Jewish Sects: Pharisees

by Fred A. Shewmaker

Proselytes and Traditions

via Truth Magazine, XVI: 7, pp. 8-9 December 16, 1971

The Pharisees were by far the largest sect among the Jews. They are mentioned in the New Testament more often than other Jewish sects.

The origin of this sect is somewhat obscure. Peloubet wrote, "They were founded in the period before the Maccabean war as a protest against the Hellenistic influence that was becoming very strong."1 Charles F. Pfeiffer, writing of the Assideans, tells us the date of their origin is uncertain but probably third or fourth century B.C. He writes that the name was first used "when the members joined the Maccabean revolt against the Syrians in the second century, B.C."2 He also gives the information that the Assideans have been linked with the Essenes, but scholarly consensus places them as the spiritual forerunners of the Pharisees."3 Thus, if we trace the Pharisees back through the Assideans, we find them to have originated well after the return from Babylon and shortly after the close of the Old Testament writings.

J.E.H. Thomson wrote, "The earliest instance of the Pharisees intervening in history is that referred to in Jos (Ant. XIII, X, 5), where Eleazar, a Pharisee, demanded that John Hyrcanus should lay down the high-priesthood because his mother had been a captive, thus insinuating that he  Hyreanus -- was no true son of Aaron, but the bastard of some nameless heathen to whom his mother had surrendered herself."4 F. F. Bruce wrote concerning this incident, "This marks the emergence of the Pharisaic party as an opposition group to the Hasmonaean dynasty -- a position they retained for half a century."5 They "emerged as a distinct religious and political party shortly after the Maccabean revolt 165 - 160 B.C."6

Concerning the name, we find that "Pharisee is the Greek form of the Hebrew Parush- to separate and properly denote one who is separated."7 "Although some have suggested that the separation was from the common people, it is more probable that the Pharisees were so named because of their zeal for the law which involved separation from the influence of Hellenism."8 "Under John Hyreanus the Pharisees were expelled from membership in the Sanhedrin and branded with the name Perushim, 'the expelled ones.' This was meant as a taunt but its alternant Hebrew significance is 'exponents' which made the name acceptable to them."9

The organization of the Pharisees is somewhat of a mystery. There is apparently no reliable account of their organization. The Pharisees seemed bound together more by what they believed than by organizational structure.

The Pharisees proselyted extensively. Jesus said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte" (Matthew 23:15). "Each candidate was required to promise in the presence of three members that (i) He would set apart all the sacred tithes on the produce of the land, and refrain from eating anything which had not been tithed, or about the tithing of which there was any doubt; and (ii) He would scrupulously observe the most essential laws of purity which so materially affected the eating of food and all family affairs."10 The effect of the first promise can be seen in the "woe" Jesus pronounced in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithes of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters, of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done and not to leave the other undone." The worth of tithing in the mind of the Pharisees can also be seen in the story Jesus told in Luke 18:10-14 about the two men going up to the temple to pray. "The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself ... I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all I possess." The attitude of the Pharisees toward the second promise is to be -seen in Mark 7:1-5. "And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." Geikie informs us, "A special initiation, training, and time trial was required for each grade, from thirty days for the lowest, to twelve months for the highest."11

Contrary to the popular conception, the Pharisees were not the conservative party but the liberals of their day. "Their principle being so to develop and modify the Mosaic Law as to adapt it to the requirements of the time."12 As we progress with this study, I believe the reader will quickly see that the Pharisees were, indeed, the liberals of New Testament times. Josephus wrote, "The Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers who are not written in the Law of Moses."13 The Pharisees believed that their traditions were given Moses to the elders of his day and by them passed on orally through the years. According to Geikie, the written law was written in a language no longer spoken by the people "so that it was left up to the Rabbis to explain and apply it."14 We might note here that the term Rabbi is equal to "teacher" (John 3:2). Thus, the Rabbis of the Pharisees were the scribes, lawyers, and doctors of the law. Now notice the freedom, or liberal attitude, with which the law was to be interpreted. "The commandments of the Law were to be interpreted in conformity with the standard of the teachers of each generation and made to harmonize with advanced ideas. When a precept was outgrown, it was given a more acceptable meaning so that it would harmonize with the truth resulting from God-given reason. When the letter of the law seemed to oppose conscience, it was to be taken, according to the primary authority of the teacher, in its spirit.15 "Along with these traditions and traditional interpretations, the Pharisees were close students of the sacred text. On the turn of a sentence, they suspended many decisions. So much so that it is said of them later that they suspended mountains from hairs."16

In Matthew 15, it can be seen that the Pharisees held their traditions to be greater than the written law. But Jesus put tradition in its proper place when he asked these scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 15:3, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Notice Matthew 15:9 and compare this incident with Mark's account in Mark 7:1-13.

Footnotes

  1. F. N. Peloubet, Bible Dictionary, (Athens, Ala.: 1947), p. 597.
  2. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, (Grand Rapids: 1966) p. 324.
  3. Ibid.
  4. "Thomson," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: 1957), Vol. IV, p. 2362.
  5. F. F. Bruce, Israel and the Nations, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 171.
  6. Pfeiffer, Ibid.
  7. McClintock & Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, (Grand Rapids: 1970), Vol. VIII, p. 68.
  8. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 112.
  9. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, p. 325.
  10. McClintock & Strong, Ibid, p. 69.
  11. Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ, New York & London: 1920), Vol. 1, p. 239.
  12. McClintock & Strong, Vol. IX, p. 235.
  13. F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 360 (B. XIII, Ch. X, Sec. 6.
  14. Geikie, Ibid., p. 71.
  15. Pfeiffer, Ibid.
  16. I.S.B.E., p. 2363.

Influence and Doctrines

via Truth Magazine, XVI: 8, pp. 6-7 December 23, 1971

As would be expected, leaving the teacher as the primary authority to interpret the law "in its spirit" led through the years to a mass of conflicting opinions. No one should miss the lesson so plainly illustrated by this reliance upon mere men to explain the commandments of God. When men are accepted as authorities and disagree, the result will be confusion every time. Regarding Pharisaical interpretations of the law, Geikie wrote well, "The 'hedge' round the Law had proved one of thorns, for Rabbis and people alike."1

"During the first century before Christ, two influential Pharisaic teachers gave their names to the two historic schools of legal thought among the Pharisees. Hillel was the more moderate of the two in his legal interpretations... Shammi, on the other hand, was more strict in his interpretation and was bitterly opposed to the Romans."2 About the end of the 2nd century A. D., the Jewish traditions were written, and that writing is called the Talmud. "The Talmud preserves the record of 316 controversies between the schools of Hillel and Shammi."3 The reader should be able to see the folly of adding to the written word of God.

Since the Pharisees regarded tradition as equal to and even above the written law, it should be no surprise that their doctrines were at variance with Christ's teachings and that he condemned their practices.

The influence of the Pharisees during New Testament times was far-reaching. Geikie wrote, "The influence of the Pharisees was so overwhelming that even the high priests were glad to respect their opinions, to secure public favor."4 This influence is observable in John 12:42. "Among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him test they should be put out of the synagogue." This verse also nicely illustrates the observation of J. E. H. Thomson, "They had a tendency to despise those who did not agree with them."5 This observation is also well illustrated in John 9:34.

The fear of being "put out of the synagogue" by the "chief rulers" for confessing belief in Christ was due to the relationship the Pharisees sustained with the synagogue. "In that they believed God was everywhere, they fostered the synagogue as a place of worship and raised it to a central and important status in the fife of the people which rivaled the Temple."6 "The particular domain of the Pharisees in the pre-Christian Judaism was the synagogue."7

Even though the synagogue's "status" may have, as Pfeiffer puts it, "rivaled the Temple," we must remember that it had not been substituted for the worship required by God to be offered in the temple. Certainly, our Lord would not have taken part in that which was being substituted for the thing God required. Yet we often find him in a synagogue participating in the activities carried on there.

John 9:34 shows that the Pharisees held the doctrine that babies are born in sin. They told the man Jesus had healed of blindness, "Thou wast altogether born in sins." This directly violated the commandment of God found in Ezekiel 18:1-3, 20. But men obsessed with overestimating the worth of their opinions are apt to have little concern for the inspired word of God.

Pfeiffer wrote that they "believed in a combination of free will and pr destination."8 Josephus put it, "When they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit."9 But he also wrote, "These ascribe all to fate (or Providence) and to God, and yet allow that to act what is right or the contrary is principally in the power of men, although fate does cooperate in every action."10 This should shed some light on the advice given by Gamaliel in Acts 5:34-39. Notice another quotation that may have a bearing on Gamaliel's advice. "They reject the appeal to force and violence, believing that God was in control of history and that every true Jew should live in accordance with the Torah."11 However, this view of things did not always restrain them from applying force and engaging in violence. See Mark 3:6; Luke 23:10, 13, 18, 21, 23.

"As a matter of doctrine, they believed in the resurrection of the dead on the day of Judgment, reward and retribution in the life after death, the coming of the Messiah, and the existence of angels and also Divine foreknowledge along with man's free choice of, and therefore responsibility for, his deeds."12 Probably, the belief of the Pharisees in the resurrection is the most familiar of their doctrines to the readers of this article. "They also believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments."13

The Pharisaic belief in angels and spirits seems to be closely connected with their concept of the "providence" of God. The "scribes of the Pharisees" (Acts 23:9) attribute the action of Paul to the possibility that "a spirit or an angel hath spoken unto him." It appears to me that this passage should give us an insight into the belief of the Pharisees regarding angels and spirits. They did not believe that the truth about them should be obvious. All too often, brethren have taken Acts 23 and suggested, or implied, that the Pharisees held the truth regarding angels and spirits. They did not. They did not merely believe in their existence, but they also believed that they were active in the affairs of men. In their thinking, angels and spirits constantly intervened in the affairs of men. This is exactly what they suggested in Acts 23:9. The truth is that angels and spirits did intervene in the affairs of men back then; however, such intervention was only upon momentous occasions and not a common occurrence. I am persuaded that it was this erroneous concept the Pharisees held regarding angels and spirits with which the Sadducees took issue.

Footnotes

  1. Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ, (New York & London: 1920), Vol. II, p. 61.
  2. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 113.
  3. Ibid., p. 114.
  4. Geikie, Ibid., Vol. I, p. 66.
  5. "Thomson," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: 1957), Vol. IV, p. 2364.
  6. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical World, (Grand Rapids: 1966), p. 326.
  7. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, p. 113.
  8. Pfeiffer, Biblical World, p. 324.
  9. F. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 484 (B. XVIII, Ch. I, Sec. 3.
  10. F. Josephus, Wars of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 617 (B. II, Ch. VIII, Sec. 14
  11. Pfeiffer, Ibid., p. 326.
  12. Ibid, p. 325
  13. Josephus, Antiquities, Ibid.

Expectations, Righteousness and Decline

via Truth Magazine, XVI: 9, pp. 8-9 January 6, 1972

We noticed that the Pharisees believed in "the coming of the Messiah." Many have puzzled over the question, "Why did the Pharisees reject the Messiah when he came?" A great deal of light may be focused on this matter in an observation by Geikie. "From Ezra's time, the dream of a restored theocracy had been cherished by a portion of the people. The political system of the Pentateuch was their sacred ideal ... The impossibility of restoring such a state of things after the changes of so many centuries may have been felt but was not acknowledged."1 Yes, "the Messiah" of their dreams was to come and restore a "theocracy." The political system of the ancient times was to be reinstated by "the Messiah" when he came. How could those who held their interpretations of the law and traditions to be of more worth than the written word possibly accept the spiritual kingdom that Jesus preached when they had their hearts set on an earthly kingdom embracing a political system? They could not. And that is why they rejected the very Son of God. Jesus showed them that Christ was not to be an earthly king by asking them, "If David then called him Lord, how is he his son?" See Matthew 22:41-46 and Luke 20:41-44.

"Believing themselves the saints of God and therefore His peculiar treasure, they regarded any association with the heathen as faithlessness in Jehovah."2 "Even to touch the clothes of a 'common man,' defiled a Pharisee."3 "A Pharisee might not eat in the house of a 'sinner,' although he might entertain the 'sinner' in his own house. When this was done, however, the Pharisee was required to provide the 'sinner' with clothes to wear, for the 'sinner's' own clothes might be ceremonially impure."4 It was this concept of things that caused the scribes and Pharisees to murmur when Levi (Matthew) made Jesus "a great feast in his own house" (Luke 5:27-30). This murmuring brought forth from the lips of Jesus the famous saying. "They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick" (Luke 5:31). It was this same attitude toward sinners on the part of the Pharisees that in Luke 15 led Jesus to tell the very popular stories of the lost sheep, the lost piece of silver and the Prodigal son. Too often, I am afraid, we who preach have failed to call attention to the fact that these stories are made in response to the murmuring of the scribes and the Pharisees because, as they put it, "This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them" (Luke 5:2).

"All righteousness with them was external."5 One author wrote, "Religiousness consisted, above everything, in avoiding ceremonial defilement, or removing it at anytime contacted, by prescribed washings and bathings."6 Another wrote, "They elevated almsgiving into an equivalent for righteousness."7 No doubt, the statement of Jesus, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:20), was directed against this pharisaic concept of external righteousness. In Luke 16:15, Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." In Luke 11:37-40 and Matthew 23:25-28, he attacked the Pharisaic concept of what constitutes defilement. In Mark 7:15, he said, "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." As a completion of the denunciation Jesus made of the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, we notice Matthew 6:2. "Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward."

Josephus wrote about the Pharisees' eating habits: "They live meanly, and despise delicacies in the diet."8 In Matthew 9:14, the disciples of John came to Jesus and asked, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?" Fasting was not and is not wrong. It may even be advantageous to health, but it was not and is not an indicator of an individual's personal righteousness before God.

It should not be supposed that all or every Pharisee was of those hypocrites whom Jesus unmercifully upbraided. There were among the Pharisees, no doubt, honest, conscientious, and sincere persons. I feel that this was the type of man we are introduced to in Nicodemus (John 3:1-21; 7:50-53; 19:39-40) and Joseph of Arimathea (Luke 23:50-53; John 19:38). As a party, Josephus tells us that they "pay respect to such as are in years."9 "Religious values were so much more important than politics in Pharisaical thought that they would rather submit to foreign dominion than support an impious government of their own"10 Even Jesus acknowledged that they taught the people the right way to live even though they did not live as they taught. "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say and do not" (Matthew 23:2-3).

Pfeiffer wrote, "The active period of Pharisaism extended well into the second century A.D."11 He also wrote, "Modern Judaism traces its roots to the party of the Pharisees." 12 But Geikie has given us the closing thought for our study of the sect of the Pharisees. "They gave themselves up largely to formalism, outward religiousness, self-complacency, immeasurable spiritual pride, .love of praise, superstition, and deceit, till at last after the destruction of the temple, they, themselves laid the name Pharisee aside, from its having become the symbol of mingled fanaticism and hypocrisy."

Footnotes

  1. Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ, (New York & London: 1920), Vol. I, p. 252.
  2. "Thomson," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, (Grand Rapids: 1957), Vo. IV, P. 2361.
  3. Geike, Ibid., p. 239.
  4. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, (Grand Rapids: 1963), p. 113.
  5. I.S.B.E., p. 2365.
  6. Geikie, Ibid,
  7. I.S.B.E., p. 2363.
  8. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, (London: 1842), p. 484 (B. XVIII, Ch. 1, Sec. 3.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Charles F. Pfeiffer, The Biblical Work (Grand Rapids: 1966), pp. 324-25.
  11. Ibid., p. 326.
  12. Pfeiffer, Between the Testaments, p. 115.
  13. Geikie, Ibid., p. 66.