Jesus the Pharisee?
by Denise Morris on 06/11/2007 at 4:33 PM
The book I'm reading, King of the Jews by D. Thomas Lancaster, has a chapter devoted to the idea that, theologically speaking, Jesus was most likely a Pharisee. What?!
As the book points out, we usually think of Pharisees as super bad dudes. The term "Pharisaical" was even brought up (negatively) in a response to Motte's post about budgeting. In general, being associated with the Pharisees is not a good thing. But, says Lancaster, perhaps we have misunderstood exactly what was going on with Jesus and the Pharisees:
Gospel scholars have recently come to the shocking conclusion that not all Pharisees were hypocrites. In fact, the majority of them seemed to be pretty decent fellows! ... The simple point is that Yeshua (not to mention His brother James and His apostle Paul) was, for all practical purposes, a Pharisee. His theology, His hermeneutic, His parables, His argumentation, His conclusions and even His dinner invitations were Pharisaic in origin. While we cannot be overly dogmatic that Yeshua was a Pharisee, there is no other sect or form of faith in all of human history with which He shared a closer affinity. He conducted Himself as if He were one.
The book goes on to point out that the Pharisees are often with Jesus -- in more ways than one:
The Pharisees themselves were never far from Yeshua theologically or geographically. He was often a dinner guest in their homes, and they were often critics of His ministry. At times, some Pharisees vehemently opposed Him. On other occasions, they cheered Him on while He thwarted the Sadducees or nailed home a point of Torah. On another occasion, the Pharisees are depicted trying to rescue Him from Herod (Luke 13:31).
Now, we do know that some of the Pharisees are critical of Jesus, but sometimes the questions they ask are simply that -- questions. They are not always trying to trap Him -- they are truly seeking to know Jesus' theology.
And, according to this book and other scholars I've heard, much of what we see Jesus do throughout the Gospels is in line with the Pharisaic tradition of the time. Jesus commends the Pharisees for tithing mint, dill and cumin -- something that was not part of biblical law, but was part of Pharisaic tradition. Many of the parables of Jesus are actually old Pharisaic stories -- sometimes with different endings. Much of Jesus' thoughts on issues were in line with the teachings of the Rabbi Hillel -- a Pharisee.
Now, Jesus does call the Pharisees out quite often. But Lancaster posits that the times Jesus gets angry with the Pharisees is when they elevate tradition above the Scripture. And although Jesus seemed to follow many of the Pharisaic customs, He obviously held the Word of God above the traditions of men. Lancaster notes that while Jesus may have theologically lined up with many of the teachings of the Pharisees, He never did so to the detriment of the Truth.
Unlike the Pharisees, He did not allow Jewish tradition to be elevated to the same level as Scripture. He was quick to discard any traditions that contradicted the Word of God. He placed compassion above the stringencies of tradition, and He rebuked hypocrisy and pretense whenever He saw it. But He did all of this from within traditional Judaism and as a part of traditional Judaism.
Anyway, I found all of this to be quite interesting (sorry for wasting your time if you didn't :-). Although I haven't quite formed an opinion yet, I'm interested to hear yours. What do you think of the idea that Jesus was a Pharisee?
1. John M. said the following at 4:55 PM on Jun 11:
1
That is actually really, really interesting. It wouldn't surprise me at all that Jesus might be from the most conservative wing of Judaism, but also call some of it's more questionable add-on doctrines to account. Luther was like that in a way.
2. Samuel PG said the following at 6:28 PM on Jun 11:
2
I've learned similar things in my classes and reading. Jesus shared many important theological doctrines with the Pharisees: belief in physical resurrection, angels and demons, the coming of a Messiah, high moral standards, etc. The reason we see Jesus arguing with the Pharisees so much more than the other main Jewish groups (Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots) is that He had the most in common with them and therefore every difference was a serious point of contention. Think of the doctrinal battles within the Christian church. Do you see that many arguments or arguments of such a passion between Christians and Buddhists? No.
Or hone the example down, there is much less debate between Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Christians than there is between Protestants themselves, largely because they have already accepted the fact that they are quite different.
Thanks for the topic, Denise.
3. Leah said the following at 7:48 PM on Jun 11:
3
Hmmmm... "Jesus *is* a pharisee"? I think I'd say no. I certainly understand and agree with what I think the point of the article is- "for all *practical purposes* he was a pharisee"- but I think that's a little different to saying he WAS a pharisee, because we know that he wasn't. A pharisee was an actual role, an actual profession, and we know Jesus was not that.
Certainly not all Pharisees were 'bad', or hypocrites. However, while I agree that "They (were) not always trying to trap Him -- they are truly seeking to know Jesus' theology", I would add that they probably were trying to trap him most of the time.
And I don't regret using the word pharisaical in that post :P - people knew what I meant and that's all that matters.
As an aside, my staffworker at uni, when I get into discussions with him, will tell me I'm asking a "pharisee question"- even when it is a genuine question. I'm not trying to trap people, but it's still the wrong question. A legalistic one.
Anyway that was just a side point :P
4. Denise Morris said the following at 8:43 PM on Jun 11:
4
Leah,
I may be wrong, but I'm not sure that being a Pharisee was an actual profession. From my understanding, it was more of a theology -- a school of thought. The Pharisees and Sadducees had different theology about things related to Judaism, perhaps comparable to Calvinists and Armeneans. Or they differed on political issues, like Democrats and Republicans.
All that to say that I think Jesus could've been a Pharisee. (But again, I'm not completely positive.)
Also, I wasn't implying that you should regret your comment about something being Pharisaical. I was just pointing out that we almost always use that phrase negatively. I used to sing a song at Bible camp about how "I don't want to be a Pharisee ... cause they're no fair you see." :-)
I just think that if Jesus agreed with a lot of the thoughts of the Pharisees, we should be more aware of that and not bash the entire Pharisaic tradition as a whole.
5. Leah said the following at 11:14 PM on Jun 11:
5
Yeah profession was the wrong word... but I think it was more than just a school of thought, I was under the impression Pharisees held an actual role in the synagogues.
As for whether they're 'bad' or 'good', well, like I said, I'm sure they weren't all bad. Generalisations are always bad! ;P However, Jesus did call "many Pharisees and Saducees" a "brood of vipers" ;)
While I wouldn't call Pharisees, as a whole, BAD, I'm convinced they had the wrong school of thought and wrong attitude; like my staffworker implied with his questions, they tended to be very legalistic. They wanted to know what they had to do. They kept after Jesus for doing the wrong thing (healing on the Sabbath, eating with tax collectors, eating with unclean hands, etc).
In a majority of references I've found to Pharisees in the gospels, they refer to Jesus rebuking the Pharisees, or Pharisees rebuking Jesus, or Pharisees questioning why Jesus is not doing the right thing, or Pharisees plotting to arrest or kill Jesus, etc etc. This implies to me that, while they aren't necessarily all bad, as a group they don't have the right theology. This implies even further that Jesus would not be one of them.
Come to think of it, the more I research Pharisees in the bible (I'm doing that right this moment ;)) The more I'm convinced Jesus wasn't one. Note, I am not saying I'm positive. There are always exceptions to the rule- like I just said, generalisations aren't good :P I mean, clearly not all Pharisees are bad- look at Nicodemus and Gamaliel! And some Pharisees were believing of Jesus when he gave the blind man sight in John 9. But in Matthew 16 Jesus even warns his disciples against the teachings of the Pharisees (and Saducees). This also implies to me that Jesus would not be one of them.
Anyway. Just some thoughts I had while having a read about Pharisees. Please keep in mind I'm not saying Jesus was not a pharisee- just that all the evidence I can find points to that. I'm also not saying all pharisees were bad- I gave a number of examples where that's demonstrated.
6. Denise Morris said the following at 8:47 AM on Jun 12:
6
Thanks for the further comments, Leah! You can definitely find a lot of references where Jesus is angry with the Pharisees. But as Samuel PG pointed out, this is probably because He had a lot in common with them and so every slight difference seemed like a big deal. He does not often call out the Sadducees -- almost like it wasn't even worth it because they had such huge differences.
Also, it's difficult for us to see exactly how Jesus was similar to the Pharisees because we don't know their customs. If we were more familiar with the Pharisaic tradition, I think it would be easier for us to see some of the obvious similarities in the way they thought about and practiced Judaism. Many of the things we see Jesus doing in the Bible (the holidays He celebrates -- and the calendar He used to celebrate them) are just the way the Pharisees did it -- not the way the other religious "denominations" did it. Even the fact that Jesus takes cups of wine at the Last Supper is part of the Pharisaic tradition -- it was not a biblical command. Anyway, it is because we don't know a lot about this time period and the traditions that were tied to the Pharisees or to the Sadducees that we don't automatically see the similarities.
You are correct in that what was wrong with some of the Pharisees was their legalism and dependence on tradition. As I said in my post, although Jesus seemed to follow the Pharisaic tradition, He never did when the tradition conflicted with the truth of Scripture. That is where He differed with some of the Pharisees.
Anyway, I'm blabbing. :-) I'll stop now.
7. Leah said the following at 9:29 AM on Jun 12:
7
"(Jesus being angry with Pharisees is) probably because He had a lot in common with them and so every slight difference seemed like a big deal. He does not often call out the Sadducees -- almost like it wasn't even worth it because they had such huge differences."
Hmmm, that comment doesn't gel well with me. I think that is a fallen human attitude, to pick on people similar to us where the differences seem huge. I think Jesus would be one to point out errors when it is beneficial for teaching, no matter who it was committing the errors. (You'll notice most of the times he goes off at the Pharisees is when he's in a teaching capacity). That he would pick on one group simply because their small differences "seem huge"- especially when they *aren't*- seems to me to be a very human, fallen attitude.
8. Carrie Lea said the following at 9:36 AM on Jun 12:
8
What a thought-provoking post!
Consider Hebrews 12:6, "because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." It sounds to me like Yeshua saw the Pharisees as a group with real potential. This is why He spent so much time correcting them on certain matters. When it comes to obedience, so many of us have the attitude, "What can I get away with and still be okay?" With Pharisaic tradition, there seemed to be an attitude of, "How can we expand on this commandment to more fully demonstrate our love for God?" I think Yeshua appreciated this approach, and spent much of His time pointing out areas where they needed to improve.
Despite the Pharisees' shortcomings, I definitely think we need to stop thinking of them as "the bad guys."
9. Carrie Lea said the following at 9:48 AM on Jun 12:
9
As a side note, I think understanding the Pharisees is one key to interpreting Paul's letters. The Pharisees had great zeal for God's Torah (commendable) but had a tendency to think that works were the basis of salvation (legalism - not commendable) or that their traditions were as important as the Scriptures (also not commendable).
I was surprised to find out that while God's Word is called Torah ("teaching" or "law"), these traditions are known, even in modern Judaism, as "oral Torah". Many Jews believe that the oral Torah was actually given by God to Moses in addition to the written Torah, which is probably why the Pharisees elevated it to the level of Scripture. When we read about Paul "putting down" the Torah, couldn't he be referring to something else? Namely, the errors that (1) oral Torah is equal to written Torah, or (2) works of Torah are the basis of salvation. Paul certainly spends some time pointing out that even the (written) Torah points to faith in God as the basis of salvation.
10. Matt said the following at 1:01 PM on Jun 12:
10
I agree that "theologically speaking, Jesus was ... a Pharisee". According to the all-wise Wikipedia the Pharisees were at different times these things: a political party, a social movement, and a school of thought. Also, historically after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. they re-established themselves into Rabbinic Judaism. In Israel during Jesus' time there were four different religious sects in Judaism - the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Zealots (or Iscariots), and the Essenes - and of these four Jesus was most in line with the Pharisees. Further, Jesus chose Paul (a former Pharisee) as his apostle to the Gentiles and he wrote most of the New Testament.
Of teachers of the law who in Hebrew are called Rabbis who call themselves Pharisees Jesus said in Matthew 13:52: "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old." Here the old treasures are the teachings about the Old Testament (the law) and the new ones are Jesus' about the "kingdom of heaven". Further, Jesus taught these men about the kingdom of heaven so that they could teach others - he had a plan for them. These men were prime raw material to be teachers once they repented and came to faith in Jesus.
All over his letters Paul embodies this statement by explaining new teachings using the old ones as example. In the end I hope all this discussion leads to us embracing ever more boldly our calling to share the gospel with all people - especially the lost sheep of Israel and their spiritually poor teachers who long ago were called Pharisees and are now called Rabbis.
11. Joseph said the following at 2:15 PM on Jun 12:
11
How does that work out that Jesus was a carpenter if he was a Pharisee? It was to my understanding that in the stages of education teenagers are all taught a certain level and are determined to go so far on the road to actually be a Rabbi or learn the trade of their family.
I think Christ lined up with many ideas of pharisees because they shared many of the doctrinal beliefs. On the flip side if he was a Pharisee it would make sense how Christ is so unaplogetic and harsh to the Pharisees when he does rebuke them.
12. cn said the following at 4:06 PM on Jun 12:
12
While I share much of Leah's bible based oppinion that Yeshua probably wasn't truely a pharisee, i also agree with Carrie Lea that we shouldn't necessarily look at them as the "bad guys." I think this moves us directly into life application today.
During my time in undergrad at a very liberal university, many of my believing friends (even myself at times) jumped on anyone considered "legalistic" as the problem people in the church. We would even refer to them as Pharisees in conversations. THEY were the reason revival wasn't happening in our community. If only THEY would understand FREEDOM, thousands would come into the kingdom. And WE were better than them because we were FREE (isn't that the same attitude as a pharisee though?). I even remember the conversations that put down other believers in order to convince those searching that they didn't have to be like those people. Which is true... we don't have to share all the same convictions, and I do believe legalism can be a great problem in preventing an annointing, but now that I'm a little older and have expirienced different things, my point of view has changed.
First of all, why did we ever think that putting people down was a good way to show Yeshua to others? I mean, what if I went up to you and said, "my family members are terrible and mean and even stupid. i don't like them much and i'm not much like them... but i have a good dad, so don't you want to join my family?" That's in essense how we were evangelizing. No wonder we saw little fruit.
Now i feel that it would have been more powerful if we could have shown love and unity even through differences. We all pretty much agree about everything up to the resurrection anyhow, its usually what comes after that point that causes the problems. I recognize that people opperating in legalism can often be mean spirited, but so can people opperating in "freedom." The true bad guy is satan, and sin is the real problem in the church.
I think this blog was an excellent way to examine our present day understanding of the pharisees and how that understanding has developed christian culturalism in the church. ;) Thanks Denise.
13. Jen said the following at 6:46 PM on Jun 12:
13
Hmm, about "Jesus commends the Pharisees for tithing mint, dill and cumin" (Luke 11:41-43) To my understanding of this passage, Jesus is saying that by tithing the nitty-gritty mundane things, but neglecting "justice and the love of God" the Pharisees were missing the whole point. Since Jesus was a Jew of course He followed the law as the Pharisees did. The problem with the Pharisees was their whole heart attitude.
Jesus quoted from Isaiah saying "These people honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me." (Matt 15:7-9) They obeyed the law to the letter - to the extent of defining and further defining and breaking it down. Yet their hearts were not right with the Lord nor were they open to the truth.
I would say that, as far as theology, for the most part yes, Jesus's teaching were consistent with the Pharisee's as they followed the Jewish tradition. However, Jesus could see their hearts, and that their good deeds were to be seen by men, and not truly to worship God.
14. JRW said the following at 8:54 PM on Jun 12:
14
I don't know a lot about Pharisee tradition/schools of thought other than what the Bible mentions, but I would tend to think that the only reason Jesus might look like a Pharisee was because they were the most familiar with all the Jewish laws and customs. Jesus was/is the Word of God. He wrote the laws Moses passed on to the children of Israel. What I'm trying to say is, is it not more likely that the Pharisees were trying to follow God's teachings, rather than Jesus/God following the Pharisaic teachings? In that way Jesus and the Pharisees could have appeared to act in a similar fashion.
Saying that Jesus was a Pharisee sounds--to me, at least--about the same as saying He would be a Baptist, or a Republican, if He lived on earth now. While one human way of thinking may more closely align with God's ways than another, all of them fail at some point. God is perfect, God is truth, God knows all wisdom. I would tend to think that the only reason Jesus might look like us, is because we are looking like Him.
Some food for thought . . .
15. Leah said the following at 8:59 PM on Jun 12:
15
Matt- Pharisees and Rabbis are not the same thing. Rabbi meant 'teacher', not all Pharisees were teachers or Rabbis. Rabbis are not a 'modern' thing ("spiritually poor teachers who long ago were called Pharisees and are now called Rabbis").
16. Matt said the following at 7:30 AM on Jun 13:
16
Leah,
Please don't miss the forest for the trees. When I use the word Rabbi here: "who long ago were called Pharisees and are now called Rabbis" I mean the individuals in modern soceity who are part of conservative orthodox Judaism commonly called Rabbis. These men are the shephards of many lost Jews. They are spiritually poor and desperatly need Jesus.
17. Matt said the following at 7:33 AM on Jun 13:
17
More on Pharisees from the Bible:
The Pharisees as a group and maybe not by name started back in the time of Moses (instituted by him on the advice of Jethro his father-in-law) and continue to this day in a severely weakened form. Over the milliennia they've taken different shapes and forms. From their beginning they've been judges and teachers, Exodus 18:19-23: "You must be the people's representative before God and bring their disputes to him. Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied." These people from Exodus 18 are confirmed to be the Pharisees and teachers of the law by Jesus in his time in Matthew 23:2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat."
18. Chris Krycho said the following at 3:06 PM on Jun 13:
18
I think a much stronger case can be made that He was in relatively close alignment with the Essenes. He wasn't perfectly aligned with any of the religious sects of His day, of course, but in several instances, His alterations of Pharisee parables were done in such a way as to basically prove a point that the Essenes had made earlier. (Of course, He demonstrated that, contrary to all the traditions, the heart was most important!)
19. Andrew said the following at 5:55 AM on Jun 15:
19
Gotta be careful here: Since the early 1980s, scholars like James Dunn have been arguing that the nature of Second Temple Judaism was far different than Christians have thought throughout the centuries, and thus Paul's epistles that criticize the Judaizers (esp. Galatians & Romans) must be interpreted much differently.
They end up denying - or at least fatally perverting, in my view - justification by faith alone.
20. Motty Perel said the following at 9:20 PM on Jun 24:
20
Just trying to help you, guys, with your discussion about whether Jesus was or was not a Pharisee.
In Hebrew the word Pharisee sounds Parshan, and it means “one who comments, or deciphers, or is looking for the real meaning of something.” Therefore the Pharisees were those religious Jews (and all Jews were religious then) who were trying to clarify what the Word of God actually means as applied to everyday events of life. Today one might say that they were critical of the Word of God, they were prodding into It, not necessarily with the intention to deny Its significance and holiness.
From this, one might conclude that due to the undeniable fact that Jesus derived from Judaism another teaching, which Paul promoted as Christianity, he, Jesus, was critical about the meaning of the Word of God and, therefore, was a Parshan, i.e. Pharisee.
As to the question about is it good or bad to be a Pharisee, it depends how one relates to dogma. If you think that accepting and following authoritative pronouncements, without examining them, is commendable, then being a Pharisee is bad. In contrast, if you are in the habit of examining authoritative pronouncements and apply them to your life only after finding them right for a set of circumstances, and/or modifying them, or denying them validity altogether, then you are a Parshan, a Pharisee.
21. Matityahu said the following at 9:09 AM on Dec 23:
21
Read Harvey Falk's book, "Jesus the Pharisee." The book enlightens you on the why's of my conclusion. But will see why I know he was a Pharisee by his own admission. Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or a Pharisee: Matt.23,1-3.
22. Daniel said the following at 12:14 PM on Feb 21:
22
It seems to me that you guys are mainly saying that Jesus wasn't a Pharisee, just because the Gospels don't say that he was. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that he was one, and that the Pharisees were very sympathetic to him and his disciples. Why does the leader of the Pharisees stand up for Peter and the Christians in Acts 5, for example? I thought the Pharisees were "bitterly opposed" to Jesus and his followers?
The reality is that Jesus most likely was a Pharisee, and that Paul never was one.
Check out "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity"
23. Lanny said the following at 8:29 AM on May 25:
23
The Pharisees were incharge of the synogogues. They chose who could speak there. Jesus often was invited and did speak in the synogogues and in the temple. He was more than likely taught by Pharisee rabbis and did follow them closely. But we know God had other plans for Him.
24. Rabbi (Messianic) Stanley of Mosaic Ministries said the following at 1:33 AM on Jan 10:
24
There is indeed proof that Yeshua was a Pharisee. The Pharisees were the "party of the people". There were different parties, the Saducees and the Essenes just to name a couple.
To use a similar parallel: I am a Republican, I don't go to Republican meetings and I'm not in a position to make changes within the Republican Party but I am still a Republican. Fisherman and carpenters were Pharisees. How does this prove Yeshua was a Pharisee? Well, Yeshua didn't stand behind the Sadducee, Essene or Qumran party (although he may have agreed with some of their theology i.e. the Essenes didn't believe in slavery) but He did stand behind the Pharisee party. First we have to understand that the Pharisaical party has been given a bad rap by the Christian Church. We see the NT saying things such as "You brood of vipers", "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" etc. This makes sense from a Messianic perspective. I, as a Republican have a few things to say about the Republican Party. They are not all positive, in fact there's a few Republican politicians that I would call downright vipers. This doesn't mean that I think all Republicans are bad. Likewise Yeshua didn't think the Pharisaical party was all bad
In fact He endorses them! I'll get to that in a second.
Let's first look at the Pharisaical party. The Pharisees were a holy party, their name means "set apart" (perushim in Hebrew). They were zealous for G-d and strove after righteousness. The book of Macabees speaks highly of them! By the time of the second temple period however, some... some corruption had crept in even into some rather high positions. Again this wasn't all of them. We see in Mark 12:28 that one of the Scribes (most, almost all, the scribes were Pharisees)
agreed with Yeshua and what He was saying. Yeshua said to him that he wasn't far from the Kingdom. Another Pharisee even stuck up for Jesus in front of all the other Pharisees. To feel that bold he must've had others who agreed with him, especially his being that high up in the party (it says he was a leader). So they obviously weren't all bad. Not only that, Yeshua quotes a few of them. Many of the "sayings of Jesus" prescribed to Him by the Church aren't even His sayings but rather quotes of other Rabbis before Him. Jesus seemed to like many of the Pharisees... in Luke He was invited by a Pharisee to dinner and Yeshua accepted (Luke 7:36) and He even went to have a meal with one of the leading Pharisees (Luke 14) Some Pharisees even came to help Him and to warn Him that Herod was looking for Him. Some of the translations of this don't read correctly (Luke 13:31) but in Greek it says this..."depart from here, Herod wants to kill you" And what about Nicodemus? It says in John 3 that he was a leader in the party (that's who I was referencing earlier). Later on Nickodemus tells some other Pharisees not to pass judgment on Jesus. Nicodemus (that horrible Pharisee lol) was there at the burial of Jesus too in John 19:39. We just get the idea that all the Pharisees were bad because we see them put in a negative light in the Brit Hadasha (New Testament). We also have to remember that the New Testament was written by Jews who believed that Yeshua was the Messiah and were therefore being persecuted by their own sect, that would be enough to make me not have such good things to say about the Republicans had they treated me the same way.So we often see the bad Pharisees coming to trick Yeshua, these would be the ones that were especially noticed by the NT writers. We see Jesus call these particular Pharisees hypocrites rather often. Why did He call them hypocrites? Because they were saying that they followed the Pharisaical teachings and theology and they weren't. Was the Pharisaical teachings and theology correct? Absolutely! This is where we see Yeshua say something that He didn't say about any other teaching or theology on the planet including the Sadducees and the Essenes and everyone else. He says this... and this is exact from Greek "Then Yeshua said to the crowds and His disciples, "the Scribes and the Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses therefore, EVERYTHING and WHATEVER THEY TEACH YOU DO AND KEEP" He goes on to say just don't do as they do. This is amazing if you think about it. Here Jesus just gave absolute endorsement to the theology of the Pharisees. Whatever and Everything!!! He didn't say that about the Essenes or the Sadducees but He made it a point about the Pharisees.
I know I couldn't say that about any denomination here today, not even my own. But Jesus believed the Pharisaical teachings sound enough to tell not only His disciples to listen to them but also the
crowds as well. Phenomenal really.
Yes Jesus was a Pharisee, so were most of the Disciples and the vast majority of the first church. A few were Essenes and Sadducees but most were of G-d's Holy Party of the Pharisees. Later in Scripture we see in Acts that there were many Christian Pharisees in 15:5. So here we have Christian Pharisees after the death and resurrection of Yeshua! I'll tell ya, we could sure use some Pharisaical (those set apart) Christians today. Paul was also a Pharisee, he was very proud to wear that badge and frankly, he'd roll over in his grave if he heard us all talking badly about the
Pharisees....Regarding Paul's speech before the Sanhedrin, Luke depicts "Christianity and Pharisaism as natural allies, hence the direct continuity between the Pharisaic branch of Judaism and Christianity. The link is expressed directly in Paul's own testimony: he is (now) a Pharisee, with a Pharisaic heritage (23:6). His Pharisaic loyalty is a present commitment, not a recently
jettisoned stage of his religious past (cf. Phil 3:5-9). His Christian proclamation of a risen Lord, and by implication, of a risen humanity (Acts 23:6), represents a particular, but defensible,
form of Pharisaic theology " (p. 1111, Harper's Bible Commentary).
In Philippians 3:5, Paul states that he was "concerning the law, a Pharisee." In verse 6, he goes on to say that he was "concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless."
f you want to know more about the Pharisees you can read what they wrote. Josephus has a wealth of information. Josephus was himself a Pharisee who lived during the time of Yeshua and he even mentions Jesus and also John the Baptist. Also of course there is the Mishna (The oral law). I don't recommend this to young believers in the L-rd but if you have a strong grasp of who you are in Jesus then I highly recommend it. The older writings in the Mishna were sanctioned by Jesus. The Pharisees believed the Oral Law to be Canon at the time of Jesus and that was one of their main teachings, they lived by the Mishna and put it on equal grounds as the Torah (The
five books of Moses). You gotta love this stuff lol. This is really only the beginning. In my congregations I'm teaching the elders how to go through the Mishna and decipher the older material from the material written after Christ (and thereby less authoritative as far as we're concerned). It's like finding old books of the Bible that have been lost for centuries.
Anyway, hope this gets you excited about Bible study.
Shalom,
Rabbi Stanley
25. William Liew said the following at 3:14 AM on May 13:
25
On which part/s of their body did the Pharisees keep their laws?
26. Allen said the following at 10:22 AM on Jun 15:
26
Parisees (perushim) are what is now traditional orthodoxy. Hasnt changed much from then. Today we have ultra-orthodox, orthodox, conservative, and reformed: with either sephardim or ashkenazim nuances. At that time,in that place, you would find sadducee (long gone), pharisee, and essene. Jesus was pharisee, mainstream belief of the time, with maybe essene leanings. Not much like Hillel, more in the line of Rabbi Shammai, or Jeremiah, etc.. Hillel being more rigidly mosaic. Good comments Rabbi S. hope your studies are continually fruitful..
27. rey said the following at 10:56 PM on Nov 12:
27
What separates the Pharisees from the Saducees? The belief in the resurrection, which of course Jesus shares, hence he obviously was a Pharisee by the gospels' own definition of the term. Interestingly, it was the Saducees who were in control of the temple and were the main priests. The Pharisees were more of a populist movement, more for the common man....as was Jesus. The gospel portral of the Pharisees as somehow aligned with the chief priests is not one that is matched by other sources and must indicate not that all Pharisees were but that the elite or rich ones were in cahoots with the Saducaic priesthood (asusming the gospels aren't just engaging in anti-Pharisee propaganda to hide that Jesus was one). Of course, there is also the fact that in Greek both Nazarene and Nazorean are used to describe Jesus and this latter one is clearly not really another word for Nazarene but a sect-name, so perhaps there was a third sect of Judaism, the Nazoreans, and Jesus was one of these. If so, the gospels have taken pains to cover it up.
28. rey said the following at 10:58 PM on Nov 12:
28
"Parisees (perushim) are what is now traditional orthodoxy."
I disagree. It is often said that only Phariseeism survived the destruction of the temple, but based on Josephus' statement of Pharisaic philosophy (that God only cares about virtue, not ceremony) I can't believe that. Traditional Jewish orthodoxy is obviously a mix of Saduceeism and Phariseeism unless Josephus was a liar. Of course, if Josephus is right, the gospels are wrong since they make the Pharisees ceremonialists.
29. Erik A. said the following at 9:53 AM on Jan 12:
29
I have read quite some literature on this subject and my conclusion is that Yeshua was most likely a Pharisee, as mentioned in all comments here, one can see that in all His ways. What I miss on this page is the fact that the Talmud (Oral Torah) itself (so the Pharisees themselves) distinguishes between seven different types
of Pharisees, among which hypocrites. Also following this it clearly says that it's not Pharisees that one's gotta fear, but the ones that ape them, that is pretend to be Pharisees. Those are hypocrites. More and more do I read the view that Yeshua was a Pharisee. Another book by Shmuley Boteach, the famous Chabad rabbi is also addressing this subject. And to end my comment: John the Baptist told the Pharisees "there is one AMONG YOU that you don't know..." (John 1:26)
Now why does he tell the Pharisees that he is coming from among THEM. He could also have said "among us, Jews". I think this specific way of addressing Yeshua, shows He came from among the Pharisees' party. God bless y'all.