciding to liveas a Phari­see.[13] 

 

            TheSadducees, he says, are a small group with great influ­ence among theupper-class Jews, but none among the com­mon people.[14]  The Pharisees, by contrast, seem to bea larger group, and they have enormous influence over the masses.[15]

 

            TheSadducees hold only to the regulations written in Scrip­ture, while thePharisees, in addition, put a great deal of emphasis on oral traditions fromthe forefathers.[16]

 

            TheSadducees assign all human actions to our own choices rather than to fate, saysJosephus.  The Pharisees, bycontrast, assign some events entirely to fate and others to a combination offate and human choice.[17]  [By "fate" Josephusapparently means God's control of events, using a term educated pagans wouldunderstand.]

 

            Regardingthe afterlife, the Sadducees believe that "souls die with the bod­ies,"[18]that there is no survival after this life, no judgment, no heaven nor hell.[19]  The Phari­sees, on the other hand,believe in the immortality of the soul, with resur­rec­tion for therigh­teous and eternal punishment for the wick­ed.[20]

 

            TheSadducees, says Josephus, are rude even toward fellow Saddu­cees, andconsider it a virtue to argue with their teach­ers.[21]  The Pharisees, he says, "areaffectionate to each other and cultivate harmonious relations with thecommunity."[22]  "They show respect and deferenceto their elders, nor do they rashly presume to contradict theirproposals."[23]

 

Rabbinic Statements about Pharisees andSadducees

 

            That'sa quick sketch of what Josephus has to say.  In the rabbinic literature we see that the Pharisees andSadducees differed over numerous matters relating to personal behavior andliturgical practice.  The Phariseesadmitted (to them­selves at least) that some of their own regulations werelike "mountains hanging by a hair" of Scripture support, or evenfloating in the air with no support,[24]but still they insisted on and fought for their observances being the officialones.  This fits Josephus' picture,with the Pharisees depending on oral tradi­tion, but the Sadducees seekingto have support of Scrip­ture for any regula­tions to be officiallyobserved.

 

            Therabbinic literature also shows us something of the antagonism between thePharisees and Sadducees.  ThePharisees, who by New Testament times controlled the actual practices in thetemple,[25]would go out of their way to spite the Saddu­cees, intentionally violatinga Sadducean understanding of the law when this was not necessary.  On one occasion, they made the highpriest ritually unclean, so that by Sadducean law he would not be able carryout a certain ceremony, but he could by Pharisaic law.[26]  They were proba­bly the instiga­torsof the incident over a century earlier in which the crowd at a festival peltedthe high priest with fruit because he poured out a drink offering in theSadducean man­ner.[27]  The Pharisees even debat­ed amongthem­selves as to whether the Sadducees should be treated as Israel­ites,Samaritans, or Gentiles.[28]

 

            Therabbinic literature also suggests that the Sadducees rejected anafterlife.  An anecdote about theorigin of the Sadducees says their founder was once a disciple of the rabbiAntigo­nus of Socho (c200 BC), but he came to reject his teacher's beliefin rewards in the age to come, claiming that Scrip­ture would have beenmuch more explicit if that was what it taught.[29]  Another ac­count says the Phariseeschanged the ending of the Temple bene­dictions from "forever" to"from age to age" to refute the Sadducean view that this age is allthere is, and there is not another to follow it.[30]

 

            Ingeneral, the Pharisees are treated quite favorably in the rabbinicliterature.  There is one passage,however, which lists seven kinds of Pharisees which were considered plaguesupon their reputation.[31]  These descrip­tions, unfortunately,are quite brief and obscure. Apparently one kind of Pharisee re­ceives circum­cision forulterior motives; another exaggerates his humility; a third is so preoccupiedwith obeying a commandment that he collides with a wall; a fourth always hashis head buried in prayer; a fifth is forever looking for new commandments thathe can obey; the sixth and seventh types are Pharisees from love of reward andfear of punishment, rather than from a real desire to please God.[32]  Clearly, the Pharisees were aware ofhypocrisy and self-righteousness in their group.

 

The New Testament on Pharisees and Sadducees

 

            Inseeking to understand what Jesus meant when he said "Beware the leaven ofthe Pharisees and the Sadducees," however, the New Testament is our primesource rather than Josephus or the rabbin­ic litera­ture.  It was written closer to the time Jesusspoke.  It reflects Jesus' ownevalua­tion of the groups.  Andit is inspired by the God who cannot lie, so that it conveys exactly what hewishes us to know on this sub­ject. What does the New Testament have to say?

 

            InMatthew 23, Jesus closes his ministry to Israel with a fearsome rebuke to thePharisees.  He characterizes themas those who teach truth but don't live it out (verses 3-4).  They advance themselves rather than God(vv 5-12).  They not only refuse toenter God's kingdom, they keep others out as well (13).  They spend the money of widows whilesounding very pious (14).[33]  They are zealous evangelists, butthey've got the wrong Gospel (15). They emphasize details but miss the main point (16-24).  They are righteous on the outside butnot the inside (25-28).  They honorthe good people of previous generations but oppose the saints of today(29-36).  Surely this must be partof what Jesus meant when he told us to beware the leaven of the Pharisees.

 

            Oneof Jesus' most powerful parables is that one in Luke 18 where he sketches thebehavior of a Pharisee and a tax collector who have come up to the temple topray.  Luke tells us that in thisparable Jesus was targeting those who think they are all right and who lookdown on others (v 9).  In agree­mentwith this, the Pharisee thanks God that he is not like others (11); by hisfasting and tithing he thinks he is doing more than God requires (12).  But Jesus says that only those whorecognize their sin, humble themselves, and cast themselves upon God for mercy,will find that they are acquitted at the final judgment (14).

 

            Wehave much less from Jesus regarding the Sadducees.  His encounter with them in Matthew 22 turns on their denialof resurrection.  Josephus' commentthat they believed "souls die with the bodies" helps us to understandthat Jesus is here responding to those who deny survival rather than to thosewho believe in an immortal soul. Seen in this way, it looks like Jesus' response is first to turn asidetheir reductio ad absurdum about the wife and seven husbands by revealinga simple alternative C there is no marriedstate in the life to come (30). Whether or not the Sadducees are willing to take Jesus' word for it thatthis is how it will be, his proposal at least shows that their objection ishardly insupera­ble.  Jesusthen moves to the attack by connect­ing the whole matter of resurrection toGod's covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  The Sadducees' concern for the levi­rate marriage law isreally only about a second­ary feature of the covenant (32).  But one of the primary features of theconvenant, and one on which the levi­rate law depends, is the promise ofthe land.  Now the patri­archs,having died before Joshua's conquest of Canaan, can never inherit the land Godprom­ised them personally[34]un­less they still exist and will rise again C which they don't and won't on Saddu­ce­anpremis­es.  Jesus thus convictsthem of neither under­standing the Bible nor God's power (29).

 

            Luke'snarration of Paul's encounter with the Sanhedrin in Acts 23 provides furtherinformation on the Sadducean skepticism regarding the supernatural.  Not only do they deny resurrection, butalso the existence of angels and spirits (8), if we properly understand Luke'saccount.[35]

 

            Theharshness of one Sadducee toward another mentioned by Josephus is illustratedin an incident narrated in John 11. Hearing some in the Sanhed­rin moaning that Jesus' success was goingto bring in the Romans who would destroy the Jewish state, the high priestCaiaphas responds, "You don't know any­thing!" (49).  The plan he proposes C  "It is expedient that one shoulddie rather than the whole nation perish" C surely illus­trates a major feature of the Sadducean policy by whichthey got and kept their power.

 

Polarities between the Pharisees andSadducees

 

            Well,that was a quick tour of our ancient sources on the Pharisees and Sadducees.  We can see that they were very differ­entfrom one another, yet Jesus lumps them together as "leaven" which hewants his followers to avoid.  Weneed to think briefly about two things then: (1) how they differed from oneanother and so represent divergent errors by which we can stray from the goodpath, and (2) how they resemble one another but contrast with the example ofJesus himself.  Let's look at thedivergences first.

 

            Itis a commonplace today to characterize the Pharisees as the theological conservativesin Judaism and the Sadducees as the liberals.  This is certainly true, given some differences between ourculture and theirs.  It does not,however, guaran­tee that we have avoided the leaven of the Pharisees andSadducees if we can see liberals to the left of us and conserva­tives toour right! 

 

            Inany case, the Pharisees and Sadducees do not represent extremes inJudiasm.  The Essenes and Zealotswere far more conserva­tive than the Pharisees in a number of areas.  And the Sadducees did not by any meansoccupy the liberal end of the spectrum. They at least had not apostasized from Juda­ism, as Philo's nephewTiberius Alexander did in becoming a Roman general and later a provincial gover­nor.[36]  And Philo speaks of some HellenisticJews who not only allegorized the Mosaic laws, but also claimed that one nolonger needed to obey them once their allegorical meaning has been deci­phered.[37]  Surely the Sadducean insistence onliteral obedience to the Mosaic liturgy puts them to the conservative side ofthese Jews also.  The fact is, thePharisees and the Sadducees were both a part of the great main­stream ofJewish society in their day.  SoJesus' warning is not just to avoid the liberal and conservative extremes.

 

            Asecond polarity between Pharisee and Sadducee seems to be withdrawal versusassimilation.  The Pharisees, itappears, devoted considerable effort to making distinctions which sepa­ratedthemselves from others.  In fact,the very name "Pharisee" means "separatist."  The Sadducees, on the other hand, werethose who would compromise to fit in with others, especially with those inpower.  They obviously made someadjustments to get along with the Romans. They also had managed to swallow their pride sufficiently to give in tothe Phari­sees on how the temple liturgy would be performed; other­wisethe common people would not put up with them.  The Saddu­cees were apparently characterized both byassimila­tion and expedi­ency in their zeal to have and retainpower.  The followers of Jesus,then, are somehow to steer between withdrawal from society and assimilation toit; we are to be "in the world, but not of it." (John 17:14-18)

 

            Athird polarity between Pharisee and Sadducee might be characterized asdogmatism versus skepticism.  Ingeneral, the Jews of NT times were more behavior-oriented than are traditionalChristians with our emphasis on doctrine. Probably we are to understand this shift from practice to doctrine asone result of the atoning work of Christ. He rescues us from the condemnation of the law, moving the emphasis fromobedience to forgiveness, and from Sinai to the person and work of Christ.  Given this salvation-historicaldifference, the Pharisees clearly emphasized knowing and obeying a massive listof commandments, while the Sadducees apparently tried to keep the list to aminimum.  The Pharisees acceptedthe teachings of their elders, so the tendency among them would be for theirtradition to grow.  The Sadducees,by contrast, disput­ed with their teachers, and this doubt­less tendedto de­crease the extent of their agreement and move them toward aminimalist stance.  Perhaps thisalso explains their rejec­tion of resurrection, angels and spirits.  Jesus' disciples are somehow to avoiddogmatism and skepticism, or at least be careful to use these in the rightplaces.  In any case, we are not toadd to God's Word or to subtract from it.

 

            Afourth polarity might be legalism versus antinomianism.  The Pharisees certainly were legalists,as both the NT and rabbinic literature attest.  But were the Sadducees law-breakers? Surely not, on thescale of the apostates and allego­rizers we men­tioned previously.  But several scholars have noted thatthe trial of Jesus, conducted by the Sadducean-dominated Sanhedrin, violatednumerous regulations in the rabbinic literature for capital trials.[38]  And even if these regulations were notin force during NT times, both Jesus (John 18:19-23) and Paul (Acts 23:13) weremistreated at their trials, and the Pharisee Gama­liel was hard put torescue the apostles from the Sanhedrin's desire to put them to death (Acts6:33-40).  Jesus' disciples are tobeware of both legalism and lawlessness.

 

            Onthe basis of such polarities, it is not hard to see Jesus' warning to bewarethe leaven of the Pharisees and Saddu­cees as similar to that of Moses notto turn aside to the right or to the left (Deut 17:11).  The Pharisees and Sadducees repre­senttwo sorts of attitudes and behaviors by which we may diverge from the straightpath which Jesus marked out for us.

 

Polarities Between Jesus and These Groups

 

            Butwhy does Jesus use the image of breadmaking and the figure of leaven ratherthan the more common OT image of journey and the figure of getting off thepath?  Jesus doesn't tell us.  Perhaps it is just a matter of variety,since both Jesus and Scripture use many figures to provide us with vividpictures of spiritual truth.  Thathe characterizes both errors as "leaven" may suggest these groupsshare some similarities that are the opposite of what we ought to be.  Perhaps we can see this more easily byinvestigating polarities between Jesus and these groups.

 

            Jesuswas poor.  After his birth, Maryand Joseph gave the poor offering of two birds (Luke 2:22-24).  During his public ministry, Jesus washomeless (Matt 8:20).  He shared acommon purse with the twelve (John 12:6, 13:29).  He was buried in a borrowed tomb (Matt 27:57-60).  Perhaps most revealing, after feedingthe multitudes, he had the disciples collect the scraps (Mark 6:43; 8:8,19-20).  The Sadducees, bycontrast, were rich, and planned to stay that way.  The Pharisees seem to have been middle-class, but theirattitude toward wealth was revealed when they scoffed at Jesus' teaching thatthey could not serve both God and money (Luke 16:13-14).  Jesus intentionally chose to be poor.

 

            ThoughJesus enjoyed a brief period of enormous popularity, he was rejected when thecrunch came, and abandoned by most of his disciples.  He was "out," the Pharisees and Sadducees were"in."  They weresuccessful, he was a failure.  Theylived on, he was killed.  Jesusintentionally made choices he knew would produce these results.

 

            ThePharisees and Sadducees chose the way of safety and security.  Jesus chose the way of danger.  The Sadducees put their trust inpolitical influence and Roman power. The Phari­sees put theirs in grass-roots support and in-groupapproval.  Jesus put his trust inGod alone, seeking to do God's will regardless of the conse­quences.

 

            Perhapsthese polarities point up the significance of the leaven figure.  As we see here (and also in Jesus'temptation in the wilderness), he did not take the easy way.  He rejected physical comfort to serveGod.  He turned aside from thespectac­ular though he knew that was the way to get a following.  He would not bow to Satan though thatwas the way to gain the whole world. In a word, Jesus humbled himself (Phil 2:7-8).

 

            Andthat, perhaps, is the point of the leaven.  If you belong to a congregation which uses unleavened breadin the Lord's Supper, you know that it is flat and heavy compared to regularbread which is much thicker and lighter. To bring out the imagery C unleavened bread is low, leavened bread ispuffed up.  Jesus is meek andlowly; he comes humbly and riding on a donkey.  He is despised and rejected.  The Pharisees and Sadducees were proud and powerful.  They looked for a leader of the samesort, and so would have none of Jesus. Beware the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees!

 

Conclusions

 

            Throughoutthe centuries, the church has faced these twin temptations C to follow the Sadduceesin assimilating to the power-structures of society, or to follow the Phariseesin withdrawing into a Christian ghetto. In either case the Gospel is obscured, and people who might otherwisehave been saved have died in their sins.

 

            Sohow are we evangelicals doing at the end of the 20th century?  I've called this talk "Breadmakingwith Jesus."  As believers,Jesus is making us into the kind of bread he can use C unleav­enedbread.  As members of the ETS, mostof us are pastors or teachers; we are helping Jesus make bread.  I hope we are not by our attitudes,teaching, or example adding leaven to the dough that we are or to the batcheswe are helping Jesus make.

 

            Itlooks like avoiding the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees is not simplya matter of balance.  We cannottake comfort in the belief that we're OK if we aren't extreme.  Jesus wants us to be like himself.

 

            Beingconservative is not good enough, though it is certain­ly better than beingtheologically liberal.  After all,Jesus told the crowds to do what the Phari­sees taught (Matt 23:2), but henever told them to do what the Sadducees taught.  But even so, Jesus certainly warns us not to be like thePharisees.

 

            Norshould we be like the Sadducees. Do we really under­stand God's word, or do we explain away somepassages of Scrip­ture because we don't know how to harmonize them withother passages?  What takesprecedence in our exposition, the data of Scripture or our group's creed?  If the latter, how can we ever becorrected where it is wrong?

 

            Dowe understand God's power?  AsChristians in a secular society such as ours, we face great temptations todownplay the miraculous.  And ofcourse, none of us can help but underestimate God.  We need his grace every moment to keep us from making himand his kingdom look bad.

 

            Dowe treat others with respect, even our enemies?  If not, we only show that we lack the humility thatcharacterized Jesus.  And how canwe draw all people to him if we look so different from him?

 

            Isexpediency our guide in life?  Thenhow can those who watch us ever conclude that we really do believe there is aGod in heaven who will one day bring all our thoughts and actions intojudgment?

 

            Backto the Pharisees.  Do we teach thetruth?  Good!  But do we live it out?  How can unbelievers see what theChristian life really looks like if no one is living it?  When we labor as Christians, are wereally seeking to advance God or our­selves?  If we cannot serve God and Mammon, then we cannot serve Godand self either!  Are we seeking toenter God's king­dom? Good!  But are we helpingothers enter, too, or are we more of a hindrance to them? 

 

            Howdo we spend the money we raise from widows?  After all, most of us are living off of money that wasdonated, and some of it at great sacrifice.  Do we handle it like it is a precious trust from our Lord,or like it is our entitlement?  Dowe keep in mind that one day we will have to give an account for every cent?

 

            Arewe zealous evange­lists? Good!  Do we have the rightGospel, or are our converts being taught to make the same mistakes we do?  Do we consider our­selvesrighteous?  Do we look down onothers?  Or do we recognize our ownsin and cast ourselves upon God for his mercy?

 

            Arewe righteous on the inside or just on the outside?  Do we honor the saints of today, or just those who aresafely dead?  How do we relate tothe living saints of other Christian traditions than our own?

 

            Ina word, are we followers of Jesus or followers of the Pharisees and Saddu­cees?  Do we C like Jesus C somehow draw sinners to ourselves?  Or C like the Pharisees C isolate our­selvesfrom sinners in our pride and self-righteousness, making the Gospel alien andunattractive to them?  Or do we C like the Sadducees C so resemble the sinnersaround us that they can see no difference between us and them, and therefore noneed for God or Jesus?

 

            Speakingof the Sadducees, the Jesus Seminar is surely some sort of modern manifestationof their leaven.  It has done muchevil in obscuring the real Jesus,[39]though we orthodox Christians (in a more Pharisaic way) have been guilty ofthis as well.[40]  Yet the Jesus Seminar's translation,which they call the "Scholars Ver­sion," has a few racy passagesthat capture some­thing of the urgency of Jesus' message.  The one I going to quote only gotprinted in gray ink in their recent book The Five Gospels, so they don't think itlikely that Jesus said it.  But wein the ETS do, and we need to take it to heart.  Let me quote it for you:

 

            Youscholars... you impostors!  Damnyou!  You slam the door of Heaven'sdomain in people's faces.  Youyourselves don't enter, and you block the way of those trying to enter.[41]

 

            MayGod grant that Jesus will never one day have to say that to us! 

 

            Bewarethe leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees!

 

 

References

 


[1].Matt 16:5-12.

[2].Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, act i, scene ii.

[3].See Deut 31:19 and context.

[4].The fulfillment of these passages in Jewish history is sketched in some detailin Samuel H. Kellogg, The Jews, or Prediction and Fulfillment,2nd ed. (New York:  Anson D. F.Randolph, 1887), condensed as chap. 6 in Robert C. Newman, ed., The Evidenceof Prophecy (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Bibli­cal ResearchInstitute, 1988), pp. 55-66.  Seealso Kenny Bar­field, The Prophet Motive(Nashville:  Gospel Advocate,1995), chaps. 16-17.

[5].John 5:43.

[6].Aphorism: "a concise statement of a principle"; "a terseformulation of a truth or sentiment."  Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary(Springfield, MA:  G. & C.Merriam, 1975), p. 52.

[7].Matt 16:12.

[8].Acts 15, see especially verse 5.

[9].Acts 23, especially verse 6.

[10]. Inthe rabbinic literature, the term "Pharisee" is usually found in themouth of their opponents, especially the Sadducees.  See, e.g., m. Yad. 4:6-8.

[11]. Ithas recently been suggested that the community at Qumran arose from among theSadducees; see James C. Vanderkam, "The People of the Dead SeaScrolls:  Essenes orSadducees?" Bible Review (1991) 7(2):42-47 andLawrence H. Schiffman, "New Halakhic Texts from Qumran," HebrewStudies (1993) 34:21-33. But if so, the subsequent diver­gence among the two groups must havebeen considerable.

[12]. Life 2 '10;Ant. 13.5.9 '171; 18.1.2 '11;J. W. 2.8.2 '119.

[13]. Life 2 ''10-12.

[14]. Ant.13.10.6 '298.

[15]. Ant.18.1.3 '15.

[16]. Ant.13.10.6 '297.

[17]. Ant.13.5.9 ''171-173;see also J. W. 2.8.14 '164.

[18]. Ant.18.1.4 '16.

[19]. J.W. 2.8.14 '165.

[20]. J.W. 2.8.14 '163.

[21]. J.W. 2.8.14 '166; Ant.18.1.4 '16.

[22]. J.W. 2.8.14 '166.

[23]. Ant.18.1.3 '12.

[24]. m.Hag. 1:8.

[25]. b.Yoma 19b.

[26]. b.Yoma 2a; b. Hag. 23a.

[27]. b.Sukk. 48b.

[28]. b.`Erub. 68b-69a; m. Nid. 4:1-2.

[29]. 'AbotR. Nat. 5.

[30]. m.Ber. 9:5; b. Ber. 54a.

[31]. b.Sota 22b.

[32].Ibid.  These interpretations aremore or less in line with the Babylonian Talmud, which diverges significantlyfrom the Jerusa­lem Talmud. See notes in I. Epstein, ed., Babylonian Talmud(London:  Soncino, 1936), vol 16,Sota, pp. 112-113.

[33].Not in the best texts of Matthew, but found in the Synoptic parallels: Mark12:40 and Luke 20:47.

[34].Promised personally to Abraham in Gen 17:7-8 "to youand to your descendants" I will give this land; similarly to Isaac in Gen26:3 and to Jacob in Gen 28:13.

[35]. Ithas been suggested that the reference to angels and spirits is to be understoodin the context of survival and resurrection, rather than as a claim that theSadducees denied the existence of angels and spirits altogether.  See David Daube, "On Acts 23:  Sadducees and Angels," JBL(1990) 109(3):493-97.

[36].Josephus, Ant. 20.5.2 '100; see footnote in theLoeb ed. of Josephus, J. W. 2.11.6 '22;also Samuel Sandmel, Philo of Alexan­dria(New York:  Oxford, 1979), p. 14.

[37].Philo, Migr. Abr. 89-93.

[38].  For a brief sketch of this question,with bibliographic references, see D. A Carson, Matthew inEBC (Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan,1984), 8:549-52.

[39].Two helpful responses to the Jesus Seminar by evangelicals are:  Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland,eds. Jesus Under Fire:  ModernScholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids,MI:  Zondervan, 1995), and GregoryA. Boyd, Cynic Sage or Son of God? Rediscovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revision­ist Replies(Wheaton:  Bridgepoint, 1995).

[40].  See Philip Yancey, The Jesus I NeverKnew (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), for an attempt to correct this problem.

[41].Matt 23:13; Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The FiveGospels:  The Search for theAuthentic Words of Jesus (New York:  Macmillan, 1993), p. 241.