The purpose of this post is to present an up-close look at the Pharisees of the New Testament and their often-adversarial relationship with Jesus. The sharp differences between Pharisee beliefs and practices stood in sharp contrast with the teachings of Jesus. They often stood in opposition to Jesus’ actions and His teachings, whether by parables, instructions, direct rebuke, or exhortations. Jesus’ teachings and claims were magnified before the Pharisees of the first century as confrontations occurred with regularity. As a body of Judaic religious leaders, they rejected Jesus’ claims, His miraculous activity, and divinity as their Messiah as written about by the prophets.
Background
During examination between the Pharisees and Jesus’ views, the weight of authority to determine the defining validity of what Jesus spoke about in the gospels and, more generally, the Old and New Testaments as a whole rests with Scripture. There is a range of substantive issues between Pharisee beliefs and Jesus’ teachings accompanied by His activity and the indwelling Holy Spirit. The research here concerns the tension, friction, antagonism, and hostility from the Pharisees as narrated in the gospels with few exceptions.
To explicitly identify and characterize the Pharisees as a body of religious authorities, they were a group of Jewish individuals who required stringent adherence to ritual law and the tradition of their predecessors.1 They were a pious religious party that was viewed by the common Israel populace as authoritative in matters of the Torah and Old Covenant requirements. The Pharisees were one group that carried authority among various others. They were recognized as custodians of the law but were not in adherence to it themselves (Mt 23:1-3). Throughout popular thought today, the Pharisees as a whole have a reputation of uptight legalism that often ran counter to the interests of Christ and His early followers, who were the Jews within Jerusalem, Judea, and surrounding territories.
History
To adequately enter into the world of the Pharisees of the New Testament, it is necessary to understand their background and the history that contributed to their religious beliefs. Their predecessors and origin are of some speculation and controversy, but proponents advocate their history as successors to the Hasidim. The Hasidean movement from the Maccabean era points to its contribution to the pious Jewish history during its struggles against Rome. The Hasideans were “mighty warriors of Israel, everyone who offered himself willingly to the law”2 as therefore inferred there is speculation they were the Jewish ancestors of the separatist Pharisees.
Identified as among three sects of the Jews, the Pharisees were among the Sadducees and Essenes.3 The ancient Jewish historian Josephus makes clear their distinctions in belief among each other concerning fate. Pharisees believed that individual persons were partially involved in their future through participatory actions. People were liable to fate but not controlled by it as a matter of certainty. By comparison, the Essenes believed that fate governs all things according to certain determinism. The Sadducees believed there was no such thing as fate and that the conduct of people was within their power that leads to self-controlled outcomes.
The Pharisees were people hyper-sensitive about adherence to the requirements of the Mosaic law as they were deeply concerned about the historical causes of Israel’s trauma by invasion, siege, captivity, and enslavement in Babylon (586 B.C.). Their views about what occurred concerning violations of the law led to divine punishment. Consequently, settled within them was the passion for adhering to the Mosaic law as they understood it from the Torah and writings of the prophets. The Pharisees were committed to abiding by the law in its moral, traditional, ceremonial, and ritual expressions to assure that no further possibility of divine judgment to follow. They were committed to the law to absorb it as a lifestyle and profession that often weighed on the common people as hardships and oppressive.
Beliefs & Doctrines
The Scribes at the time of the New Testament were the scholars that Pharisees often relied upon.4 They generally were not priests, but Rabbinic individuals dedicated to tradition, ritual purity, and accurate interpretation of the law. After a period of Israel’s rebellion against Rome, Pharisees became the governing body of Jewish life. They believed that Torah was a dynamic and living force for further doctrinal developments. This view of the Torah contributed to their open-ended perspective concerning the meaning of the written text. Yet additional doctrinal developments contributed to beliefs such as the resurrection of the body, final judgment, and rewards and punishment in the afterlife.5 Over time, it became a matter of course that Pharisees would develop the oral law and assign equal weight to it compared to the written law based upon a rationale about setting up fencing around the Torah (Pirkē Aboth).6
The oral law largely stemmed from “holding to the tradition of elders” (Mark 7:3,5). With the Pharisaic view that the oral law was equally authoritative to the Torah, disputes with Jesus throughout the New Testament were inevitable and became pervasive. Jesus often disagreed with the formation of “law” by oral expression among Jewish ancestors. Throughout the gospels, Jesus interacted with the Pharisees more than any other group. Pharisees were often in confrontation with Jesus because of various interests concerning the Torah, the elders’ oral law, and traditions. Jesus railed against the Pharisees as “blind guides” and “hypocrites” (Matt 23:24-25) as they neglected and abandoned covenant principles in exchange for the technical details and requirements of ritual stipulations that originate from oral laws according to traditions.
Confrontations
The oral law primarily originated from “holding to the tradition of elders” (Mark 7:3,5). With the Pharisaic view that the oral law was equally authoritative to the Torah, disputes with Jesus throughout the New Testament were inevitable and became pervasive. Jesus often disagreed with the use and assertions of “law” by oral expression among Jewish ancestors. Throughout the gospels, the Pharisees opposed Jesus, His teachings, and His Ministry. While some accepted Jesus’ teachings and believed in Him, they were ultimately among those responsible for His crucifixion.
Within the gospels, there is a running list of hostile encounters from the Pharisees against Jesus. They demanded a sign to demonstrate His messianic status (Mt 12:38-42 pp Lk 11:29-32 See also Mt 16:1-4 pp Mk 8:11-12). They questioned Him on matters of the Law (Mt 19:3-9 pp Mk 10:2-9 See also Mt 22:15-22 pp Mk 12:13-17 pp Lk 20:20-26; Mt 22:34-40 pp Mk 12:28-34; Jn 8:3-11). They accused Him of blasphemy (Mt 9:2-7 pp Mk 2:3-12 pp Lk 5:17-26). They accused Him of being demon-possessed (Mt 9:32-34; 12:22-24; Mk 3:22). They criticized His healing people on the Sabbath (Mt 12:9-14; Mk 3:1-6; Lk 6:7; 14:1-6; Jn 9:13-16 Lk 7:36-39; 15:1-2; 19:37-40; Jn 8:13; 9:39-41).7 While some Pharisees believed in Jesus (Acts 5:5), the prevailing sentiment of the Pharisees as a whole was in violent opposition to Jesus and His mission. In thoughts, words, and actions, they roiled in hatred for Yahweh incarnate as Messiah of their forefathers. In the gospel text, Jesus doesn’t parse His words to some of the Pharisees, but at them as a body of religious authorities He condemned. There are no prominent exceptions within the New Testament that weigh against the evil they directed toward the Son of God their Messiah.
It is useful to get a closer look at the interactive details between the Pharisees and Jesus to understand a pattern of objections. More importantly, for spiritually grave reasons, it is necessary to recognize and accept what Jesus meant when He said, “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 5:20). To get a clear view of what the differences were from the perspective of Christ, it is, therefore, necessary to recognize and understand His anger, parables, and authority over what transpired at each occurrence.
When taking a careful look at the angst and strife the Pharisees brought to Jesus, it becomes apparent there was a familiar pattern of animosity placed before Him. There was not an extensive range of root causes that explain the rejection and difficulties. The Pharisees held closely to the Torah, oral law, and traditions that all carried equal weight and ran counter to the teachings of Jesus. It is written that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law given by the Torah (Matt 5:17-18). Still, the oral law and the traditions of flawed men of Judaism who originated regulations and fencing around the law posed contradictions to their Messiah and Lord. Jesus called the Pharisees false teachers (Mt 15:14) and pointed to their error and neglect of the “weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.” His disagreements with the Pharisees were fundamental. Their focus centered around man-centered requirements that were about rituals and meta details attached to the law that carried no weight of interest to Yahweh.
A close examination of Luke 12:1 gives a glimpse into Christ’s thinking. He spoke to His disciples, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” This leaven is also separately referenced in Matthew 16:12 and Mark 8:15 to further its meaning around their mixing or oral law and tradition as having a pervasive souring effect. As the Pharisees had come to fear more deeply what could become of Israel by the abandonment of covenant stipulations of the law, they were building for themselves and others stringent requirements yet were not abiding by them. Christ’s disciples and followers were taught principles by direct instruction and parables that fulfilled the law from the heart while delivering a new covenant to them. Jesus’ teachings were not about abolishing the law but were about fulfilling it by satisfying its intent by principles of love, obedience, and goodwill from the heart.
As Pharisees were bent on abiding by the law of themselves, their fathers, and the Torah, they pressed Jesus about His teachings. They referred to Him as a teacher (Mt 12:38, Mk 12:13-14) while demanding to know by what authority He forgave, healed people, and gave instructions to others. Their objections to what Jesus taught were from a place of long-held self-derived power given and accepted by the Jewish government (i.e., Herod and temple priests) and the people they feared (Mk 11:32). There was a substantial religious and social weight upon their desire to know the authority by which Christ taught people and proclaimed His message. As it was necessary to validate the teachings of Jesus and its substance, the Pharisees questioned Him about His status. Not by what He taught, but by what He did.
The Pharisees wanted to know if Jesus thought He was the Messiah. Not if He was the Messiah, but if whether or not He thought of Himself as such. On more than one occasion, they questioned Him of this concern of theirs. They were in fear of His teachings and what it meant to the Jewish people subjected to the Roman empire. In their view, the teachings of Christ were disruptive to the legalistic tenets of Judaism, and tensions caused between Judaism and the populace of early Christianity would prove troublesome. The Pharisees were in fear of what could happen to them. It was a cultural arrogance and anxiety rooted in religious legalism over God and the Roman government, who opposed what their Messiah did and spoke.
As a case in point, consider the exchange between the Pharisees and Jesus after performing an exorcism (Lk 11:14-15). As before, during the encounter when He spoke of the two sons parable (Matt 32:28-32), the Pharisees questioned His authority then, too. In a setting where they were among people during the time of Jesus’ teaching, the Pharisees first asked of what authority He taught in the temple (Matt 21:23). Even worse, at a separate instance, the Pharisees blasphemed the Holy Spirit as they attributed His exorcism of a possessed man to Beelzebul, an ancient Canaanite god–the ruler of demons (Lk 11:15). Their condescension and inflammatory accusations on multiple occasions returned to their beliefs about the law.
Even under adversity, Jesus spoke of the belief of Pharisees. While they witnessed the work of John the Baptist in righteousness as to the law, they did not believe him. Yet, the despised tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him and were given entrance to the Kingdom. The accusatory beliefs of the Pharisees were not in alignment with what God and their forefathers expected. Jesus’ teachings were not contradictory to the Mosaic law but were the fulfillment of it through a new covenant of grace and repentance through Him.
The ordinary people of Israel held Pharisees in high regard.8 As they likely communicated to the common people, their interpretation of Scripture was on par with divine authority, which drew favorable attention to them to elevate their status. While the people also revered John the Baptist, they also respected their religious leaders. The conflicts between them often went unresolved even after the capture, trial, and death of Jesus. As religious leaders of the Jewish community, their presence at the temple and among the synagogues meant that they had developed relationships as friends and family. Relationships at a distance because of Pharisaic sensitivities to defilement. Their unrelenting focus upon ritual purity isolated them from people even amid fellowship among synagogues and the temple.
Not all Pharisees were hostile to Jesus. Several accounts within Scripture indicate some had come to believe in Him. In all cases, to infer a weight of belief, they placed in Jesus and His teachings faith over the Pharisees. There was among them a departure in the confidence of the oral law and tradition. Some dined with Jesus (Lk 7:36), others warned Him of danger (Lk 13:31), and leaders sought Him out to learn more and follow Him (Jn 3:1-2). While Pharisees became disciples, they effectively left behind Judaism, and the requirements of tradition, the oral law, and ritual cleanliness that often were barriers to what Jesus taught.
Paul the Apostle himself was a Pharisee who spoke of his status as a liability in exchange for the all-surpassing knowledge of Christ. He traded in his beliefs in the law for Christ and what He taught through the Holy Spirit and the course of His ministry (Php 3:4-11). As with Paul, even after the death, resurrection, and ascension, the Pharisees were a prominent religious party9 until the temple’s destruction in 70AD. Various Scripture references attested to the surrender of Pharisees to the Lord and became instrumental in the Kingdom’s development (Acts 15:5). They believed in Jesus’ teachings and abandoned their earlier way of understanding the Torah and covenantal intent.
Conclusion
Pharisaic beliefs of the first century became magnified by their interaction with Christ. Their beliefs illuminated during their encounters with Jesus helped to identify who they were as a religious party of ancient Judaism during the second temple period. There are surface-level details about what they believed with a bit of historical background given by the apocryphal sources of 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus. There are enough distinctions between them and other religious parties to understand their place and activity within Jewish history, but limited Jewish sources stand apart from later rabbinic literature.
The historical trauma of the Jewish people contributed to their desire to regain faithfulness to the Torah. However, they went too far. The Pharisees developed a comprehensive system of beliefs around oral law and tradition that ran counter to covenant principles. Along with the Priests, Scribes, Herodians, Sadducees, Sanhedrin, Essenes, and others, their inevitable rejection and condemnation of Christ was a necessary fulfillment of prophecy (Matt 21:42). To a large degree, the contrast between Christ’s teachings and their strongly held commitments represents the change of the old covenant to the new. With that change was enormous resistance that ushered in keeping a new “law” or covenant. Where those in Christ would by His teaching learn anew, “I give you a new law, that law is, “Love each other.” As I have loved you, so you also love each other.” Jesus’ fulfillment of the Torah accompanied His declaration that to love the Lord is the great and first commandment of the law. Then with the second commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. They are the two commandments that the law and the prophets depend on in support of the new covenant.
Citations
____________________________
1. Martin H. Manser, Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies (London: Martin Manser, 2009).
2. The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), 1 Mac 2:42.
3. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 346.
4. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 516.
5. Ibid.
6. Robert Henry Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 691.
7. Ibid. Manser.
8. Aaron Valdizan, “BTS521, Historical Background of the New Testament Course Notes,” Unpublished course notes, The Master’s University, 2018, 133
9. David Witthoff, ed., The Lexham Cultural Ontology Glossary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014)
