SERMON: “Maybe You’re the Pharisee?” (Mark 7:1–13)
“Maybe You’re the Pharisee?” (Mark 7:1–13)
Series: Topical Text:
Mark 7:1–13
By: Shaun Marksbury Date: Sept. 27, 2026
Venue: Living Water Baptist Church Occasion: PM Service
Introduction
We had a great time at the festival this weekend, and as
you’ve heard, it afforded us many opportunities to share the gospel and pray
with people. One person, though,
approached us with his information. He
said he had been to seminary, and he was concerned about so many pastors and
churches have “become like the Pharisees.”
In the conversation that ensued, he explained that he didn’t
think the church was open enough nor doing enough for homeless people and, as
he put it, “the pride people.” He
strongly disagreed that we should ever talk about sin, saying that people
already know their sinners and just need to hear about grace. It was clear by the end of the conversation
that he considered us in the Pharisee category.
As you talk with more people as a Bible-believing Christian,
the more you will encounter opposition from professing Christians. They will claim that you’re being
unloving. They may even play the Pharisee
card.
The word “Pharisee,” of course, is meant to sting. And, at times, it does, because the Pharisees
were opposed to Christ. When the card is
played, it’s meant to shut down any counterpoint and end the discussion.
It’s not that the Pharisee card is entirely without
merit. There are Christians who act like
the Pharisees. There are some who add
the traditions of man to the imperatives of the Bible, dictating the
convictions of others on topics God’s Word doesn’t address. However, as they do so, they move away from
the biblical standard, meaning the traditions often become a replacement for
the commandments of God.
In other words, the problem with Pharisees isn’t their
repeating what Scripture says — it’s allowing tradition to add to or to take
away from it. That doesn’t just apply to
the “fundamentalist” church down the road, either. It also applies to those who use the Pharisee
card to avoid hearing what the text of Scripture says.
This evening, we’re going to briefly survey the failing of
the Pharisees, seeing what Jesus actually condemned. We’ll note three of their failings: they
judge others by man-made traditions (vv. 1–5), elevate traditions over God’s
commands (vv. 6–8), and invalidate Scripture for their traditions (vv.
9–13). Let’s start with the first point
so we can consider if we are being pharisaical.
First, Pharisees judge others by man-made traditions (vv. 1–5)
And the
Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from
Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with
defiled hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not
eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the
elders; and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they
wash themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in
order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)
And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk
according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled
hands?”
Let’s pause for a moment. What exactly are the disciples doing wrong? A watchful mother might say boys need to wash
their hands before eating, but as far as Moses is concerned, they’re
doing nothing wrong.
Now, God had commanded the priests to wash
before they served in the tabernacle, a point of ritual purification
rather than hygiene. Yet, rabbis
took that and applied it to everybody, requiring special washings
of hands before ordinary meals as well as of pots and the pans.
To be clear, this was about ritual, which is
why v. 2 uses the term “defiled” hands.
They believed that average interactions, especially with Gentiles in the
marketplace, might leave a spiritually defiling presence on your hands (later
rabbinic tradition even speculated it was a demonic attack) which could then be
consumed and enter your heart.
Therefore, they instructed that the hands had to be held just so
during washing, with the fist cleansing the other hand. The water, likewise, had to
run just so, flowing down to the wrists. These washing rules were not in Scripture,
but they were “the tradition of the elders.”
Mark explains all this for Gentile readers who might not understand this
religious background.
The disciples weren’t doing that. As one commentary notes, “The disciples had
picked up something of Jesus’ teaching.
They did not wash their hands because they had come to understand that
the traditions about defilement made little sense when Jesus could make unclean
people clean. That, however, was as far
as they could follow.”[1] The disciples partly understood a deeper
truth that Jesus will shortly explain to them in more detail (vv. 14–23); the
Pharisees understood none of it.
Yet, notice how the Pharisees frame their question. They don’t say, “Why do Your disciples break the
law of Moses?” Instead, they ask, “Why do
Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?” That is very telling.
In context, these Pharisees came from Jerusalem,
and they were watching and waiting. They have
gathered around Him, looking for wrongdoing. Why?
Because Mark 3:6 says that some of them were already in the plot to destroy
Him! So, the question in verse 5 is an
interrogation — by pointing out a fault in the disciples, they were finding
fault with the teacher.
A lot of tradition starts with what seems like
sound advice tied to spiritual values.
Today, we might say something like “cleanliness is next to godliness”
(which some people are convinced is a Bible verse!). To our minds which have been educated in germ
theory, we might even rightly think there is practical value in washing our
hands after spending the day interacting with people. So, the principle begins to be a tradition.
Yet, Paul describes the next step in
Colossians 2:20–23. Note that he identifies rules — do not handle, do not taste, do
not touch — which “have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting
self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no
value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” Something might look wise, so we think it should become
our policy.
A generation later, though, no one can
tell the policy from the Bible.
I saw that in the church where the Lord saved
me. There was a rule that you couldn’t go see an
R-rated movie, and another that you shouldn’t swim in a pool with members of
the opposite sex. When I asked
where that was in Scripture, they said it was the pastor’s personal conviction,
and the church had adopted it as wise policy. A conviction can appear to be wise,
but as policy, it won’t necessarily promote godliness.
Yet, the Pharisees prided themselves on their
ability to expand upon what God had said and passing down their traditions. Jesus noted that Pharisees, in their
fastidiousness, tithed their mint and dill and cumin, but while neglecting
justice, mercy, and faithfulness. So, He
said, “These are the things you should have done without neglecting the others”
(Matt. 23:23). Careful obedience was not
the charge, but they dropped the weightier matters of the law as they built
their traditions and made those traditions their policies.
Pharisees then judged according to their
policies, not God’s commands. For
instance, they expanded on Sabbath laws to ensure that the Sabbath isn’t
broken, and then they condemn those who might be taking too many steps on the
Sabbath. This even carries over today, where
many inventions (both technological and philosophical) help Jews both keep the
traditions of the Sabbath while creating loopholes in those traditions. They then judge according to the new list, as
fault-finding
where the Bible isn’t clear is the tradition of the elders.
In fact, the judgmentalism itself can be an indication of a
pharisaical heart. Remember another
Pharisee who looked down in judgment on a wretched man, while that other man
went home justified, the one who said, “God, be merciful to me, the sinner”
(Luke 18:10–14). This works both ways,
for we trick ourselves sometimes by noting that someone else is a Pharisee,
causing us to pray, “I thank you that I am not like that legalist!” Or, perhaps we pray, “I thank you that I am
not like that antinomian!” Whatever the
case, let’s not judge with unrighteous judgment, trusting in ourselves. Jesus wasn’t ever speaking against judgment as an
action; after saying, “Do not judge, so that you will not be judged,” He gave
instructions for how to judge rightly (Matt. 7:1–27).
So, consider this: A brother opens the text and says what
it says about some culturally-protected sin, like homosexuality. And the question comes back in almost the same
words: “Why don’t you walk according to the tradition of love and
tolerance?” They might not
outright disagree, but the new elders and traditions police your tone. Violators are judged not by Moses, but by the new rules
of niceness. You are
found guilty of not censoring and washing your words in the approved way.
The Pharisees accused Jesus of violating tradition. That is what they always do. And they take that tradition and do something
else, as we see next:
Second, Pharisees elevate traditions over God’s commands (vv. 6–8)
And He said to
them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This
people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as
doctrines the commands of men.’ Leaving
the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
Jesus uses a word some new Pharisees might condemn:
“hypocrites.” The word comes from the
Greek theater, where an actor at that time wore a mask and played someone
else. That is the picture of hypocrisy:
those who only wear the mask of religion.
This is what we also call lip-service. A church can be gathered every time the doors
are open, dressed well, paying the full tithe, and doing all with painted
smiles. However, the inner life of all
might be crumbling. They say one thing
to God, but their hearts are elsewhere.
Jesus will later call the Pharisees “whitewashed
tombs.” He’ll say that they are
beautiful on the outside, but inside, they are full of dead men’s bones (Matt.
23:27). They want the blessing of God
without Him getting near their sinful hearts.
How does someone pull off such hypocrisy and not be
tormented of conscience? They take their
traditions and convince themselves that they are what God always wanted. Moreover, as the late Pastor John MacArthur
put it, “They were not nearly so concerned about Scripture as they were their
tradition. They had made their tradition
equal to the Scripture.”[2] So, v. 7 says they teach the commands of men
as doctrines. A tradition becomes a
doctrine alongside God’s Word, and then they protect that doctrine as sacred.
We have watched this happen in more than one direction.
On one side, churches build fences and preach them as the
faith. “Don’t have televisions in your
home! Only use this translation of the
Bible! If a church doesn’t have an altar
call, it’s not evangelizing!” The lists
of requirements preachers proclaim are endless, but they are nowhere in the
text. They are teaching as doctrines the
commands of men.
Then there’s the other side, the side that usually plays the
Pharisee card. It might take a
pious-sounding definition of love and preaches it as the faith. There were those who said it was against God
to not wear masks during Covid. They
will say open borders or gun bans are gospel issues. This is Mark 7:7 with updated vocabulary.
Scripture is not unclear on homosexuality, the example that
gets people called Pharisees most quickly.
Those playing the Pharisee card, though, have already elevated a human
tradition (a particular understanding of “love”) over God’s commands. Jesus received sinners without pretending
they were not sinners, though. A “love”
that requires the church to stop saying what God said isn’t improving on the
second great commandment — it’s replacing it.
Phil Johnson put the difference in one sentence. “The Pharisees’ problem was not that they
were too concerned with orthodox teaching, but that they had invented their own
orthodoxy.”[3] Today, people think that it’s our concern for
what God said is in error, but the actual error is in inventing a rule-book
that comes alongside or is even elevated above God’s word.
Pharisees see their ideas as being superior to everyone
else’s, and that includes Scripture. We
should not be impressed by a religious argument that has already decided the
Bible is the problem. Note what else
they do:
Third, Pharisees invalidate Scripture for their traditions (vv. 9–13)
And He was
also saying to them, “You are good at setting aside the commandment of God in
order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your
mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;
but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever you might
benefit from me is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer leave
him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of
God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such
as that.”
Here’s the natural outcome of the matter. Once a person exalts tradition, you will
ultimately set the Word aside in favor of it.
In fact, note how Jesus speaks with irony in verse 9 — “You are good at
setting aside the commandment.” This
isn’t a skill we should ever unlock!
Yet, that’s what the Pharisees did. As MacArthur explains, they didn’t just
elevate tradition to the level of Scripture, “they had made it superior to the
Scripture.”[4] Jesus turns to the very law the Pharisees
denied to illustrate His point.
Specifically, He highlights the fifth commandment and the death penalty
attached to it, so no one can say this was a small matter. Then, He demonstrates the pharisaical
method.
The rabbis had made a declaration on the commandment which
would be binding on everyone at some point in the past. They determined that a grown son would have
to give his parents financial support if they needed it except in one case — if
the son pronounced his resources Corban, then they are sworn to be given to God
alone. Therefore, the son no longer had
a financial obligation to honor his parents.
The tradition sounded devout, but it canceled the fifth
commandment!
And Jesus adds, “You do many things such as that.”
Tradition trumping Scripture is not just pharisaical, it’s
the Pharisee card in one picture. Today,
it may not make the same exact error, but it uses Bible words like “love” and
“unity” in a way to invalidate Scripture.
It takes a pious-sounding commitment (or vow) and spends or invests it
to get out from under a verse.
How does that look in practice? “We don’t judge” becomes the reason not to
say what 1 Corinthians 5 says about church discipline. “God is love” becomes the reason not to say
what Romans 1 says. Alternatively, “We
need to be holy” becomes the reason to avoid what 2 Corinthians 2:5–11 says
about forgiveness and reconciliation.
The commandment is set aside in order to keep the new tradition.
And many such things are done.
We’re seeing the real problem here now. Todd Wilken, writing on what he called “the
Pharisee card,” said he’s “been called a Pharisee more times than I can
remember. It goes with the territory.”[5] The tactic is not designed to raise a real
issue of doctrine or practice, but “to discredit someone by implying that he is
narrow, rigid, and unloving.” Then, he writes the sentence that should frame
a lot of conversations in our churches: “Jesus never faulted the Pharisees for
being doctrinal purists. He faulted them
for being false teachers who abandoned the truth of God’s Word in favor of the
erroneous word of man.” Jesus called
people who abide in His word disciples, not Pharisees (John 8:31–32). It’s not that they were doctrinal, but that
their doctrines weren’t built on Scripture.
This is a problem with many Christians. Let’s consider the Pastor John MacArthur for
a moment. He spent a lifetime being
accused of being a Pharisee for refusing to sand down the rough edges on texts
and preaching with conviction. Yet, he
also spent that lifetime warning against the real thing. In his 2017 article, “You Might Be a Pharisee
If…,” he wrote, “The odds are good that someone, somewhere, at some point has
called you a Pharisee. The odds are even
better that you’ve slapped that label on someone else.” Then, he says this: “God’s people need to
break the habit of ‘playing the Pharisee card’ — particularly to deflect
confrontation or dismiss a rebuke.” That
is the word we need, because too many of us are quick to abuse the term.[6]
In fact, in that article, MacArthur helpfully notes that the
exact term for a theological liberal/progressive in this category is actually a
Sadducee, someone who denied the fundamental beliefs of Scripture.[7] This sermon, however, is taking a claim of
belief in the truths of the Bible at face value. Sometimes, a modern theological liberal — not
to be confused with someone who is politically liberal, though they share many
of the same commitments — claims to believe in the Bible as a way to move
theologically conservative Christians leftward in their beliefs. Either way, we should not be too quick to use
certain labels.
Yes, modern Pharisees exist.
But, truly know them! They are
those who supplement Scripture with man-made rules and even preach a false
gospel. They pose as authorities while
missing what the Book is about.
That means that the modern Pharisee also uses the Word of
God to dodge its implications. To make
this point practical, if your brother opens the text of Scripture, and your
first move is to call him a Pharisee, you haven’t answered him; you changed the
subject to continue in an error. The
card is most often played by the person who needs the rebuke.
That’s the grand irony of it, and it goes back to vv. 8 and
9. The person quickest to say “Pharisee”
is often being pharisaical, setting aside the commandment in order to keep a
tradition. The Pharisee isn’t just the
person who is overly zealous and scrupulous in his application of Scripture —
it’s also the one committed to the contemporary tradition of tolerance or of
never making others feel uncomfortable.
He has a human idea of virtue driving him to hunt the theological
equivalent of “Nazis” in the church, but he’s become just as spiritually
fascistic. He polices the new doctrine,
and he will do so even if it voids the Word.
Now, we all need a caution here. I’m not saying every person who plays the
card is a Pharisee in full. We all have
our traditions, and yes, some are badly taught.
Some also have a hurting friend or family member, and they have
erroneously let that friendship interpret the Bible for them. We should understand that there are reasons
why a person wants a particular tradition to be true if we are to communicate
with understanding, so we can’t just wave away others as false teachers.
In other words, we can’t just pull the “Uno reverse” on them
and pat ourselves on the back for being so clever. God doesn’t give us permission to repay evil
for evil, reviling for reviling. We need
true wisdom in how to respond, of course; as Proverbs 26:4–5 famously notes,
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you yourself also be like
him. Answer a fool according to his
folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”
We must answer, sometimes creatively, but without descending into his
contemptuousness or becoming pugnacious ourselves.
We must follow the whole counsel of Scripture,
and we can’t call those who are presenting its propositions Pharisees. Yet, that means that we don’t add to or
subtract from the word. As Phil Johnson
has also said, “[W]here Scripture stops speaking, we should, too.”[8] If we create rules and then bind other
people’s consciences with them, we are doing what Jesus rebuked.
Conclusion
There is more in this passage than one sermon can hold. Hopefully, we’ve seen an important correction
to the Pharisee’s error here — nothing going in can defile a man; it’s what
comes out of the heart which does. Moreover, in seeing that, we can see that traditions
can be in error, something Pharisees don’t always seem to consider. That leads us to four implications.
First, and most importantly, while some traditions may make
sense, they will not necessarily make you holier. This is especially true if they involve editing
the Bible. Legalistic standards can’t cleanse
what is in the heart, and refusing to name sin doesn’t make you gracious. Rather, we all need the washing of water with
the word (Eph. 5:26).
Second, and related to that, don’t add to or take away from the
Word. We just barely touched on biblical
imperatives such as, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you,
nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God
which I am commanding you” (Deut. 4:2). While we might think of the Pharisee as the
rigid traditionalist falling into this category, the progressive does the same,
as neither sticks closely to the Word of the Lord. The Pharisee card, in our day, is usually a
subtraction dressed up as a concern for grace; Jesus will not have either from us.
Third, do not be quick to use the “Pharisee” accusation. While it sometimes has its place, that is of false
teachers who voided the Scriptures and refused the true Lawgiver and His Law. If you play the card on a brother who is simply
quoting Scripture, you have borne false witness. You also encourage yourself and others to stop
listening when the Bible gets specific. Practice both grace and teachability with
someone, and if they are coming with an unbiblical rebuke, patiently
demonstrate that from God’s Word.
Fourth, if you mean to be a biblical Christian, expect the
accusation. Expect it, for a servant is
not greater than his Master. They
accused Jesus of breaking tradition; if Jesus physically entered a modern
church calling people “vipers” and “hypocrites,” He would be called a Pharisee
today. If we anticipate such attacks, we won’t be surprised by them, and we can
let the accusation roll off our backs as we continue to patiently walk people
through a particular text of Scripture.
Do not return the sneer; invite them to see the truth of Scripture.
Keep His word without adding to it. Keep His word without
taking away from it. And go down to your house justified.
[1] Ronald J. Kernaghan, Mark, The IVP New
Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 137.
[2] John MacArthur, “Scripture-Twisting Tradition,” Grace
to You, April 18, 2010, https://www.gty.org/sermons/41-32/scripture-twisting-tradition.
[3] Phil Johnson, “The Paragon of Perfect Love,”
Pyromaniacs, January 23, 2012,
https://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/01/paragon-of-perfect-love.html.
[4] MacArthur, “Scripture-Twisting Tradition.”
[5] Todd Wilken, “Playing the Pharisee Card,” Issues,
Etc., March 7, 2009,
https://issuesetc.org/2009/03/07/playing-the-pharisee-card/.
[6] MacArthur, “You Might Be a Pharisee If…,” Grace to
You, March 29, 2017,
https://www.gty.org/blogs/B170329/you-might-be-a-pharisee-if.
[7] Elsewhere, MacArthur also explained that the Sadducees
“had no regard for the oral traditions of the Pharisees. Though they paid lip service to the Torah,
they denied key doctrines like the existence of angels, the resurrection of the
body, and the immortality of the soul (cf. Mark 12:18; Acts 4:1–2; 23:8). Generally aristocratic, the Sadducees (many
of whom were priests—cf. Acts 4:1; 5:17) were guardians of temple polices and
operations, including lucrative (and corrupt) practices like money changing and
the sale of sacrificial animals (cf. Mark 11:15–19; John 2:14–17).” MacArthur, Mark 1–8 (Chicago: Moody
Publishers, 2015), 398.
[8] Phil Johnson, “That Massive, Deadly Ditch on the
Opposite Side of the Road from Libertinism,” Pyromaniacs, May 27, 2010,
https://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/05/that-massive-deadly-ditch-on-opposite.html.