Difference between revisions of "Pharisees"

<p> From perishin Aramaic, perashim , "separated." To which Paul alludes, Romans 1:1; Galatians 1:15, "separated unto the gospel of God"; once "separated" unto legal self righteousness. In contrast to "mingling" with [[Grecian]] and other heathen customs, which [[Antiochus]] [[Epiphanes]] partially effected, breaking down the barrier of God's law which separated [[Israel]] from pagandom, however refined. The [[Pharisees]] were successors of the [[Assideans]] or Chasidim, i.e. godly men "voluntarily devoted unto the law." On the return from [[Babylon]] the [[Jews]] became more exclusive than ever. In Antiochus' time this narrowness became intensified in opposition to the rationalistic compromises of many. The [[Sadducees]] succeeded to the latter, the Pharisees to the former (1 [[Maccabees]] 1:13-15; 1 Maccabees 1:41-49; 1 Maccabees 1:62-63; 1 Maccabees 2:42; 1 Maccabees 7:13-17; 2 Maccabees 14:6-38). They "resolved fully not to eat any unclean thing, choosing rather to die that they might not be defiled: and profame the holy covenant." in opposition to the Hellenizing faction. </p> <p> So the beginning of the Pharisees was patriotism and faithfulness to the covenant. Jesus, the meek and loving One, so wholly free from harsh judgments, denounces with unusual severity their hypocrisy as a class. (Matthew 15:7-8; Matthew 23:5; Matthew 23:13-33), their ostentatious phylacteries and hems, their real love of preeminence; their pretended long prayers, while covetously defrauding the widow. They by their "traditions" made God's word of none effect; opposed bitterly the Lord Jesus, compassed His death, provoking Him to some "hasty words" (apostomatizein ) which they might catch at and accuse Him; and hired [[Judas]] to betray Him; "strained out gnats, while swallowing camels" (image from filtrating wine); painfully punctilious about legal trifles and casuistries, while reckless of truth, righteousness, and the fear of God; cleansing the exterior man while full of iniquity within, like "whited sepulchres" (Mark 7:6-13; Luke 11:42-44; Luke 11:53-54; Luke 16:14-15); lading men with grievous burdens, while themselves not touching them with one of their fingers. (See CORBAN.) </p> <p> Paul's remembrance of his former bondage as a rigid [[Pharisee]] produced that reaction in his mind, upon his embracing the gospel, that led to his uncompromising maintenance, under the Spirit of God, of [[Christian]] liberty and justification by faith only, in opposition to the yoke of ceremonialism and the righteousness which is of the law (Galatians 4; 5). The [[Mishna]] or "second law," the first portion of the Talmud, is a digest of [[Jewish]] traditions and ritual, put in writing by rabbi Jehudah the [[Holy]] in the second century. The [[Gemara]] is a "supplement," or commentary on it; it is twofold, that of [[Jerusalem]] not later than the first half of the fourth century, and that of Babylon A.D. 500. The Mishna has six divisions (on seeds, feasts, women's marriage, etc., decreases and compacts, holy things, clean and unclean), and an introduction on blessings. [[Hillel]] and [[Shammai]] were leaders of two schools of the Pharisees, differing on slight points; the Mishna refers to both (living before Christ) and to Hillel's grandson, Paul's' teacher, Gamaliel. </p> <p> An undesigned coincidence confirming genuineness is the fact that throughout the [[Gospels]] hostility to [[Christianity]] shows itself mainly from the Pharisees; but throughout Acts from the Sadducees. [[Doubtless]] because after Christ's resurrection the resurrection of the dead was a leading doctrine of Christians, which it was not before (Mark 9:10; Acts 1:22; Acts 2:32; Acts 4:10; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:40). The Pharisees therefore regarded [[Christians]] in this as their allies against the Sadducees, and so the less opposed Christianity (John 11:57; John 18:3; Acts 4:1; Acts 5:17; Acts 23:6-9). The Mishna lays down the fundamental principle of the Pharisees. "Moses received the oral law from Sinai, and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and these to the prophets, and these to the men of the great synagogue" (Ρirke Αboth ("The Sayings of the [Jewish] Fathers"), 1). The absence of directions for prayer, and of mention of a future life, in the [[Pentateuch]] probably gave a pretext for the figment of a traditional oral law. </p> <p> The great synagogue said, "make a fence for the law," i.e. carry the prohibitions beyond the written law to protect men from temptations to sin; so Exodus 23:19 was by oral law made further to mean that no flesh was to be mixed with milk for food. The oral law defined the time before which in the evening a Jew must repeat the Shema, i.e. "Hear [[O]] Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the Lord," etc. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9.) So it defines the kind of wick and oil to be used for lighting the lamps which every Jew must burn on the [[Sabbath]] eve. An egg laid on a festival may be eaten according to the school of Shammai, but not according to that of Hillel; for [[Jehovah]] says in Exodus 16:5, "on the sixth day they shall prepare that which, they bring in," therefore one must not prepare for the Sabbath on a feast day nor for a feast day on the Sabbath. An egg laid on a feast following the Sabbath was "prepared" the day before, and so involves a breach of the Sabbath (!); and though all feasts do not immediately follow the Sabbath yet "as a fence to the law" an egg laid on any feast must not be eaten. </p> <p> Contrast Micah 6:8. A member of the society of Pharisees was called chaber; those not members were called "the people of the land"; compare John 7:49, "this people who knoweth not the law are cursed"; also the Pharisee standing and praying with himself, self righteous and despising the publican (Luke 18:9-14). Isaiah (Isaiah 65:5) foretells their characteristic formalism, pride of sanctimony, and hypocritical exclusiveness (Judges 1:18). Their scrupulous tithing (Matthew 23:23; Luke 18:12) was based on the Mishna, "he who undertakes to be trustworthy (a pharisaic phrase) tithes whatever he eats, sells, buys, and does not eat and drink with the people of the land." The produce (tithes) reserved for the [[Levites]] and priests was "holy," and for anyone. else to eat it was deadly sin. So the Pharisee took all pains to know that his purchases had been duly tithed, and therefore shrank from "eating with" (Matthew 9:11) those whose food might not be so. The treatise Cholin in the Mishna lays down a regulation as to "clean and unclean" (Leviticus 20:25; Leviticus 22:4-7; Numbers 19:20) which severs the Jews socially from other peoples; "anything slaughtered by a pagan is unfit to be eaten, like the carcass of an animal that died of itself, and pollutes him who carries it." </p> <p> An orthodox Jew still may not eat meat of any animal unless killed by a Jewish butcher; the latter searches for a blemish, and attaches to the approved a leaden seal stamped kashar , "lawful." (Disraeli, Genius. of Judaism.) The Mishna abounds in precepts illustrating Colossians 2:21, "touch not, taste not, handle not" (contrast Matthew 15:11). Also it (6:480) has a separate treatise on washing of hands (Υadayim ). [[Translated]] Mark 7:8, "except they wash their hands with the fist" (pugmee ); the Mishna ordaining to pour water over the dosed hands raised so that it should flow down to the elbows, and then over the arms so as to flow over the fingers. Jesus, to confute the notion of its having moral value, did not wash before eating (Luke 11:37-40). [[Josephus]] (Ant. 18:1, section 3, 13:10, section 5) says the Pharisees lived frugally, like the Stoics, and hence had so much weight with the multitude that if they said aught against the king or the high-priest it was immediately believed, whereas the Sadducees could gain only the rich. </p> <p> The defect in the Pharisees which Christ stigmatized by the parable of the two debtors was not immorality but want of love, from unconsciousness of forgiveness or of the need of it. Christ recognizes Simon's superiority to the woman in the relative amounts of sin needing forgiveness, but shows both were on a level in inability to cancel their sin as a debt. Had he realized this, he would not have thought Jesus no prophet for suffering her to touch Him with her kisses of adoring love for His forgiveness of her, realized by her (Luke 7:36-50; Luke 15:2). Tradition set aside moral duties, as a child's to his parents by" Corban"; a debtor's to his creditors by the Mishna treatise, Avodah [[Zarah]] (1:1) which forbade payment to a pagan three days before any pagan festival; a man's duty of humanity to his fellow man by the Avodah Zarah (2:1) which forbids a [[Hebrew]] midwife assisting a pagan mother in childbirth (contrast Leviticus 19:18; Luke 10:27-29). </p> <p> [[Juvenal]] (14:102-104) alleges a Jew would not show the road or a spring to a traveler of a different creed. Josephus (B.J. 2:8, section 14; 3:8, section 5; Ant. 18:1, section 3) says: "the Pharisees say that the soul of good men only passes over into another body, while the soul of bad men is chastised by eternal punishment." Compare Matthew 14:2; John 9:2, "who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" compare John 9:34, "thou wast altogether born in sins." The rabbis believed in the pre-existence of souls. The Jews' question merely took for granted that some sin had caused the blindness, without defining whose sin, "this man" or (as that is out of the question) "his parents." </p> <p> Paul: regarded the Pharisees as holding our view of the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6-8). The phrase "the world to come" (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; compare Isaiah 65:17-22; Isaiah 26:19) often occurs in the Mishna (Avoth, 2:7; 4:16): this world may be likened to a courtyard in comparison of the world to come, therefore prepare thyself in the antechamber that thou mayest enter into the dining room"; "those born are doomed to die, the dead to live, and the quick to be judged," etc. (3:16) But the actions to be so judged were in reference to the ceremonial points as much as the moral duties. The [[Essenes]] apparently recognized [[Providence]] as overruling everything (Matthew 6:25-34; Matthew 10:29-30). The Sadducees, the wealthy aristocrats, originally in political and practical dealings with the [[Syrians]] relied more on worldly prudence, the Pharisees more insisted on considerations of legal righteousness, leaving events to God. </p> <p> The Pharisees were notorious for proselytizing zeal (Matthew 23:15), and seem to have been the first who regularly organized missions for conversions (compare Josephus, Ant. 20:2, section 3): The synagogues in the various cities of the world, as well as of Judaea, were thus by the proselytizing spirit of the Pharisees imbued with a thirst for inquiry, and were prepared for the gospel ministered by the apostles, and especially Paul, a Hebrew in race, a Pharisee by training, a Greek in language, and a [[Roman]] citizen in birth and privilege. In many respects their doctrine was right, so that Christ desires conformity to their precepts as from "Moses' seat," but not to their practice (Matthew 23:2-3). But while pressing the letter of the law they ignored the spirit (Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:27; Matthew 5:38; Matthew 5:31-32). Among even the Pharisees some accepted the truth, [[Nicodemus]] and [[Joseph]] of Arimathea, and John 12:42 and Acts 15:5. </p>

<p> The Pharisees (ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí, Φαρισαῖοι) were a religious sect among the Jews, probably originating in Maccabaean times. </p> <p> 1. The name.-Perûshîm has generally been interpreted to mean ‘separatists.’ In a recent work, however, Cesterley suggests another view. He points out that the Pharisees were the popular party; that one of their precepts was, ‘Separate not thyself from the congregation,’ and that they reproached the Sadducees as the separatists. He finds it more probable that the name means ‘expounders.’ In support he quotes Josephus, who says of the Pharisees that ‘they are those who seem to explain the laws with accuracy’ (BJ_ II. viii. 14), and asserts that in Rabbinical literature the root p-r-sh is constantly found used in the sense of ‘explain,’ ‘expound,’ or ‘interpret,’ in reference to [[Scripture]] which is explained in the interests of the [[Oral]] Law (Cesterley, Books of the Apocrypha, p. 131 f.). The view is certainly interesting and worth consideration. But it seems to the present writer that all the arguments by which it is supported admit of an easy answer, and that the balance of probability inclines towards the familiar view that ‘Pharisee’ means ‘separatist.’ </p> <p> 2. General position of Pharisees in the 1st cent. a.d.-In this article we confine ourselves to the period from the times of Christ to the close of the 1st century. For the previous history of Pharisaism and the development and character of its tenets and practices, the reader must consult HDB_ and DCG_. At the opening of our period we find the Pharisees noted for piety, learning, and strict observance of the Law. They were held in high esteem among the people (Jos. Ant. XIII. x. 5, 6, XVII. ii. 4). Almost up to this point, indeed, they might be regarded as a people’s party, the champions of popular rights against the aristocratic Sadducees. They were the party of progress. Against the Sadducees they represented a living faith, and their theology was simply orthodox Jewish doctrine. They preached a religion for the people and conducted a missionary propaganda (Matthew 23:15). At this time they had little direct political power, though they held some seats in the [[Sanhedrin]] (Acts 5:34; Acts 23:6). But such was their influence with the people that the ruling Sadducees were largely amenable to their advice (Jos. Ant. XVIII. i. 4). Passionately devoted to the Law as they were, they interpreted and applied it in a more tolerant, generous sense than the Sadducees (Ant. XIII. x. 6, XX. ix. 1). No doubt it was among the Pharisees that the best type of Jewish character and piety was found. But in the Gospels it is clear that the Pharisees, the popular party, were drawing themselves apart into a new aristocracy, and that the party of progress had become rigidly conservative. Every one of their own interpretations of the Law was stereotyped. Their traditions were regarded with greater veneration than the original Law. In the accumulated mass of precepts all sense of proportion was lost. All true spirituality was in danger of suffocation under the complex of ritual and ceremonial. </p> <p> 3. Pharisees and foreign domination.-Pharisaism attained its fullest development while there was a mere semblance of national independence, and nearly all civil power had passed from the Jews. No doubt this circumstance was of considerable importance in enabling pious Jews to distinguish between a Church and a nation (see Bousset, [[Religion]] des Judentums, p. 62 f.). How the Pharisees regarded the rule of [[Herod]] and the Romans it is difficult to judge. On their attitude to Herod two different views will be found in HDB_ iii. 827 and Bousset (op. cit. p. 62 f.) respectively. The statement in the former that they abhorred Herod is too dogmatic (see Jos. Ant. XV. i. 1). Probably we should say that, while they were not enamoured of the rule of Herod, they submitted to it as a necessary evil. As to their attitude to Rome, matters are even less clear. We know that they discussed whether tribute should be paid (Matthew 22:17 ff.). Further, the party of the [[Zealots]] who agitated for the overthrow of Roman power were an off-shoot from the Pharisees. Though Josephus is desirous of representing them as a distinct party, he is compelled to admit this (Ant. XVIII. i. 1, 6; BJ_ II. viii. 1). We may take it that certain of the Pharisees favoured political action, others deprecated it. The former were the Zealots, who were responsible for stirring up the great revolt which ended in the destruction of Jerusalem, and involved the disappearance of the last shreds of Jewish national independence. </p> <p> 4. Effects of the Fall of Jerusalem.-This catastrophe, so calamitous in itself, came to the Pharisees, as to Jewish Christians, really as an emancipation. If the Church was henceforth free from serious Jewish persecution, and the distraction of [[Judaizing]] propaganda, the Pharisees were free of their conflict with the Sadducees, who disappeared with [[Temple]] and priesthood. The Jews ceased to be politically a nation, but in reality they had ceased to be that long before. [[Judaism]] as a Church, a religious system, was not seriously affected by the loss of the Temple. For long the priests as a class had been declining in favour. For long the real centre of religious life had been not the Temple but the Synagogue. Many influences had conspired to produce this result, but we cannot discuss them here (see Bousset, op. cit. p. 97 ff.). It was the great service of Pharisaism to Judaism that it had so developed Jewish piety that the loss of the Temple was more of a relief than a disaster. The Pharisees set themselves more diligently than ever to the development of the Law. In two particulars the fall of the city seemed to harden Pharisaic tendencies. </p> <p> (a) Their attitude to the common people.-We noted how even in the time of Christ the Pharisee looked down upon the ’am haarets. [[Piety]] to the Pharisee was associated with culture. The people who knew not the Law were accursed (John 7:49). This tendency towards an exclusiveness of culture increased, and the breach widened between the Pharisee and the ’am haarets. The dealings of the Pharisee with the ’am haarets were as strictly limited and carefully regulated as his dealings with the Gentiles. Bousset (op. cit. p. 167) quotes a dictum of a certain [[Rabbi]] Eleazar, which forbids all transactions with the ’am haarets, makes the murder of an ’am haarets under certain circumstances permissible, and declares that the hatred of the ’am haarets is greater than that of the [[Gentiles]] against Israel. </p> <p> (b) Their attitude to the Gentiles.-As we have noted above, at one time a missionary propaganda was carried on among Gentiles. [[Manifestly]] this was in opposition to the Pharisaic tendency towards exclusiveness, and it was the latter that conquered. The increasing restiveness under the Roman domination which culminated in the great war was a decisive factor in this struggle of principles. Probably a short time before the fall of the city eighteen points of difference between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, all dealing with relations with Gentiles, were decided in favour of the Shammaists, the more rigid school. One of the decisions forbade the learning of Greek (Mishna, Shabb. xiii. 6; see H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, Berlin, 1856, Eng. tr._, ii. [London, 1891] 131 ff.). We may take it that this ended all missionary enterprise, and that after the fall of the city the exclusive tendency reigned supreme. </p> <p> 5. Pharisaism and Christianity.-In saying what was the attitude of Pharisees to Christianity, we are in danger of arguing from isolated and therefore perhaps exceptional cases. In the Gospels we find that while Jesus carries on a sharp polemic against the class, He has friendly relations with individuals (e.g. [[Simon]] the Pharisee), and that, on the other hand, certain of the Pharisees (e.g. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea) were friendly towards Him. [[Arguing]] from the known tendency of the Pharisees to be moderate in judgment, and from the definite illustrations of it which we have (Acts 5:34 ff; Acts 23:9), we may hold that as far as the persecutions in Jerusalem are concerned, the main responsibility at least does not lie on the Pharisees. On the other hand, in the case of [[Stephen]] we know that [[Saul]] the Pharisee ‘was consenting unto his death’ (Acts 8:1). Saul also on his own confession was specially strong in urging persecution (Acts 26:9-11; cf. Acts 8:3). And outside [[Palestine]] it cannot be doubted that the Pharisee scribes were instigators of popular tumults against Christians. </p> <p> When we remember that the Pharisees with all their faults were the leaders of Jewish piety, and the orthodox theologians, it is clear that it is difficult to overestimate the part they played in preparing the way for Christianity. St. Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, and what would Christianity have been but for him? It was the Pharisees who settled the OT canon, and the Christian Church accepted it. Pharisees developed the Messianic hope, distinguished the Church from the State, taught a religion that was independent of priests and Temple, developed doctrines of immortality, resurrection, and judgment to come, that with only little modification passed into Christian theology. The best of the Pharisees understood the inwardness of the Law as Jesus taught it, and some of His most characteristic sayings are to be found in almost identical form in the sayings of the Rabbis. The missionary propaganda did incalculable service in preparing for that of the Church. The Pharisaism of the best period, when it was a progressive, democratic, missionary movement, became the inheritance of Christianity. </p> <p> Pharisaism, or something very like it in its degenerate form, was imported into the Church by Jewish Christians (see Ebionism). St. Paul is meritorious not more as the [[Apostle]] of the Gentiles than by the fact that he, a former Pharisee, saw so clearly the danger of this incipient neo-Pharisaism with its exclusiveness and ‘desire to be under the law,’ and combated it so successfully. While the statement in the JE_ (ix. 665) that in the Gospels the word ‘Pharisee’ has been substituted for an original ‘Sadducee’ in the denunciations of Jesus is to be mentioned only as a curiosity, according to the evidence we possess, it has to be said that the Church paid back with interest the persecutions and calumnies she suffered from the Jews. How soon this anti-Judaism began, and to what extent if any it is present in the NT writings, are problems that require investigation. </p> <p> Literature.-The only authorities are the Gospels, Acts, and Josephus (passages referred to above). From a mass of Rabbinical writings, a few details may be gathered which add little to our knowledge. Works on the Pharisees and Sadducees are numerous. We need refer the reader only to E. Schürer, HJP_ II. ii. [Edinburgh, 1885] 1 f.; W. O. E. Cesterley, The Books of the Apocrypha, their Origin, Teaching, and Contents, London, 1914; W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums in neutest. Zeitalter, Berlin, 1903; also to articles in HDB_, DCG_, EBi_, JE_, EBr_11. </p> <p> W. D. Niven. </p>

<p> Jewish group mentioned, either collectively or as individuals, ninety-eight times in the New Testament, all but ten times in the Gospels. </p> <p> The root meaning of the word "Pharisee" is uncertain. It is probably related to the Hebrew root <i> prs </i> [ John 7:49 )? From Gentiles or Jews who embraced the [[Hellenistic]] culture? From certain political groups? All these groups of people the Pharisees would have been determined to avoid in their resolution to separate themselves from any type of impurity proscribed by the levitical law—or, more specifically, their strict interpretation of it. </p> <p> Josephus's references to the Pharisees are selective, probably because he was adapting them to a cultured [[Gentile]] audience. His information comes in two forms: direct descriptions and the role the Pharisees play in the history that he depicts. </p> <p> Josephus says the Pharisees maintained a simple lifestyle ( <i> Ant </i> 18.1.3 [12]), were affectionate and harmonious in their dealings with others ( <i> War </i> 2.8.14 [166]), especially respectful to their elders ( <i> Ant </i> 18.13 [12]), and quite influential throughout the land of Israel ( <i> Ant </i> 13.10.5 [288]; 17.2.4 [41-45]; 18.1.3 [15])although at the time of Herod they numbered only about six thousand ( <i> Ant </i> 17.2.4 [42]). Josephus mentions their belief in both fate (divine sovereignty) and the human will ( <i> War </i> 2.8.14 [163], <i> Ant </i> 18.1.3 [13]) and in immortality of both good and evil persons ( <i> War </i> 2.8.14 [16]; <i> Ant </i> 17.1.3 [14]). Some Pharisees refused to take oaths ( <i> Ant </i> 17.2.4 [42]). Of particular importance are Josephus's statements that the Pharisees adhered to "the laws of which the [[Deity]] approves" ( <i> Ant </i> 17.2.4 [41]) and that they "are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws" ( <i> War </i> 2.8.14 [162]). Pharisees "follow the guidance of that which their doctrine has selected and transmitted as good, attaching the chief importance to the observance of those commandments which it has seen fit to dictate to them" ( <i> Ant </i> 18.1.3 [12]) and they "passed on to the people certain regulations handed down by former generations and not recorded in the Laws of Moses" ( <i> Ant </i> 17.2.4 [41]; 13.10.6 [297]). Although the phrase "Oral Law" is not used, it appears Josephus understood that the Pharisees affirmed a body of traditional interpretations, applications, and expansions of the Old [[Testament]] law communicated orally. </p> <p> The Pharisees first appear in Josephus's account of intertestamental history as he describes the reign of John [[Hyrcanus]] (134-104). He assumes they had been in existence for some time. This raises the much discussed question of their origin. Some see the Pharisees' roots in the biblical Ezra (Ezra 7:10; shows his concern for exact keeping of the Law, especially ceremonial purity ), others in the Hasidim (the Holy/Pure/Righteous) who supported the Maccabean revolt as long as its motives were religious but withdrew when it became primarily political (1 Maccabees 2:42; 7:13; cf. 2 Maccabees 14:6 ). Recent studies suggest the Pharisees were part of a general revolutionary spirit of the pre-Maccabean times and that they emerged as a scholarly class dedicated to the teaching of both the written and oral Law and stressing the internal side of Judaism. In any case, they were certainly one of the groups that sought to adapt Judaism for the postexilic situation. </p> <p> John Hyrcanus was at first "a disciple" of the Pharisees but became their enemy ( <i> Ant </i> 13.10.5 [288-98]). The Pharisees were opponents of the [[Hasmonean]] rulers from then on. The hostility was especially great during the reign of [[Alexander]] Jannaeus (103-76), and they seem to have taken a leading part in opposition to him; it is usually assumed that Pharisees composed either all or a large part of the eight hundred Jews he later crucified ( <i> Ant </i> 13.14.2 [380]). The one exception to Pharisaic opposition to the Hasmoneans was [[Salome]] [[Alexandria]] (76-67), under whom they virtually dominated the government. </p> <p> Josephus's information about the Pharisees under the Romans is spotty. Under Herod (37 b.c.-4 b.c.) the Pharisees were influential, but carefully controlled by the king. Some individual Pharisees did oppose Herod on occasion. Josephus gives almost no information about the Pharisees from the death of Herod until the outset of the revolt against Rome (about a.d. 66). At first they attempted to persuade the Jews against militant actions ( <i> War </i> 2.17.3 [411]). Later Pharisees appear as part of the leadership of the people during the revolt, some individuals playing a leading role in it. </p> <p> The New Testament depicts the Pharisees as opponents of Jesus or the early Christians. On the other hand, they warn Jesus that his life is in danger from Herod (Luke 13:31 ), invite him for meals (Luke 7:36-50; 14:1 ), are attracted to or believe in Jesus (John 3:1; 7:45-53; 9:13-38 ), and protect early Christians (Acts 5:34; 23:6-9 ). Paul asserts he was a Pharisee before his conversion (Philippians 3:5 ). </p> <p> The clearest New Testament statement of Pharisaic distinctives is Acts 23:8 : "The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels, nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all." This would give the impression that doctrine was the basic concern of the group. However, Mark 7:3-4 says that "The Pharisees do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing holding to the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles." Thus, we are also told of the Pharisees' concern for washing (ceremonial cleansing) and observance of "the traditions of the elders, " a description of the Oral Law. Matthew 23 calls attention to their (1) positions of religious authority in the community, (2) concern for outward recognition and honor, (3) enthusiasm for making converts, and (4) emphasis on observing the legalistic minutia of the law. In verse 23Jesus condemns them, not for what they did, but for neglecting "the more important matters of the lawjustice, mercy and faithfulness." </p> <p> There is general recognition that Josephus's description of the Pharisees as a "sect" ( <i> hairesis </i> [Αἵρεσις]) should not be understood in the modern sense. Instead, it seems to denote something like a "religious party, " "community, " or "denomination" within mainstream Judaism. Pharisaic zeal for the Law is obvious, but what is meant by Law? The sanctity of the written Law was never questioned, but intertestamental Jewish groups differed on how it was to be interpreted and applied. The Pharisees developed their own body of interpretations, expansions, and applications of the Law that they came to regard as of divine origin (Mishnah, Aboth, 1:1). This was to assist in understanding and keeping the Law, often added regulations ("fences" or "hedges") were designed to prevent even coming close to breaking the Law. Most of these traditions, the Oral Law, dealt with matters of levitical purity. Some contained other additions that had come into prominence in the intertestamental situation. These included belief in immortality, angels and demons, spirits, and divine sovereignty. Expansions of such doctrines led to others. For example, belief in immortality resulted in expanded messianic and eschatological views. Their social and political views were based on their premise that all of life must be lived under the control of God's Law. The Pharisees opposed Hasmoneans who, contrary to the Law, sought to combine the monarchy and priesthood. Likewise, they rejected Roman authority when it appeared to conflict with the Law of God. </p> <p> Some modern scholars have objected to the assumption that intertestamental Judaism, including Pharisaism, believed in a "wage price-theory of righteousness, " that eternal life is granted on the basis of faithfulness in keeping the Law. Rather, they insist, Israel's religion was a "covenantal nominism" in which Law-keeping was a response to God's grace offered in his covenant with Israel. These studies provide a helpful corrective to traditional views of intertestamental Judaism, including Pharisaism, as merely a blatant legalism. Yet the New Testament assumes that Jesus and his disciples were at times in conflict with just such legalism (e.g., Mark 10:17; Luke 15:29; [note that "the older brother" most likely represents the Pharisaic point of view] ); John 6:28; and Paul's constant fight against earning salvation by works of the law (note: Romans 9:30-32 ,; Israel "pursued it [righteousness] not by faith but as if it were by works" ). Of particular relevance here are the contrasting prayers of the Pharisee and the Publican, the results of which the latter "went home justified" (Luke 18:9-14 ). Intertestamental Judaism was far from a monolithic whole; many, if not most, of the common people, who were influenced by the Pharisees, seem to have held a legalistic view of their religion. Jesus and the early Christians strongly opposed views that externalized religion and/or sought God's favor on the basis of human effort. </p> <p> J. [[Julius]] Scott, Jr. </p> <p> <i> See also </i> [[Jesus Christ]]; [[Legalism]]; [[Paul The Apostle]] </p> <p> <i> Bibliography </i> . J. W. Bowker, <i> Jesus and the Pharisees </i> ; L. Findelstein, <i> The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith </i> ; L. L. Grabbe, <i> Judaism from [[Cyrus]] to [[Hadrian]] </i> ; J. Neusner, <i> Formative Judaism: Torah, Pharisees and Rabbis </i> ; idem, <i> The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 </i> ; E. Rivkin, <i> A [[Hidden]] Revolution: The Pharisees [[Search]] for the [[Kingdom]] Within </i> ; E. P. Sanders, <i> Judaism: [[Practice]] and Belief, 63 BCE-66 CE </i> ; idem, <i> Paul and Palestinian Judaism </i> ; Emil Schürer, <i> The History of Their Jewish People in the [[Age]] of Jesus Christ </i> ; Moisés Silva, <i> WTJ </i> 42 (1979-80): 395-405; M. Simon, <i> The Jewish Sects at the Time of Jesus </i> . </p>

<p> a sect of the Jews. The earliest mention of them is by Josephus, who tells us that they were a sect of considerable weight when John Hyrcanus was high priest, B.C. 108. They were the most numerous, distinguished, and popular sect among the Jews; the time when they first appeared is not known, but it is supposed to have been not long after the institution of the Sadducees, if, indeed, the two sects did not gradually spring up together. They derived their name from the Hebrew word <em> pharash, </em> which signifies "separated," or "set apart;" because they separated themselves from the rest of the Jews to superior strictness in religious observances. They boasted that, from their accurate knowledge of religion, they were the favourites of Heaven; and thus, trusting in themselves that they were righteous, despised others, Luke 11:52; Luke 18:9; Luke 18:11 . Among the tenets inculcated by this sect, we may enumerate the following: namely, they ascribed all things to fate or providence; yet not so absolutely as to take away the free will of man; for fate does not cooperate in every action, Acts 5:38-39 . They also believed in the existence of angels and spirits, and in the resurrection of the dead; Acts 23:8 . </p> <p> Lastly: the Pharisees contended that God stood engaged to bless the Jews, to make them all partakers of the terrestrial kingdom of the Messiah, to justify them, and make them eternally happy. The cause of their justification they derived from the merits of Abraham, from their knowledge of God, from their practising the right of circumcision, and from the sacrifices they offered. And as they conceived works to be meritorious, they had invented a great number of supererogatory ones, to which they attached greater merit than to the observance of the law itself. To this notion St. Paul has some allusions in those parts of his [[Epistle]] to the Romans, in which he combats the erroneous suppositions of the Jews, Romans 1-11. </p> <p> The Pharisees were the strictest of the three principal sects that divided the Jewish nation, Acts 26:5 , and affected a singular probity of manners according to their system; which, however, was, for the most part, both lax and corrupt. Thus many things which [[Moses]] had tolerated in civil life, in order to avoid a greater evil, the Pharisees determined to be morally right: for instance, the law of divorce from a wife for any cause, Matthew 5:31 , &c; Matthew 19:3-12 . ( See DIVORCE. ) Farther: they interpreted certain of the [[Mosaic]] laws most literally, and distorted their meaning so as to favour their own selfish system. Thus, the law of loving their neighbour, they expounded solely of the love of their friends, that is, of the whole Jewish race; all other persons being considered by them as natural enemies, whom they were in no respect bound to assist, Matthew 5:43; Luke 10:31-33 . They also trifled with oaths. Dr. Lightfoot has cited a striking illustration of this from Maimonides. An oath, in which the name of God was not distinctly specified, they taught was not binding, Matthew 5:33; maintaining that a man might even swear with his lips, and at the same time annul it in his heart! And yet so rigorously did they understand the command of observing the Sabbath day, that they accounted it unlawful to pluck ears of corn, and heal the sick, &c, Matthew 12; Luke 6:6 , &c; 14. Many moral rules they accounted inferior to the ceremonial laws, to the total neglect of mercy and fidelity, Matthew 5:19; Matthew 15:4; Matthew 23:23 . Hence they accounted causeless anger and impure desires as trifles of no moment, Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:27-30; they compassed sea and land to make proselytes to the Jewish religion from among the Gentiles, that they might rule over their consciences and wealth; and these proselytes, through the influence of their own scandalous examples and characters, they soon rendered more profligate and abandoned than ever they were before their conversion, Matthew 23:15 . [[Esteeming]] temporal happiness and riches as the highest good, they scrupled not to accumulate wealth by every means, legal or illegal, Matthew 5:1-12; Matthew 23:5; Luke 16:14; James 2:1-8; vain and ambitious of popular applause, they offered up long prayers in public places, but not without self-complacency in their own holiness, Matthew 6:2-5; Luke 18:11; under a sanctimonious appearance of respect for the memories of the prophets whom their ancestors had slain, they repaired and beautified their sepulchres, Matthew 23:29; and such was their idea of their own sanctity, that they thought themselves defiled if they but touched or conversed with sinners, that is, with publicans or tax-gatherers, and persons of loose and irregular lives, Luke 7:39; Luke 15:1 . </p> <p> But, above all their other tenets, the Pharisees were conspicuous for their reverential observance of the traditions or decrees of the elders: these traditions, they pretended, had been handed down from Moses through every generation, but were not committed to writing; and they were not merely considered as of equal authority with the divine law, but even preferable to it. "The words of the scribes," said they, "are lovely above the words of the law; for the words of the law are weighty and light, but the words of the scribes are <em> all </em> weighty." Among the traditions thus sanctimoniously observed by the Pharisees, we may briefly notice the following: the washing of hands up to the wrist before and after meat, Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:3; which they accounted not merely a religious duty, but considered its omission as a crime equal to fornication, and punishable by excommunication: the purification of the cups, vessels, and couches used at their meals by ablutions or washings, Mark 7:4; for which purpose the six large water pots mentioned by St. John, John 2:6 , were destined: their fasting twice a week with great appearance of austerity, Luke 18:12; Matthew 6:16; thus converting that exercise into religion which is only a help toward the performance of its hallowed duties: their punctilious payment of tithes, (temple-offerings,) even of the most trifling things, Luke 18:12; Matthew 23:23 . And their wearing broader phylacteries and larger fringes to their garments than the rest of the Jews, Matthew 23:5 . See PHYLACTERIES . </p> <p> With all their pretensions to piety, the Pharisees entertained the most sovereign contempt for the people; whom, being ignorant of the law, they pronounced to be accursed, John 7:49 . Yet such was the esteem and veneration in which they were held by the populace, that they may almost be said to have given what direction they pleased to public affairs; and hence the great men dreaded their power and authority. It is unquestionable, as [[Mosheim]] has well remarked, that the religion of the Pharisees was, for the most part, founded in consummate hypocrisy; and that, at the bottom, they were generally the slaves of every vicious appetite, proud, arrogant, and avaricious, consulting only the gratification of their lusts, even at the very moment when they professed themselves to be engaged in the service of their Maker. These odious features in the character of the Pharisees caused them to be reprehended by our [[Saviour]] with the utmost severity, even more so than the Sadducees; who, although they had departed widely from the genuine principles of religion, yet did not impose on mankind by a pretended sanctity, or devote themselves with insatiate greediness to the acquisition of honours and riches. A few, and a few only, of the sect of the Pharisees, in those times, might be of better character,—men who, though self-righteous and deluded and bigoted, were not like the rest, hypocritical. Of this number was Saul of Tarsus; but as a body, their attachment to traditions, their passionate expectation of deliverance from the Roman yoke by the Messiah, and the splendour of his civil reign, their pride, and above all their vices, sufficiently account for that unconquerable unbelief which had possessed their minds as to the claims of Christ, and their resistance to the evidence of his miracles. The sect of the Pharisees was not extinguished by the ruin of the Jewish commonwealth. The greater part of the Jews are still Pharisees, being as much devoted to traditions, or the oral law, as their ancestors were. </p>

<p> <strong> PHARISEES. </strong> A study of the four centuries before Christ supplies a striking illustration of the law that the deepest movements of history advance without the men, who in God’s plan are their agents, being clearly aware of what is going on. The answer to the question How came the Pharisees into the place of power and prestige they held in the time of our Lord? involves a clear understanding of the task of Israel after the Exile. It was to found and develop a new type of community. The Hebrew monarchy had been thrown into perpetual bankruptcy. But monarchy was the only form that the political principle could assume in the East. What should be put in its place? In solving this problem the Jews created a community which, while it was half-State, was also half-Church. The working capital of the Jews was the monotheism of the prophets, the self-revelation of God in His character of holy and creative Unity, and, inseparable from this, the belief in the perfectibility and indestructibility of the Chosen Nation (the Messianic idea). [[Prophecy]] ceased. Into the place of the prophet came the schoolmaster and the drill-master. They popularized monotheism, making it a national instinct. Necessarily, the popularization of monotheism drew along with it a growing sense of superiority to the heathen and idolatrous nations amongst whom their lot was cast. And by the same necessity the Jews were taught to separate themselves from their heathen neighbours ( Ezra 10:11 ). They must not intermarry, lest the nation he dragged down to the heathen level. This was the state of things in the 3rd cent. b.c. (see Essenes), when [[Hellenism]] began to threaten Judaism with annihilation. The deepest forces of Judaism sounded the rally. The more zealous Jews drew apart, calling themselves the ‘Holy Men’ ( <em> Chasîdîm </em> ), Puritans, or those self-dedicated to the realization of Ezra’s ideal. Then came the great war. The tendencies of Judaism precipitated themselves. The Jewish [[Puritans]] became a distinct class called the ‘Pharisees,’ or men who <em> separated themselves </em> from the heathen, and no less from the heathenizing tendencies and forces in their own nation. They abstained even from table-fellowship with the heathen as being an abominable thing ( Galatians 2:12 ff.). As years went on it became more and more clear that the heart of the nation was with them. And so it comes to pass that in our Lord’s time, to use His own words, ‘the scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat’ ( Matthew 23:2 ). They, not the priests, are the source of authority. </p> <p> The history of Pharisaism enables us to understand its spirit and ruling ideas, to do justice to its greatness, while emphasizing its limitations and defects. Into it went the deepest elements among the forces which built the Jewish church and nation. The Pharisees are seen at their best when contrasted with the <strong> Zealots </strong> (see Cananæan) on the one side and the <strong> [[Herodians]] </strong> (wh. see) on the other. Unlike the latter, they were deeply in earnest with their ancestral religion. Again and again at critical times they showed the vigour and temper of fearless Puritanism. Unlike the former, they held back from the appeal to force, believing that the God of the nation was in control of history, that in His own good time He would grant the nation its desire; that, meanwhile, the duty of a true [[Israelite]] was whole-hearted devotion to the Torah, joined to patient waiting on the [[Divine]] will. This nobler side of Pharisaism could find itself in Psalms 119:1-176 . The Pharisees were in a sense Churchmen rather than statesmen. And they emphasized spiritual methods. Their interests lay in the synagogue, in the schooling of children, in missionary extension amongst the heathen. They deserved the power and prestige which we find them holding in our Lord’s time. The [[Master]] Himself seems to say this when He distinguishes between their rightful authority and the spirit which they often showed in their actions ( Matthew 23:1-4 ). Hence we are not surprised when we learn that, after the conflicts with Rome (a.d. 66 135), Pharisaism became practically synonymous with Judaism. One great war (the Maccabæan) had defined Pharisaism. Another war, even more terrible, gave it the final victory. The two wars together created the Judaism known to Europeans and Americans. And this, allowing for the inevitable changes which a long and varied experience brings to pass in the most tenacious race, is in substance the Pharisaism of the 2nd century. </p> <p> A wide historical study discovers moral dignity and greatness in Pharisaism. The Pharisees, as contrasted with the <strong> Sadducees </strong> (wh. see), represented the democratic tendency. As contrasted with the priesthood, they stood both for the democratic and for the spiritualizing tendency. The priesthood was a close corporation. No man who was unable to trace his descent from a priestly family could exercise any function in the Temple. But the Pharisees and the [[Scribes]] opened a great career to all the talents. Furthermore, the priesthood exhausted itself in the ritual of the Temple. But the Pharisees found their main function in teaching and preaching. So Pharisaism cleared the ground for Christianity. And when the reader goes through his NT with this point in mind, and when he notes the striking freedom of the NT from ritualistic and sacerdotal ideas, he should give credit to Pharisaism as one of the historical forces which made these supreme qualities possible. </p> <p> We have not yet exhausted the claims of the Pharisees on our interest and gratitude. It was they who, for the most part, prepared the ground for Christianity by taking the Messianic idea and working it into the very texture of common consciousness. Pharisaism was inseparable from the popularization of monotheism, and the universal acceptance by the nation of its Divine election and calling. We need only consider our Lord’s task to see how much preparatory work the Pharisees did. Contrast the Saviour with [[Gautama]] (Buddha), and the greatness of His work is clearly seen. Buddha teaches men the way of peace by thinking away the political and social order of things. But our Lord took the glorified nationalism of His nation as the trunk-stock of His thought, and upon it grafted the Kingdom of God. Now, it was the Pharisees who made idealized nationalism, based upon the monotheism of the prophets, the pith and marrow of Judaism. It was they who wrote the great Apocalypses (Daniel and Enoch). It was they who made the belief in immortality and resurrection part of the common consciousness. It was they who trained the national will and purpose up to the level where the Saviour could use it. </p> <p> But along with this great work went some lamentable defects and limitations. Though they stood for the spiritualizing tendencies which looked towards the existence of a Church, the Pharisees never reached the Church idea. They made an inextricable confusion between the question of the soul and the question of descent from Abraham. They developed the spirit of proud and arrogant orthodoxy, until the monotheism of the prophets became in their hands wholly incompetent to found a society where Jew and Gentile should be one (Galatians 3:28 , Colossians 3:11 ). They developed Sabbatarianism until reverence for the Sabbath became a superstition, as our Lord’s repeated clash with them goes to show. And in spite of many noble individual exceptions, the deepest tendency of Pharisaism was towards an over-valuation of external things, [[Levitical]] correctness and precision ( Matthew 23:23 ), that made their spirit strongly antagonistic to the genius of Prophetism. For Prophetism, whether of the Old or of the New Dispensation, threw the whole emphasis on character. And so, when John the Baptist, the first prophet for many centuries, came on the field, he put himself in mortal opposition to the Pharisees, no less than to the Sadducees ( Matthew 3:7 f., John 1:19 ff.). And our Lord, embodying the moral essence of Prophetism, found His most dangerous opponents, until the end of His ministry, not in the Sadducees or the Essenes or the Zealots, but in the Pharisees. </p> <p> See also artt. Sadducees and Scribes. </p> <p> Henry S. Nash. </p>

<p> Phar'isees. A religious party or school among the Jews at the time of Christ, so called from perishin, the [[Aramaic]] form of the Hebrew word, perushim, "separated". The chief sects among the Jews were the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes, who may be described respectively as the Formalists, the Freethinkers and the Puritans. </p> <p> A knowledge of the opinion, and practices of the Pharisees, at the time of Christ, is of great importance, for entering deeply into the genius of the Christian religion. A cursory perusal of the Gospels is sufficient to show that Christ's teaching was, in some respects, thoroughly antagonistic to theirs. He denounced them, in the bitterest language; See Matthew 15:7-8; Matthew 23:5; Matthew 23:13-15; Matthew 23:23; Mark 7:6; Luke 11:42-44 and compare Mark 7:1-5; Mark 11:29; Mark 12:19-20; Luke 6:28; Luke 6:37-42. To understand the Pharisees is, by contrast, an aid toward understanding the spirit of uncorrupted Christianity. </p> <p> The fundamental principle of all of the Pharisees, common to them with all orthodox modern Jews, is that, by the side of the written law, regarded as a summary of the principles and general laws of the Hebrew people, there was on oral law to complete, and to explain the written law, given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and transmitted by him by word of mouth. The first portion of the Talmud, called the Mishna or "second law", contains this oral law. It is a digest of the Jewish traditions and a compendium of the whole ritual law, and it came at length to be esteemed far above the sacred text. </p> <p> While it was the aim of [[Jesus]] to call men to the law of God itself as the supreme guide of life, the Pharisees, upon the Ppretence of maintaining it intact, multiplied minute precepts and distinctions, to such an extent that the whole life of the Israelite was hemmed in, and burdened on every side, by instructions so numerous and trifling, that the law was almost if not wholly lost sight of. These "traditions" as they were called, had long been gradually accumulating. </p> <p> Of the trifling character of these regulations, innumerable instances are to be found in the Mishna. Such were their washings before they could eat bread, and the special minuteness with which the forms of this washing were prescribed; their bathing when they returned from the market; their washing of cups, pots, brazen vessels, etc.; their fastings twice in the week, Luke 18:12, as were their tithing; Matthew 23:23, and such, finally, were those minute and vexatious extensions of the law of the Sabbath, which must have converted God's gracious ordinance of the Sabbath's rest, into a burden and a pain. Matthew 12:1-13; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 18:10-17. </p> <p> It was a leading aim of the [[Redeemer]] to teach men that true piety consisted, not in forms, but in substance, not in outward observances, but in an inward spirit. The whole system of Pharisaic piety led to exactly opposite conclusions. The lowliness of piety was, according to the teaching of Jesus, an inseparable concomitant of its reality; but the Pharisees sought mainly to attract the attention, and to excite the admiration of men. Matthew 6:2; Matthew 6:6; Matthew 6:16; Matthew 23:5-6; Luke 14:7. Indeed, the whole spirit of their religion was summed up, not in confession of sin and in humility, but in a proud self righteousness, at variance with any true conception of man's relation, to either God or his fellow creatures. </p> <p> With all their pretences to piety, they were, in reality, avaricious, sensual and dissolute. Matthew 23:25; John 13:7. They looked with contempt upon every nation, but their own. Luke 10:29 Finally, instead of endeavoring to fulfill the great end of the dispensation whose truths they professed to teach, and thus, bringing men to the Hope of Israel, they devoted their energies to making converts to their own narrow views, who with all the zeal of proselytes were more exclusive, and more bitterly opposed to the truth, than they were themselves. Matthew 22:15. </p> <p> The Pharisees, at an early day, secured the popular favor, and thereby, acquired considerable political influence. This influence was greatly increased, by the extension of the Pharisees, over the whole land, and the majority which they obtained in the Sanhedrin. Their number reached more than six thousand under the Herods. Many of them must have suffered death for political agitation. In the time of Christ, they were divided, doctrinally, into several schools, among which those of Hillel and Shammai were most noted. - McClintock and Strong. </p> <p> One of the fundamental doctrines of the Pharisees was a belief in a future state. They appear to have believed in a resurrection of the dead, very much in the same sense as the early Christians. They also believed in "a divine Providence" acting, side by side, with the free will of man." - Schaff. </p> <p> It is proper to add that, it would be a great mistake to suppose that the Pharisees were wealthy and luxurious, much more that they had degenerated into the vices, which were imputed to some of the Roman popes and cardinals, during the two hundred years preceding the Reformation. Josephus compared the Pharisees to the sect of the Stoics. He says that they lived frugally, in no respect, giving in to luxury. We are not to suppose that there were not many individuals among them who were upright and pure, for there were such men as Nicodemus, Gamaliel, Joseph of [[Arimathea]] and Paul. </p>

<p> The Pharisees were one of the two main parties within Judaism in New Testament times, the other being the Sadducees. The origins of the two parties go back to the second century BC, when Greek influence in Jewish affairs created divisions among the Jewish people. </p> <p> Most of the Pharisees came from the working classes and tried to preserve traditional Jewish practices from the corruption of foreign ideas and political ambition. The Sadducees came mainly from the wealthy upper classes. Their chief concern was not with following tradition, but with using the religious and social structures of Jewish society to gain controlling power for themselves. (For fuller details concerning the origins of the two parties see SADDUCEES.) </p> <p> Lawkeeping </p> <p> Once the Sadducees had gained priestly power, they furthered their own interests by emphasizing the need to keep the temple rituals. The Pharisees, by contrast, emphasized the responsibility to keep the law in all aspects of life, not just in temple rituals. In this the Pharisees supported the traditions that the teachers of the law (the scribes) had developed and taught. The scribes had expanded the law of Moses into a system that consisted of countless laws dealing with such matters as sabbath-keeping (Matthew 12:1-2; Mark 3:1-6; Luke 13:10-14), ritual cleanliness (Matthew 23:25; Mark 7:1-9), fasting (Luke 18:11-12), tithing (Matthew 23:23) and the taking of oaths (Matthew 23:16-22; see also SCRIBES). </p> <p> Being members of such a strict party, many of the Pharisees regarded themselves alone as being the true people of God, and kept apart from those who did not follow their beliefs and practices. The name ‘Pharisees’ meant ‘the separated ones’ (Acts 15:5; Acts 26:5; cf. Galatians 2:12). </p> <p> The Pharisees criticized Jesus for not keeping their laws (Matthew 12:10-14; Matthew 15:1-2; John 9:16), but Jesus condemned the Pharisees for not keeping God’s law. They were more concerned with maintaining their traditions than with producing the kind of character and behaviour that God’s law aimed at (Matthew 5:20; Matthew 15:1-10; Matthew 23:23-26). They were concerned with outward show more than with correct attitudes of heart. They wanted to impress people more than please God (Matthew 23:2; Matthew 23:5; Matthew 23:27-28). </p> <p> Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees caused them to hate him. They even cooperated with the Sadducees (the priests) to get rid of him (John 11:47-53; John 18:3). Although the Sadducees had the chief positions in the Sanhedrin (the Jewish [[Council]] that condemned Jesus), many Pharisees were Sanhedrin members. At least one of the Pharisees, Nicodemus, became a believer in Jesus (John 3:1; John 7:45-52; John 19:38-40; see SANHEDRIN). </p> <p> Other beliefs and practices </p> <p> While lawkeeping was the Pharisees’ main concern, other distinctive beliefs added to the tension in their relationship with the Sadducees. The Pharisees, for example, believed in the continued existence of the soul after death, the resurrection of the body and the existence of angelic beings, whereas the Sadducees did not (Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8). </p> <p> The Pharisees’ belief in the resurrection was probably one reason for their favourable attitude to Christians in the early days of the church. They did not object to multitudes of people believing in the resurrection of Jesus. Although the Sadducees angrily opposed the Christians, the Pharisees seem to have regarded the Christians as sincerely religious Jews with orthodox beliefs and practices (Acts 2:46-47; Acts 4:1-2; Acts 5:12; Acts 5:17; Acts 5:25-28). </p> <p> Another belief of the Pharisees, also in contrast to the beliefs of the Sadducees, was that all events were under the control of God, and no person had independent right to interfere with what God had decreed. They therefore thought it wise not to oppose the Christians, lest they oppose a movement that had God’s approval (Acts 5:34-39). </p> <p> This attitude of tolerance towards Christians changed suddenly when the Pharisees understood Stephen to have spoken against the law of Moses. They turned violently against the Christians, and in fact it was a Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus, who led the persecution (Acts 6:13-14; Acts 7:57-58; Acts 8:3; Acts 23:6). </p> <p> After the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in AD 70, the Sadducees and the smaller Jewish parties died out. This left the Pharisees in full control of the Jewish religion. A separate Pharisee party was no longer necessary, for Judaism as a whole now followed the Pharisee tradition. </p>

<p> A famous sect of the Jews who distinguished themselves by their zeal for the traditions of the idlers, which they derived from the same fountain with the written word itself; pretending that both were delivered to Moses from Mount Sinai, and were therefore both of equal authority. From their rigorous observance of these traditions, they looked upon themselves as more holy than other men, and therefore separated themselves from those whom they thought sinners or profane, so as not to eat or drink with them; and hence, from the Hebrew word pharia, which signifies "to separate, " they had the name of Pharisees, or Sepharatists. This sect was one of the most ancient and most considerable among the Jews, but its original is not very well known; however, it was in great repute in the time of our Saviour, and most probably had its original at the same time with the traditions. The extraordinary pretences of the Pharisees to righteousness, drew after them the common people, who held them in the highest esteem and veneration. Our Saviour frequently, however, charges them with hypocrisy, and making the law of God of no effect through their traditions, Matthew 9:12 . Matthew 15:1-39 . Matthew 23:13; Matthew 23:33 . Luke 11:39; Luke 11:52 . Several of these traditions are particularly mentioned in the Gospel; but they had a vast number more, which may be seen in the Talmud, the whole subject whereof is to dictate and explain those traditions which this sect imposed to be believed and observed. </p> <p> The Pharisees, contrary to the opinion of the Sadducees, held a resurrection from the dead, and the existence of angels and spirits, Acts 23:8 . But, according to Josephus, this resurrection of theirs was no more than a Pythagorean resurrection, that is, of the soul only, by its transmigration into another body, and being born anew with it. From the resurrection they excluded all who were notoriously wicked, being of opinion that the souls of such persons were transmitted into a state of everlasting woe. As to lesser crimes, they held they were punished in the bodies which the souls of those who committed them were next sent into. Josephus, however, either mistook the faith of his countrymen, or, which is more probable, wilfully misrepresented it, to render their opinions more respected by the Roman philosophers, whom he appears to have, on every occasion, been desirous to please. The Pharisees had many [[Pagan]] notions respecting the soul; but [[Bishop]] Bull, in his Harmonia Apostolica, has clearly proved that they held a resurrection of the body, and that they supposed a certain bone to remain uncorrupted, to furnish the matter of which the resurrection body was to be formed. they did not, however, believe that all mankind were to be raised from the dead. A resurrection was the privilege of the children of [[Abraham]] alone, who were all to rise on Mount Zion; their incorruptible bones, wherever they might be buried, being carried to that mountain below the surface of the earth. </p> <p> The state of future felicity in which the Pharisees believed was very gross: they imagined that men in the next world, as well as in the present, were to eat and drink, and enjoy the pleasures of love, each being re-united to his former wife. Hence the Sadducees, who believed in no resurrection, and supposed our Saviour to teach it as a Pharisee, very shrewdly urged the difficulty of disposing of the woman who had in this world been the wife of seven husbands. Had the resurrection of Christianity been the Pharisaical resurrection, this difficulty would have been insurmountable; and accordingly we find the people, and even some of the Pharisees themselves, struck with the manner in which our Saviour removed it. This sect seems to have had some confused notions, probably derived from the [[Chaldeans]] and Persians, respecting the pre-existence of souls; and hence it was that Christ's disciples asked him concerning the blind man, John 9:2 . "Who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?" and when the disciples told Christ that some said he was Elias, Jeremias, or one of the prophets, Matthew 16:14 . the meaning can only be, that they thought he was come into the world with the soul of Elias, Jeremias, or some other of the old prophets transmigrated into him. With the Essenes they held absolute predestination, and with the Sadducees free will; but how they reconciled these seemingly incompatible doctrines is no where sufficiently explained. The sect of the Pharisees was not extinguished by the ruin of the Jewish commonwealth. The greatest part of the modern Jews are still of this sect, being as much devoted to traditions, or the oral law, as their ancestors were. </p>

<p> A numerous and dominant sect of the Jews, agreeing on some main points of doctrine and practice, but divided into different parties or schools on minor points; as for instance, the schools or followers of Hillel and Shammai, who were celebrated rabbins or teachers. The name is commonly derived from the Hebrew purash, to separate, as though they were distinguished form the rest of the nation by their superior wisdom and sanctity. They first appeared as a sect after the return of the Jews from captivity. In respect to their tenets, although they esteemed the written books of the old Testament as the sources of the Jewish religion, yet they also attributed great and equal authority to traditional precepts relating principally to external rites: as ablutions, fasting, long prayers, the distribution of alms, the avoiding of all intercourse with Gentiles and publicans, etc. See Matthew 6:5 9:11 23:5 Mark 7:4 Luke 18:12 . In superstitious and self-righteous formalism they strongly resembled the Romish church. </p> <p> They were rigid interpreters of the letter of the Mosaic law, but not infrequently violated the spirit of it by their traditional and philosophical interpretations. See Matthew 5:31,43 12:2 19:3 23:23 . Their professed sanctity and close adherence to all the external forms of piety gave them great favor and influence with the common people, and especially among the female part of the community. They believed with the Stoics, that all things and events were controlled by fate yet not so absolutely as entirely to destroy the liberty of the human will. They considered the soul as immortal, and held the doctrine of a future resurrection of the body, Acts 23:8 . It is also supposed by some that they admitted the doctrine of metempsychosis or the transmigration of souls; but no allusion is made to this in the New Testament, nor does Josephus assert it. In numerous cases Christ denounced the Pharisees for their pride and covetousness, their ostentation in prayers, alms, tithes, and facts, Matthew 6:2,5 Luke 18:9 , and their hypocrisy in employing the garb of religion to cover the profligacy of their dispositions and conduct; as Matthew 23:1-39 Luke 16:14 John 7:48,49 8:9 . By his faithful reproofs he early incurred their hatred, Matthew 12:14; they eagerly sought to destroy him, and his blood was upon them and their children. On the other hand, there appear to have been among them individuals of probity, and even of genuine piety; as in the case of Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, the aged Simeon, etc., Matthew 27:57 Luke 2:25 John 3:1 . Saul of [[Tarsus]] was a Pharisee of the strictest sect, Acts 26:5 Galatians 1:14 . The essential features of their character are still common in Christian lands, and are no less odious to Christ than of old. </p>

<div> 1: Φαρισαῖος (Strong'S #5330 — Noun Masculine — pharisaios — far-is-ah'-yos ) </div> <p> from an Aramaic word peras (found in Daniel 5:28 ), signifying "to separate," owing to a different manner of life from that of the general public. The "Pharisees" and Sadducees appear as distinct parties in the latter half of the 2nd cent. B.C., though they represent tendencies traceable much earlier in Jewish history, tendencies which became pronounced after the return from Babylon (537 B.C.). The immediate progenitors of the two parties were, respectively, the [[Hasideans]] and the Hellenizers; the latter, the antecedents of the Sadducees, aimed at removing Judaism from its narrowness and sharing in the advantages of Greek life and culture. The Hasidaeans, a transcription of the Hebrew chasidim, i.e., "pious ones," were a society of men zealous for religion, who acted under the guidance of the scribes, in opposition to the godless Hellenizing party; they scrupled to oppose the legitimate high priest even when he was on the Greek side. Thus the Hellenizers were a political sect, while the Hasidaens, whose fundamental principle was complete separation from non-Jewish elements, were the strictly legal party among the Jews, and were ultimately the more popular and influential party. In their zeal for the Law they almost deified it and their attitude became merely external, formal, and mechanical. They laid stress, not upon the righteousness of an action, but upon its formal correctness. Consequently their opposition to Christ was inevitable; His manner of life and teaching was essentially a condemnation of theirs; hence His denunciation of them, e.g., Matthew 6:2,5,16; 15:7 and chapter 23. </p> Acts 11:19-26[[Call]]Acts 23:6-10

<p> Pharisees (far'i-sees), a religious sect among the Jews at the time of Christ. Matthew 15:1-8. Their name is from the Hebrew word perûshim, "separated." The chief sects among the Jews during Christ's ministry were the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. Christ denounced the Pharisees in the strongest language; see Matthew 15:1-8; Matthew 23:13-25; Mark 7:5-6; Luke 11:42-44. To understand the Pharisees is an aid toward understanding the spirit of pure Christianity. The principle of the Pharisees, common to them with all orthodox modern Jews, is that by the side of the written law there was an oral law to complete and to explain the written law, given to Moses on Mount [[Sinai]] and transmitted by him by word of mouth. They were particular to avoid anything which the law declared unclean, but they forgot to acquire that cleanness which is the most important of all, and which consists in the purity of the heart. Matthew 15:11. It would be a great mistake to suppose that the Pharisees were wealthy and luxurious, or that they had degenerated into the vices which were imputed to some of the Roman popes and cardinals during the 200 years preceding the Reformation. Josephus compared the Pharisees to the sect of the Stoics. He says that they lived frugally, in no respect given to luxury. We are not to suppose that there were not many individuals among them who were upright and pure, for there were such men as Nicodemus, Gamaliel, Joseph of Arimathæa, and Paul. See Sadducees. </p>

<p> This name was given to a religious school among the Jews; it is supposed to have been derived from the Hebrew word <i> parash, </i> signifying 'to separate'; it was given to them by others, their chosen name being <i> chasidim, </i> 'pious ones.' Josephus speaks of them as early as the reign of [[Jonathan]] (B.C. 161-144). They prided themselves on their superior sanctity of life, devotion to God, and their study of the law. The Pharisee in the parable thanked God that he was 'not as other men.' Luke 18:11 . Paul, when before Agrippa, spoke of them as 'the most straitest sect.' The Pharisees included all classes of men, rich and poor: they were numerous, and at times had great influence. In the council before which Paul was arraigned they were well represented. Acts 23:6-9 . They were the great advocates of tradition, and were punctilious in paying tithes. In many respects the ritualists of modern days resemble them. </p> <p> The Lord severely rebuked all their pretensions, and laid bare their wickedness as well as their hypocrisy. It may have been that because of the great laxity of the Jews generally, some at first devoutly sought for greater sanctity. Others, not sincere, may have joined themselves to the sect, and it thus degenerated from its original design, until its moral state became such as was exposed and denounced by the Lord. The very name has become a synonym for bigotry and formalism. Probably such men as Gamaliel, Nicodemus, and Saul were men of a different stamp, though all needed the regenerating power of grace to give them what they professed to seek. </p>

John 7:48Matthew 9:1423:15Luke 11:3918:12Acts 23:6-826:4,5 <p> There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality (Matthew 5:20; 15:4,8; 23:3,14,23,25; John 8:7 ). On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matthew 3:7 ), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers." They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matthew 9:11; Luke 7:39; 18:11,12 ). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matthew 12:39; 16:1-4 ). </p> <p> From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people. </p>

<p> E . Separatists), a sect of the Jews who adopted or received this name because of the attitude of isolation from the rest of the nation which they were compelled to assume at the time of their origin. This was some time between the years 165 and 105 B.C., on their discovery that the later Maccabæan chiefs were aiming at more than religious liberty, and in their own interests contemplating the erection of a worldly kingdom that would be the death of the theocratic, which it was the purpose of Providence they should establish; this was the separate ground which they at first assumed alone, but they in the end carried the great body of the nation along with them. They were scrupulously exact in their interpretation and observance of the Jewish law as the rule to regulate the life of the Jewish community in every department, and were the representatives of that legal tendency which gave character to the development of Judaism proper during the period which elapsed between the date of the [[Captivity]] and the advent of Christianity. The law they observed, however, was not the written law as it stood, but that law as expounded by the oral law of the Scribes, as the sole key to its interpretation, so that their attitude to the Law of Moses was pretty much the same as that of the Roman Catholics and the High Churchmen in relation to the [[Scriptures]] generally, and they were thus at length the representatives of clericalism as well as legalism in the Jewish Church, and in doing so they took their ground upon a principle which is the distinctive article of orthodox Judaism in the matter to the present day. In the days of Christ they stood in marked opposition to the [[Sadducees]] ( <i> q. v </i> .) both in their dogmatic views and their political principles. As against them, on the dogmatic side, they believed in a spiritual world and in an established moral order, and on the political their rule was to abstain from politics, except in so far as they might injuriously affect the life and interests of the nation; but at that time they had degenerated into mere formalists, whose religion was a conspicuous hypocrisy, and it was on this account and their pretensions to superior sanctity that they incurred the indignation and exposed themselves to the condemnation of Christ. </p>